Legendary Actions and More of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories

[Cluedrew]

Idea: Let the dragon breath fire. The fact that it is sick doesn't mean what ever anatomy it uses to spew flames is still there. And I doubt there is some cosmic law that each dragon only has one breath weapon. OK its a strong convention. But have it spew some weak flames and then cough and vomit. Don't signal "no fire" quite as much if you do this but this way the party still get resistance to some of its attacks.

Although yeah the chances are someone will be unhappy either way.

[Pelle]

As for Bob specifically, well, he isn't the only one in the group, there are three (sometimes four) other players and myself, and I really want to try and come to a consensus, or atleast figure out where everyone stands, before I drastically change my gaming style.


Exactly. I'm not saying you should cater to Bob. I think you should make it clear to him what kind of game the rest of the group (including you) want to play*, and say to him that you will not run his kind of game. But you need to make it clear that the reason for that is not because what you run is generally considered better by most people (on the internet) and therefore he should like that as well. Rather tell him that what he likes is ok and acceptable, but but since running that kind of game will make it less enjoyable for the rest of the group, you aren't going to. And tell him that you hope he is aware of what the rest of you like (make sure he does) and that you trust him not to make it less fun for you all. Remind him if he does. The argument always need to be that the rest of you has less fun, never that your gaming philosophy is better (it's not to him).

*figure that out and agree upon it with the rest first

[Talakeal]

So, we played again.

It went OK, except for one little thing, which I think is a bit of a funny story:

We lost the party rogue OOC about a year ago due to player issues, and his character was captured. The rogue in question was a master of blind fighting and nighttime tactics.

Last night I wanted to resolve that storyline, so while the party was exploring a dungeon, said rogue pickpocketed the party's lantern and blew it out.

I had planned to then have an RP seen in the dark, where they could possibly convince the rogue to help them in the final conflict, or at least explain to them what was going on.

The party's response was to immediately attack him in the dark, without even letting him say a single word. They killed him, but suffered some serious wounds in the process, and were down a potential ally, so they barely scraped by the final battle.

As usual, they bitched at me for making the encounter too hard, to which I explained that it was appropriately balanced, they just came into it in a bad spot because they chose to attack a potential ally when they were in a bad spot tactically. To which I got this argument from my players:

A: If someone does something to put them at a tactical advantage over me, I will immediately attack them.

B: I cheated by not allowing them an initiative roll to attack the hidden rogue before he pickpocketed them, because pickpocketing is a hostile action and therefore should always initiate combat.


In my mind, A is kind of backwards. It might make sense from an emotional perspective, but from a tactical perspective that's just kind of silly; you are initiating needless conflict BECAUSE if someone initiate's conflict you will be at a disadvantage.

And as for B, that just kind of blows my mind.


It ended up OK, but I was kind of disappointed that by killing the rogue before he had a chance to speak they missed out on a lot of storyline and made that entire plot thread that I had building to kind of pointless, but mostly I find it funny. You see, the rogue's player was the one who had the "No monologuing!" rule that I discussed in a previous thread (essentially he attacks any enemy who tries to talk to the party on principle), and so I suppose that it is highly ironic that he died as he lived!

[zinycor]

Wow... I would never use the PC of one of my players, even if he had left. Nor would I allow the other players to kill the PC belonging to someone not present. Is this situation common at your table? Did the not present player consent to having his character being controlled by you given their abscense?

This situation is quite surprising...

[Talakeal]

Wow... I would never use the PC of one of my players, even if he had left. Nor would I allow the other players to kill the PC belonging to someone not present. Is this situation common at your table? Did the not present player consent to having his character being controlled by you given their abscense?

This situation is quite surprising...

Yes, he gave consent when he left the game.

[zinycor]

Yes, he gave consent when he left the game.

Oh! If so, then is ok.

Regarding the situation, maybe the Rogue could have a convenient notebook that could be looted from him in order to give whatever exposition you feel needs to be given to the players.

[Excession]

A: If someone does something to put them at a tactical advantage over me, I will immediately attack them.

B: I cheated by not allowing them an initiative roll to attack the hidden rogue before he pickpocketed them, because pickpocketing is a hostile action and therefore should always initiate combat.

I agree with your players on both these points. Removing someone's only light source in a dark, dangerous, area is an attack, and the players were fully justified by responding in kind. Do not provoke people who's job is violence. Plus I do think they should have gotten to roll perception and initiative. Perhaps perception could be a hidden roll if you do that normally. The rogue would get a surprise round only if he beat their perception, and even then might not have the actions to move in, pick-pocket, and extinguish a light source all at once. Some PCs will also have abilities that trigger in surprise rounds, right up to "can't be surprised" and they should get to use those.

In a crowded marketplace you can almost get away with pick-pocketing something from a PC, but it's still mostly the domain of bad GMing, especially if they don't get to react at all.

If you want your players to talk to an NPC, don't open with the NPC attacking them. Open with the NPC talking to them from behind something or whatever. You could also have the NPC immediately surrender when attacked; the rogue was surely perfectly aware that he couldn't win that fight. Note that an NPC pulling "Just a prank bro!" is still going to get killed by some groups, just on general principle.

[NichG]

This behavior makes complete sense, and honestly you should know enough by now to expect it.

A combat generally lasts about 3 rounds in a tabletop game, and is more or less structured as a race to amass tactical advantage (by removing sources of damage on the other side via death, battlefield control, etc). So you're in a dungeon (hostile territory) and someone initiates a hostile action against you (applies battlefield control to your group). They're already 33% ahead of you in that race to death. If you stop and talk, especially if the DM is running the game in a way that you don't have mechanical boundaries between talking and action (which you telegraphed by not making use of something like an initiative check or spot check) then you're risking that the DM is going to say 'you spend the round talking, its a new round, Joe gets a knife in the back' or 'the rogue takes a second surprise round!'. If they didn't have an initiative check before the first hostile act, why should they assume they would get the protection of an initiative check before the second hostile act? Furthermore, if they just attack outright, they can effectively automatically win that initiative check - so why put themselves at the risk of rolling and losing it?

In the situation you set up, not attacking is equivalent to being in a life or death race and giving the other side a handicap of the first 2/3rds of the racetrack.

In principle, the party having good information could at least allow this to be risked as an educated guess, but the first thing the mysterious hostile did was to remove the party's ability to evaluate them as a threat by removing their passive source of information (e.g. sight). So there's not even a way to say 'ok, if we parley we die if they just want to kill us, but its highly unlikely they just want to kill us' in this situation. Without the 'pickpocket' clue (which only the lantern holder should have), instead of a rogue it could just as well have been a Vasuthant and now the group is dead.

[zinycor]

I agree with your players on both these points. Removing someone's only light source in a dark, dangerous, area is an attack, and the players were fully justified by responding in kind. Do not provoke people who's job is violence. Plus I do think they should have gotten to roll perception and initiative. Perhaps perception could be a hidden roll if you do that normally. The rogue would get a surprise round only if he beat their perception, and even then might not have the actions to move in, pick-pocket, and extinguish a light source all at once.

If you want your players to talk to an NPC, don't open with the NPC attacking them. You could also have the NPC immediately surrender rather when that attack; the rogue was surely perfectly aware that he couldn't win that fight.

Yeah, I also thought it was weird to have a NPC, supposed to be an ally, pickpocket the party....

I would also instantly kill that NPC.

[Excession]

I would like to add that pick-pocketing a lit lantern than someone is holding, and actively using as a light source, is the sort of stupidity you pull as the protagonist in Skyrim. It makes no sense to me in a TTRPG.

[Ignimortis]

I would like to add that pick-pocketing a lit lantern than someone is holding, and actively using as a light source, is the sort of stupidity you pull as the protagonist in Skyrim. It makes no sense to me in a TTRPG.

Depends on the system and the power level. But 5e probably can't pull this off well, yes.

[Talakeal]

I would like to add that pick-pocketing a lit lantern than someone is holding, and actively using as a light source, is the sort of stupidity you pull as the protagonist in Skyrim. It makes no sense to me in a TTRPG.

Actually doing it stealthily and without being noticed is pretty silly (although I am not sure if I would say impossible, skilled magicians can do similar things IRL).

In this case though, the person holding the lantern was standing in the back of the party, and the rogue just waited until her head was turned and she was paying attention to something else, snuck up behind her, and grabbed the lantern out of her hand like a purse-snatcher would.

[zinycor]

Actually doing it stealthily and without being noticed is pretty silly (although I am not sure if I would say impossible, skilled magicians can do similar things IRL).

In this case though, the person holding the lantern was standing in the back of the party, and the rogue just waited until her head was turned and she was paying attention to something else, snuck up behind her, and grabbed the lantern out of her hand like a purse-snatcher would.

So, when you planned for this to happen, Did you not foresee that the party would be hostile towards the rogue? And why did the rogue do this?

[Talakeal]

So, when you planned for this to happen, Did you not foresee that the party would be hostile towards the rogue? And why did the rogue do this?

The rogue had been captured about a year before and the party had never made any attempt to rescue him, and he wanted to find out why before either helping or hindering them. He chose to approach them in the darkness as a protection, as he can fight in the dark and they can't, so it was dissuading them from hostility.

The idea that they would attack him without a word BECAUSE he made it so that attacking them was tactically disadvantageous for them kind of blows my mind though, and I really hope they are never in the stereotypical movie situation where the villain has a mook with a gun sneak up behind them during a conversation and tells them to "choose their next words very carefully."

[zinycor]

The rogue had been captured about a year before and the party had never made any attempt to rescue him, and he wanted to find out why before either helping or hindering them. He chose to approach them in the darkness as a protection, as he can fight in the dark and they can't, so it was dissuading them from hostility.

The idea that they would attack him without a word BECAUSE he made it so that attacking them was tactically disadvantageous for them kind of blows my mind though, and I really hope they are never in the stereotypical movie situation where the villain has a mook with a gun sneak up behind them during a conversation and tells them to "choose their next words very carefully."

I mean... if you threaten someone... you are not dissuading them from hostility, quite the opposite. I stand with your party on this, in fact, is the heroic thing to do, which as you have stated before, is what you would want them to be.

[NichG]

The rogue had been captured about a year before and the party had never made any attempt to rescue him, and he wanted to find out why before either helping or hindering them. He chose to approach them in the darkness as a protection, as he can fight in the dark and they can't, so it was dissuading them from hostility.

The idea that they would attack him without a word BECAUSE he made it so that attacking them was tactically disadvantageous for them kind of blows my mind though, and I really hope they are never in the stereotypical movie situation where the villain has a mook with a gun sneak up behind them during a conversation and tells them to "choose their next words very carefully."

Because not attacking in that case makes the situation even more tactically disadvantageous. Option 1: you are in a fight where you have neither sight nor the initiative. Option 2: you are in a fight where you have no sight, but at least you have the initiative. There was no reason given to make the players believe that this wasn't already a fight once hostile action was taken, and imposing a tactical disadvantage by force is definitely hostile action.

Tabletop games aren't movies, and in most tabletop games the strategically best answer to the mook with a gun sneaking up behind the group during a pre-conflict conversation with the villain is to just accept that one party member is going to be shot and have everyone in the group immediately go hostile and alpha-strike the villain. Otherwise, you're basically giving the other side a free attack - at least this way, you can reclaim the portion of the round you'd lose to that.

[Talakeal]

I mean... if you threaten someone... you are not dissuading them from hostility, quite the opposite. I stand with your party on this, in fact, is the heroic thing to do, which as you have stated before, is what you would want them to be.

How is turning off the lights threatening someone? Likewise, how is attacking someone without knowing who they are or what their motivations are "heroic"?

[zinycor]

How is turning off the lights threatening someone?

Cause


He chose to approach them in the darkness as a protection, as he can fight in the dark and they can't, so it was dissuading them from hostility.

The idea that they would attack him without a word BECAUSE he made it so that attacking them was tactically disadvantageous for them kind of blows my mind though, and I really hope they are never in the stereotypical movie situation where the villain has a mook with a gun sneak up behind them during a conversation and tells them to "choose their next words very carefully."


Likewise, how is attacking someone without knowing who they are or what their motivations are "heroic"?

Heroic.

noun
1.
behaviour or talk that is bold or dramatic.

For me Attacking an enemy, even though you are at disadvantage, is bold and dramatic.

[Talakeal]

Because not attacking in that case makes the situation even more tactically disadvantageous. Option 1: you are in a fight where you have neither sight nor the initiative. Option 2: you are in a fight where you have no sight, but at least you have the initiative. There was no reason given to make the players believe that this wasn't already a fight once hostile action was taken, and imposing a tactical disadvantage by force is definitely hostile action.

Tabletop games aren't movies, and in most tabletop games the strategically best answer to the mook with a gun sneaking up behind the group during a pre-conflict conversation with the villain is to just accept that one party member is going to be shot and have everyone in the group immediately go hostile and alpha-strike the villain. Otherwise, you're basically giving the other side a free attack - at least this way, you can reclaim the portion of the round you'd lose to that.

That logic just seems pants on head crazy to me.

Throwing ethics or intentions aside, the idea that being punished for attacking would make you more likely to attack just makes no sense.

I could come up with lots of political examples, but those are verboten, so let's go with nature. Poisonous creatures are typically very brightly colored as a deterrent to predators because neither side wants to be injured.


Cause.

I can't wrap my head around the idea that putting up defenses is equal to a threatening someone.



For me Attacking an enemy, even though you are at disadvantage, is bold and dramatic.

Most definitions of heroic I can find include an ethical level to it; you would never say "The heroic bank robber chose to have a shootout with the police instead of surrendering," even though fighting is both braver and more dangerous than cooperating.

[Quarian Rex]

A: If someone does something to put them at a tactical advantage over me, I will immediately attack them.

B: I cheated by not allowing them an initiative roll to attack the hidden rogue before he pickpocketed them, because pickpocketing is a hostile action and therefore should always initiate combat.


In my mind, A is kind of backwards. It might make sense from an emotional perspective, but from a tactical perspective that's just kind of silly; you are initiating needless conflict BECAUSE if someone initiate's conflict you will be at a disadvantage.

And as for B, that just kind of blows my mind.


As has already been mentioned and explained your players seemed to have reacted appropriately to the situation. You put them at a massive disadvantage while handwaving away any defenses that they had (perception checks, initiative, AoOs, etc.) and expected them to waste their round trying to recruit their attacker? That is just nuts.

As for this...


In my mind, A is kind of backwards. It might make sense from an emotional perspective, but from a tactical perspective that's just kind of silly; you are initiating needless conflict BECAUSE if someone initiate's conflict you will be at a disadvantage.

... are you serious? If someone takes action to put you at a tactical disadvantage that is because they plan to exploit that disadvantage. Allowing them to do so is just suicidal. Ideally they would have taken action before their attacker had succeeded in his tactical maneuvering but you explicitly denied them that. The next best option is to act before he has time press his advantage.

Remember, the initiator of a conflict only has an advantage because they can choose the place and manner of that conflict, whether that is ambushing them with twice as many people or leading them into a murder box. In this case you had an attacker choose to attack a paranoid pack of murderers single-handedly, relying only on darkness achieved solely through DM fiat. Just because someone is the attacker doesn't mean that they should get overwhelming mechanical advantage . Being the aggressor does provide a tactical advantage, but that advantage can be squandered. The thief did just that.

In the future, if you want this sort of thing to play out the way you seem to think that it should, you need to make some adjustments to how you handle these encounters. There are ways to achieve your goals that do not rob your players of the ability to act or demand that the players waste what little time they [I]do have to act trying to parley with an obvious attacker.

In this case you could have just had the thief shoot out the lantern as a ranged sunder attack (no need to put the party into a functional Time Stop so the thief can spend multiple rounds messing with them), and then, most importantly, you have the thief talk to them. If you want to put the party at a disadvantage to provide leverage in a negotiation then you need to declare that immediately, or else the party is more than reasonable to assume that this is just a murder-ambush.

The only thing surprising here is your surprise that it didn't go any other way. It is actually legitimately baffling.

[zinycor]

How would the players know that this particular rogue was a potential ally? Let's say that this rogue was an assasin sent to kill them, what would have been the modus operandi there? How could they find the difference between a potential ally rogue, and an ambush by an assasin?

In my opinion, the moment you decided the rogue would approach the party in such a violent way as setting up an ambush, you should have considered the party attacking the rogue as one of the most probable results.

[Talakeal]

As has already been mentioned and explained your players seemed to have reacted appropriately to the situation. You put them at a massive disadvantage while handwaving away any defenses that they had (perception checks, initiative, AoOs, etc.) and expected them to waste their round trying to recruit their attacker? That is just nuts.

As for this...

... are you serious? If someone takes action to put you at a tactical disadvantage that is because they plan to exploit that disadvantage. Allowing them to do so is just suicidal. Ideally they would have taken action before their attacker had succeeded in his tactical maneuvering but you explicitly denied them that. The next best option is to act before he has time press his advantage.

Remember, the initiator of a conflict only has an advantage because they can choose the place and manner of that conflict, whether that is ambushing them with twice as many people or leading them into a murder box. In this case you had an attacker choose to attack a paranoid pack of murderers single-handedly, relying only on darkness achieved solely through DM fiat. Just because someone is the attacker doesn't mean that they should get overwhelming mechanical advantage . Being the aggressor does provide a tactical advantage, but that advantage can be squandered. The thief did just that.

In the future, if you want this sort of thing to play out the way you seem to think that it should, you need to make some adjustments to how you handle these encounters. There are ways to achieve your goals that do not rob your players of the ability to act or demand that the players waste what little time they [I]do have to act trying to parley with an obvious attacker.

In this case you could have just had the thief shoot out the lantern as a ranged sunder attack (no need to put the party into a functional Time Stop so the thief can spend multiple rounds messing with them), and then, most importantly, you have the thief talk to them. If you want to put the party at a disadvantage to provide leverage in a negotiation then you need to declare that immediately, or else the party is more than reasonable to assume that this is just a murder-ambush.

The only thing surprising here is your surprise that it didn't go any other way. It is actually legitimately baffling.

Who said I ignored any of the party's defenses or used DM FIAT? He fully used the normal rules for stealth and pick-pocketing, and the idea that you need to start rolling initiative and drop into combat rounds anytime a stealthed character approaches the party is out and out insane and not supported by the rules of any game I am aware of.

Also, I am not sure how you turn "guy who sneaks up on them and blew out their lantern" into "their attacker."

I (and 3 of my four players) are legitimately baffled by the idea that it is the "appropriate action" to attack someone BECAUSE they put you at a disadvantage.

I am further baffled how you can declare "the PCs acted appropriately" in this situation, as that is objectively false. They got their asses kicked, very nearly died, and missed out on a long term ally and all of the information he had.

[Excession]

How is turning off the lights threatening someone? Likewise, how is attacking someone without knowing who they are or what their motivations are "heroic"?

The rogue didn't "turn off the lights", he approached the party without announcing his presence and assaulted one of them. Before you say it wasn't assault, the definition of that here is "any situation where you intentionally apply force against another person’s body". You don't pull something out of someone's hand without applying force to them.

Meetings between heavily armed violent people are always complex and dangerous. Just watch any Western or Gangster movie. You do not open by sneaking up on someone, let alone attacking them, if you want to live.


I am further baffled how you can declare "the PCs acted appropriately" in this situation, as that is objectively false. They got their asses kicked, very nearly died, and missed out on a long term ally and all of the information he had.

No. Multiple people have told you that you're wrong, including your own players. It certainly isn't objective.

The players had no way of knowing that you had tuned the next fight assuming they would become buddies with someone that attacked them. How could they?

[Talakeal]

How would the players know that this particular rogue was a potential ally? Let's say that this rogue was an assasin sent to kill them, what would have been the modus operandi there? How could they find the difference between a potential ally rogue, and an ambush by an assassin?

In my opinion, the moment you decided the rogue would approach the party in such a violent way as setting up an ambush, you should have considered the party attacking the rogue as one of the most probable results.

He didn't set up an ambush. If he had set up an ambush, he would have been the one to attack them instead of the other way around.

I am not sure how you can consider pick-pocketing to be "such a violent act".


And, as usual, it wasn't "the party" it was "Bob" initiating combat, almost getting the party killed, and then whining about how hard the encounter was and that was morally and tactically justified in doing so. This is seriously like the fifth time he has done this in the campaign.


Note that even Bob did not consider it an attack, but rather a defensive measure. During the conversation, he even mentioned an example of someone who was nervous about armed PCs storming into his home uninvited and casting a mage armor spell on himself to an example of sufficient provocation for lethal force.

[Excession]

Note that even Bob did not consider it an attack, but rather a defensive measure. During the conversation, he even mentioned an example of someone who was nervous about armed PCs storming into his home uninvited and casting a mage armor spell on himself to an example of sufficient provocation for lethal force.

At the risk of bringing politics into this...

Imagine you're approaching an armed police officer at an active crime scene. Maybe you have some information they need. The general plan is announce yourself before approaching, don't make any sudden movements, and keep your hands where they can be seen. Your rogue did none of those things, and therefore he died.

I don't even think what the party did was evil. If the rogue immediately offered surrender and they still killed him it certainly isn't good though.

[zinycor]

Who said I ignored any of the party's defenses or used DM FIAT? He fully used the normal rules for stealth and pick-pocketing,

So...


In this case though, the person holding the lantern was standing in the back of the party, and the rogue just waited until her head was turned and she was paying attention to something else, snuck up behind her, and grabbed the lantern out of her hand like a purse-snatcher would.

Do you have rules for turning your head around?



Also, I am not sure how you turn "guy who sneaks up on them and blew out their lantern" into "their attacker." Isn't that setting up an ambush? which is like step 1 of a succesful attack


I (and 3 of my four players) are legitimately baffled by the idea that it is the "appropriate action" to attack someone BECAUSE they put you at a disadvantage.

3 people isn't really a good sample.


I am further baffled how you can declare "the PCs acted appropriately" in this situation, as that is objectively false. They got their asses kicked, very nearly died, and missed out on a long term ally and all of the information he had.

I also think that the PCs acted appropiately, since they can only act in regards with information they had, which wasIf I was a player there, my vision would be something close to: "A rogue ambushed us, nearly killed us, luckily we were able to best him, but the GM had the weird idea of making this asassin central to the story... somehow".

Personally, Whenever I introduce a friendly NPC, I make the NPC appear friendly towards the PCs. If I make a NPC who is a "Potential Ally" I make some back up plans in case the NPC ends up somehow dead.

It is well known that PCs on DnD (Or DnD like games) are very easy to resort to violence. Seriously, I believe you should have seen the rogue being attacked a mile away.

[Talakeal]

The rogue didn't "turn off the lights", he approached the party without announcing his presence and assaulted one of them. Before you say it wasn't assault, the definition of that here is "any situation where you intentionally apply force against another person’s body". You don't pull something out of someone's hand without applying force to them.

By that definition of "assault" giving someone a high five is an assault, and not really relevant to the discussion.


Meetings between heavily armed violent people are always complex and dangerous. Just watch any Western or Gangster movie. You do not open by sneaking up on someone, let alone attacking them, if you want to live.

I fully agree. What I don't agree with is Bob's statement that acting with murderous force against someone who does something to dissuade you from attacking them is ALWAYS the correct action.


No. Multiple people have told you that you're wrong, including your own players. It certainly isn't objective.

The players had no way of knowing that you had tuned the next fight assuming they would become buddies with someone that attacked them. How could they?

Well, one of my four players. The other three agree that he, once again, dragged them into combat needlessly.


To cut out the pretense, Bob does this over and over again because he doesn't like dialogue in games and likes to feel powerful by killing people, and when that doesn't work to his advantage he then comes up with this big song and dance routine to justify his actions. As the DM, I don't really care what actions he takes, but it annoys me when he takes actions that he knows are disruptive and then blames me when for being "out to get him" when they don't work out in his favor.

[zinycor]

By that definition of "assault" giving someone a high five is an assault, and not really relevant to the discussion.
High fives require consent, Which I assume the Rogue didn't get when he pickpocketed the lamp and turned off.




I fully agree. What I don't agree with is Bob's statement that acting with murderous force against someone who does something to dissuade you from attacking them is ALWAYS the correct action.

I don't think is always the correct option, but it often is in DnD and DNDlike games.


Well, one of my four players. The other three agree that he, once again, dragged them into combat needlessly.


To cut out the pretense, Bob does this over and over again because he doesn't like dialogue in games and likes to feel powerful by killing people, and when that doesn't work to his advantage he then comes up with this big song and dance routine to justify his actions. As the DM, I don't really care what actions he takes, but it annoys me when he takes actions that he knows are disruptive and then blames me when for being "out to get him" when they don't work out in his favor.

So, you finally kicking him out of the group? If not, then stop complaining about him and make a game that he would enjoy playing, otherwise you ar losing your time and the other player's.

[Talakeal]

Do you have rules for turning your head around?

I have rules for successfully stealing an item from someone by beating them in an opposed larceny vs. alertness roll. How exactly it is flavored isn't really relevant.


Isn't that setting up an ambush? which is like step 1 of a successful attack.

Just because someone completed the first step doesn't mean they completed the task, anymore than loading your gun is murder.


3 people isn't really a good sample.

No, it isn't. But then again, the sample size arguing against them isn't a lot larger, and most of those people have a history of playing devil's advocate.



I also think that the PCs acted appropiately, since they can only act in regards with information they had, which wasIf I was a player there, my vision would be something close to: "A rogue ambushed us, nearly killed us, luckily we were able to best him, but the GM had the weird idea of making this asassin central to the story... somehow".

Even if the "assassin" in question was a good aligned pickpocket who had been a member of the party for months on end?


It is well known that PCs on DnD (Or DnD like games) are very easy to resort to violence. Seriously, I believe you should have seen the rogue being attacked a mile away.

Yeah, I guess so.

In my opinion, trying to figure out what is going on and defusing the situation is always tactically advantageous. Heck, in this particular situation, firing blinding into the darkness just wasn't a smart move, even if there had been no consideration beyond winning the fight, the party would have been much better served by lighting a torch and assessing the situation.

But yeah, Bob keeps doing this, and I guess I really should see it coming from no on, its just that every time he has a slightly different justification for what sets him off, and it always surprises me.

[Excession]

The party's response was to immediately attack him in the dark, without even letting him say a single word. They killed him, but suffered some serious wounds in the process, and were down a potential ally, so they barely scraped by the final battle.


And, as usual, it wasn't "the party" it was "Bob" initiating combat, almost getting the party killed, and then whining about how hard the encounter was and that was morally and tactically justified in doing so. This is seriously like the fifth time he has done this in the campaign.

Which was it, the party or Bob? Please stop changing your story, it confuses us.

Did the party try to stop Bob? You would have had a minute or two rolling initiative for people to talk this over right? If the other players didn't try to stop him then I can only assume they agreed with his actions at the time. Sure, they might have agreed with your side later on, but that was in hindsight. Or they just wanted you to stop so they could leave.


High fives require consent, Which I assume the Rogue didn't get when he pickpocketed the lamp and turned off.

Agreed. If you sneak up on someone and slap their hand without consent you have committed an assault.

[zinycor]

Even if the "assassin" in question was a good aligned pickpocket who had been a member of the party for months on end?


If the character was bing played by the player who played such character as a good aligned pickpocket for months end... Yeah, but this wasn't the case, this was an NPC. An NPC who now was on prime spot for an ambush, and nearly killed the party.

A good aligned thief could have just surrendered to the party, maybe just attack Bob's character. Hell, he could have used the cover of darkness to run away, not attacking anyone.

[Talakeal]

Which was it, the party or Bob? Please stop changing your story, it confuses us.

Did the party try to stop Bob? You would have had a minute or two rolling initiative for people to talk this over right?

How would "the party" declare an action? Someone has initiate it. Its like my friend who worked in HR says "When I ask applicants whether they quite their last job or were fired, they tell me it was mutual, to which I ask the clarifying question; ok then, who brought up the idea of you leaving the company?".

The actual situation is a bit more complex than my initial few sentence post; its not because I am trying to change my story, its because nobody wants to read a giant wall of text.

Short version: Bob initiated the combat, and by the time the other players had a chance to react, all hell had broken out and they needed to support him or die.

Longer version:

The rogue had been kidnapped by cultists months ago, and the party declined to attempt a rescue. Recently, they had heard rumors that the cultists were working for some more sinister power. Bob sent in his familiar to investigate the cult and it was captured, so the party decided to kick in the door and demand its release. The cultists scattered without a fight, and the party was approached by an elderly beast man who was the go between between the cultists and their ilithid masters, and said they were being expected.

The party traveled down into the dungeon below the cultist's base, with was the lair of a cabal of illithids that had secretly been operating beneath the city. They were invited to have an audience with the elder brain, who probed their minds, delivered an apocalyptic prophecy, and told them that now that it had determined their intentions, it would let the familiar go as a show of good faith.

The party then turned to leave, and I told them that a someone grabs the lantern out of their torchbearer's hands, and you see a shadowy figure blow the torch out and then you hear a familiar voice say "What? I get captured and you let me rot down here for half a bloody year, but that damned cat goes missing and you send out the rescue team within the hour?"

Then Bob said "Wait, before he has a chance to talk, I want to shoot a fireball at him and interrupt him during the surprise round, and I want to hit as many of the illithids within the blast as possible.

He does so, and we roll initiative. Bob wins, and then shoots a second fireball at the elder brain and the remaining illithids. Then the rogue goes, and moves in to sneak attacks Bob, and then the illithid's go and charge the party (they have dark vision), and then the rest of the party goes and at that point they really don't have any choice but to fight for their lives.


If the character was bing played by the player who played such character as a good aligned pickpocket for months end... Yeah, but this wasn't the case, this was an NPC. An NPC who now was on prime spot for an ambush, and nearly killed the party.

A good aligned thief could have just surrendered to the party, maybe just attack Bob's character. Hell, he could have used the cover of darkness to run away, not attacking anyone.

Wait, why would your characters know whether or not he had become an NPC?

Or were you saying that you would assume to DM had turned him into an assassin hell bent on killing the party out of character?

[zinycor]

And you keep on playing with Bob because...

[OldTrees1]

The idea that they would attack him without a word BECAUSE he made it so that attacking them was tactically disadvantageous for them kind of blows my mind though, and I really hope they are never in the stereotypical movie situation where the villain has a mook with a gun sneak up behind them during a conversation and tells them to "choose their next words very carefully."

Person A just blinded me. I cannot read their mind so I have to guess at their motives. How does blinding me help them reach their objectives? Does it help talk? No, dialogue sometimes uses facial cues. Does it help them murder me? Yes, I cannot block or counter strike as effectively. Therefore them blinding me tells me they are more likely to be trying to murder me than to be trying to talk. Fight or Flight? Perhaps I should kill them before they kill me.

You had the Rogue act as an enemy of the party. So the party defended themselves.

Those stereotypical move situations are similar:

Person B just put a lethal weapon within range of dealing me a mortal blow. Does this help talk? No, I will be distracted by the threat to my life. Does it help kill me? Yes, I am moments away from death. Does it help coerce me into doing something I would never do outside a threat of death? Yes, it does help coerce me with the literal threat of death. They are willing to kill me. Flight or Fight? I can't flee, so I must fight. Perhaps I should kill them before they kill me.

[Excession]

Short version: Bob initiated the combat, and by the time the other players had a chance to react, all hell had broken out and they needed to support him or die.

This is a turn based game. The other players can say "hey, hold up, what are you doing?" when it's not their turn. You are also allowed to say "no" and "don't come back".


... and interrupt him during the surprise round ...

What.

The surprise round was the rogue taking the lantern. Bob was surprised. He doesn't get to act.

From my point of view that is exactly what surprise rounds are for. Without a surprise mechanic you can't really sneak up on players, so the surprise round exists to patch in that desired outcome. You don't sneak up on them, take actions then hold a surprise round. The first action they notice retroactively takes place in the surprise round. And if a bunch of people are standing round with guns pointed at each other none of them get a surprise round when someone decides to shoot.

You have to use Diplomacy to get everyone to calm down, then take a surprise round after a good Bluff roll. :smallbiggrin:


And you keep on playing with Bob because...

+1

[Talakeal]

Person B just put a lethal weapon within range of dealing me a mortal blow. Does this help talk? No, I will be distracted by the threat to my life. Does it help kill me? Yes, I am moments away from death. Does it help coerce me into doing something I would never do outside a threat of death? Yes, it does help coerce me with the literal threat of death. They are willing to kill me. Flight or Fight? I can't flee, so I must fight. Perhaps I should kill them before they kill me.

Again, this absolutely baffles me, and I am having a hard time actually taking the argument seriously as anything but an attempt to score points on the internet.

If this is normal thinking, why would anyone ever threaten someone if the typical response is attacking in a blind rage?

[zinycor]

Again, this absolutely baffles me, and I am having a hard time actually taking the argument seriously as anything but an attempt to score points on the internet.

If this is normal thinking, why would anyone ever threaten someone if the typical response is attacking in a blind rage?

Because most people who get threatened aren't wandering heroes, with multiple tools for combat/murder at their disposal that they are well trained to use.

[Koo Rehtorb]

It's not a very effective threat if the one making it was the only one who ended up dead now was it?

[NichG]

That logic just seems pants on head crazy to me.

Throwing ethics or intentions aside, the idea that being punished for attacking would make you more likely to attack just makes no sense.

I could come up with lots of political examples, but those are verboten, so let's go with nature. Poisonous creatures are typically very brightly colored as a deterrent to predators because neither side wants to be injured.

I can't wrap my head around the idea that putting up defenses is equal to a threatening someone.



Again, this absolutely baffles me, and I am having a hard time actually taking the argument seriously as anything but an attempt to score points on the internet.

If this is normal thinking, why would anyone ever threaten someone if the typical response is attacking in a blind rage?

Threatening someone is almost always is going to increase the chances of violence compared to not threatening someone. At best, it puts that violence off until a later date. Fundamentally, threats are a component of escalation - they establish firmly that the one performing the threat should be considered 'enemy' instead of 'neutral' or 'ally' because the threat rests on a commitment to follow through, and even if you go from there into a conversation it's always going to be hovering over the interaction 'we're talking with someone who was willing to commit hostilities against us if they decided to do so'.

Threats can delay violence only in the case of clear communication of overwhelming force. Your situation fails on both of these points. Firstly, the opening move is to reduce the amount of information the party has about the other participant, rather than to increase it. A poisonous creature being brightly coloured is communicating that it's poisonous in a way that doesn't actually inflict the poison on things that might eat it - in other words, it's increasing the shared information about outcomes held by both parties without taking actions to put the other party at a disadvantage or reduce their agency directly. If an animal 'warned' predators by pre-emptively stinging them and injecting a paralytic, then the likely evolutionary response would be for the predators to become better at sensing the animal before it has a chance to sting and killing it in a way that doesn't expose them to the poison - much like we pre-emptively eradicate things like wasp nests.

The second element is the overwhelming force component of a threat. In something like eating a poisonous creature, the threat is effective because it's a guarantee that both parties will die if the predator goes ahead, and the predator has alternative prey that it could eat and still survive. In something like nuclear brinksmanship, it's 'effective' only because both sides can see that they will be totally destroyed if aggression occurs. But even then, factors like differential advantage of a first strike mean that deployment of that mutually assured destruction scenario has been placed on automated hair triggers. In other words, even nuclear annihilation isn't enough of a differential to make threats a sustainable and stable protection against escalation to violence. A threat is only going to really be reliable if the person making the threat can already say with full confidence 'your choice: I win, or you lose, what's it going to be?'.

Your rogue was outnumbered and was taking actions to try to bridge the gap in power - e.g. from the party's perspective, this is someone who can't threaten them but is trying to advance the state of things to a point where they actually are a credible threat. Which means that they can likely stop that at no cost if they act immediately, but if they delay they'd lose the ability to stop it.

Now, there are details in your subsequent posts that you didn't give in the start: that the rogue did talk, and about the presence of a third potentially hostile party that was involved in tense negotiations with the players. The rogue's speech in principle makes it less reasonable to attack, but the contents combined with placing the party at disadvantage in the presence of another somewhat hostile force right at the conclusion of negotiations can really easily be interpreted in very bad ways. This sounds exactly like how it would run if the illithids had, for example, mind controlled the rogue or brainwashed him to be on their side, and all the talk about 'returning your familiar' and the rogue's snarky introduction would be a perfect set up for an over-dramatized betrayal scene. It could be exactly the 'ha ha, I'm 'returning' this bullet to you' type of action movie humor.

In terms of the greater context of the thread, and the whole point about cultivating trust with your players, this kind of thing is exactly how to destroy trust and cause their actions to become even more extreme next time. If I were Bob, the entire sequence basically reads like:

- First you bring in an overwhelming force to make us be humble and to make us submit to your power, to prove you're better than us.

- Then when we cave and negotiate, you reward us - but you do it by giving us someone whose first action is to try to score points on us and disrespects us and is trying to prove they can get away with doing things against us and we're not supposed to respond.

- When we respond negatively to that and push back by attacking and killing this 'gift', you then run a crushingly difficult encounter. When I say 'that was too hard, what gives?' you say it's our fault. This reads like the kinds of things a bullying DM would pull, gaslighting the players' complaints. To make things worse, this particular kind of gaslighting has been an ongoing dispute between us, and by now I feel (and have yet another piece of evidence) that you're basically ignoring everything I say about what I'd like in a game and keep trying to put the blame on me for not having fun.

So yeah, obviously Bob is going to not trust you, and is going to assume that every single situation in game is just some trap or way for you to try to win points against him. Because you're constantly reinforcing that impression every single session you have.

[Talakeal]

Threatening someone is almost always is going to increase the chances of violence compared to not threatening someone. At best, it puts that violence off until a later date. Fundamentally, threats are a component of escalation - they establish firmly that the one performing the threat should be considered 'enemy' instead of 'neutral' or 'ally' because the threat rests on a commitment to follow through, and even if you go from there into a conversation it's always going to be hovering over the interaction 'we're talking with someone who was willing to commit hostilities against us if they decided to do so'.

Threats can delay violence only in the case of clear communication of overwhelming force. Your situation fails on both of these points. Firstly, the opening move is to reduce the amount of information the party has about the other participant, rather than to increase it. A poisonous creature being brightly coloured is communicating that it's poisonous in a way that doesn't actually inflict the poison on things that might eat it - in other words, it's increasing the shared information about outcomes held by both parties without taking actions to put the other party at a disadvantage or reduce their agency directly. If an animal 'warned' predators by pre-emptively stinging them and injecting a paralytic, then the likely evolutionary response would be for the predators to become better at sensing the animal before it has a chance to sting and killing it in a way that doesn't expose them to the poison - much like we pre-emptively eradicate things like wasp nests.

The second element is the overwhelming force component of a threat. In something like eating a poisonous creature, the threat is effective because it's a guarantee that both parties will die if the predator goes ahead, and the predator has alternative prey that it could eat and still survive. In something like nuclear brinksmanship, it's 'effective' only because both sides can see that they will be totally destroyed if aggression occurs. But even then, factors like differential advantage of a first strike mean that deployment of that mutually assured destruction scenario has been placed on automated hair triggers. In other words, even nuclear annihilation isn't enough of a differential to make threats a sustainable and stable protection against escalation to violence. A threat is only going to really be reliable if the person making the threat can already say with full confidence 'your choice: I win, or you lose, what's it going to be?'.

Your rogue was outnumbered and was taking actions to try to bridge the gap in power - e.g. from the party's perspective, this is someone who can't threaten them but is trying to advance the state of things to a point where they actually are a credible threat. Which means that they can likely stop that at no cost if they act immediately, but if they delay they'd lose the ability to stop it.

Now, there are details in your subsequent posts that you didn't give in the start: that the rogue did talk, and about the presence of a third potentially hostile party that was involved in tense negotiations with the players. The rogue's speech in principle makes it less reasonable to attack, but the contents combined with placing the party at disadvantage in the presence of another somewhat hostile force right at the conclusion of negotiations can really easily be interpreted in very bad ways. This sounds exactly like how it would run if the illithids had, for example, mind controlled the rogue or brainwashed him to be on their side, and all the talk about 'returning your familiar' and the rogue's snarky introduction would be a perfect set up for an over-dramatized betrayal scene. It could be exactly the 'ha ha, I'm 'returning' this bullet to you' type of action movie humor.

In terms of the greater context of the thread, and the whole point about cultivating trust with your players, this kind of thing is exactly how to destroy trust and cause their actions to become even more extreme next time. If I were Bob, the entire sequence basically reads like:

- First you bring in an overwhelming force to make us be humble and to make us submit to your power, to prove you're better than us.

- Then when we cave and negotiate, you reward us - but you do it by giving us someone whose first action is to try to score points on us and disrespects us and is trying to prove they can get away with doing things against us and we're not supposed to respond.

- When we respond negatively to that and push back by attacking and killing this 'gift', you then run a crushingly difficult encounter. When I say 'that was too hard, what gives?' you say it's our fault. This reads like the kinds of things a bullying DM would pull, gaslighting the players' complaints. To make things worse, this particular kind of gaslighting has been an ongoing dispute between us, and by now I feel (and have yet another piece of evidence) that you're basically ignoring everything I say about what I'd like in a game and keep trying to put the blame on me for not having fun.

So yeah, obviously Bob is going to not trust you, and is going to assume that every single situation in game is just some trap or way for you to try to win points against him. Because you're constantly reinforcing that impression every single session you have.

Thank you for taking the time to write all this out!

Nothing there is unreasonable, and I actually agree with most of it. The real sticking point for me is Bob's explanation that "any time the other side tries to get a tactical advantage to dissuade me from attacking, my response is going to be to escalate the situation to immediate lethal force," which really baffles me, and strikes me as generally paranoid and tactically inept outlook on life.

Furthermore, I don't know how to make an idiot proof scenario. Thinking back over the years, about how many times Bob has lost a character and called me a killer DM because he chose to attack someone for insulting him or daring to tell him what to do. He has actually lost THREE characters on non-consecutive occasions because friendly, good aligned, NPC rulers asked him to obey the laws while he was a guest in their lands and he immediately attacked them to "put them in their place".

[NichG]

Thank you for taking the time to write all this out!

Nothing there is unreasonable, and I actually agree with most of it. The real sticking point for me is Bob's explanation that "any time the other side tries to get a tactical advantage to dissuade me from attacking, my response is going to be to escalate the situation to immediate lethal force," which really baffles me, and strikes me as generally paranoid and tactically inept outlook on life.

Furthermore, I don't know how to make an idiot proof scenario. Thinking back over the years, about how many times Bob has lost a character and called me a killer DM because he chose to attack someone for insulting him or daring to tell him what to do. He has actually lost THREE characters on non-consecutive occasions because friendly, good aligned, NPC rulers asked him to obey the laws while he was a guest in their lands and he immediately attacked them to "put them in their place".

Well, at the risk of going in circles about this again, there's a fundamental incompatibility between what you want out of a game and what Bob wants out of a game. Both cannot be satisfied by the same game. If I wanted to run a game for Bob, I would go into it with the expectation that every time I introduced any form of authority into the game, the entire purpose of me doing that would be to give Bob a thrill by letting him crush and overrun them with raw power. E.g. I'd recognize 'that's what Bob finds fun, I can provide that, but I have to do so with the fore-knowledge that that's what those game elements are always going to be about if Bob is in the group'. It would then be up to me to decide 'do I feel like that's a game I can have fun playing too?'.

It's a knife-edge, really. I've run for players like that and had fun doing it. I've encountered similar players who I would never run for (again, or in the first place). There's a sort of resentment underlying that which can be toxic if it's channelled towards the players rather than in-character stuff. The players who were like this and fun to play with kept it IC and made it ridiculous and over-the-top, and were really 'useful' in the sense that I could rely on them to push big red buttons or cause situations to escalate as long as they provided the power to enable crushing all examples of authority. The players who were like this and who I would never run for directed that resentment against players and poisoned the gaming groups they were in.

I think it was something like 1.5 tolerable/beneficial (1 of whom I ran for), 2.5 not tolerable (1 of whom I ran for for a time) over the course of 7 years of gaming, out of a pool of maybe 20 or 30 players. The 0.5 is someone who was normally more or less okay and kept things basically IC, but took things too far in one game and kind of got everyone pissed off at them by the end of that campaign.

For the one I ran for who was like this and was beneficial, we had stories like him accidentally totally demolishing his (in-character) sister's bodyguards when mistaking them for kidnappers in a very anime-esque campaign, pissing off an AI in a satellite who then maintained a beam of gamma radiation on his location for the next several months that killed everything within 3 meters (but was harmless to him because he managed to figure out a way to get immunity), etc.

[Great Dragon]

As usual, I'm late to the party.

I’m also more on the side of the Players, on this one.
While I do use the “Use Stealth to beat Passive Perception” rule, there’s still a Roll.

Note: A lot of my Players make their PP as High as possible, like 14-16 {2 prof + 2/4 Wis} and 23 with vHuman having both Expertise and Observant feat at First level {10 + 2 prof +2 Ex +4 Wis +5 feat} [Max 32 = 10 + 6 prof + 6 Ex + 5 Wis + 5 feat] and the Alert feat at 4th level, so that no advantage is given even if losing Initiative.

Although I did something similar rather recently.
Hunting Xanathar (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24152054&postcount=34)

I Rolled (in front of the players, as always) Stealth for vPC and succeeded in beating PP of Samurai in front of group. Shenanigans until Cleric threw torch into area, revealing Foe - which then fled, but did not get far enough away to actually escape alive!

The great thing about my group, is that while they hated the vPC, they still liked me for creating this Challenge.


*****
@Talakeal: Part of the problem, is that like NichG said, there's an incompatible disconnect between what you want/expect and what (some of the) Party wants out of the game.

Threatening someone is trying to "Win" the battle without violence; and it doesn't matter if your using Persuasion to imply Death by Violence (either from yourself, or a nearby Goon with a Gun) - or Intimidate by showing that Death by Violence is a real possibility.

You keep expecting the Players to behave like RL people do in modern Society.
Where, for the majority of people, respecting the Law is as natural as breathing.

But the Players (especially Bob) sees that their PC/s are in a Position of Power and can tell anyone in Authority to "Take a Hike" because violence is their way of dealing with everything.

So, as stated: It would then be up to (you) to decide 'do I feel like that's a game I can have fun playing too?'. So far, you have (sometimes through sheer Will-Power) remained with the group.

Honestly, I would have gotten tired of both Bob and Brian a LONG time ago.


This is a turn based game. The other players can say "hey, hold up, what are you doing?" when it's not their turn. You are also allowed to say "no" and "don't come back".
+1


The surprise round was the rogue taking the lantern.
Bob was surprised. He doesn't get to act.
From my point of view that is exactly what surprise rounds are for. Without a surprise mechanic you can't really sneak up on players, so the surprise round exists to patch in that desired outcome. You don't sneak up on them, take actions then hold a surprise round. The first action they notice retroactively takes place in the surprise round. And if a bunch of people are standing round with guns pointed at each other none of them get a surprise round when someone decides to shoot.

This is part of the trouble that I have with 5e, that there isn't a Surprise Round anymore, just the Surprised Condition.
And all conditions must be met for that Condition to occur:
(1) Beat (Passive) Perception with Stealth: this is why we see so many Multiclassed vHuman Rogues with Observant = so that this is nearly impossible.

(2) Beat all Initiative Rolls.

(A) The Alert feat makes it where Surprise doesn't work - even if the PC doesn't have Proficiency in Perception and an Eight Wisdom - and also loses Initiative !!

I'm seriously considering going back to 3x Surprise, where only the Alert Feat allows the PC to roll Initiative on the Surprise Round. Something to ask my players about.

[Max_Killjoy]

Stealing a group's only active source of light in a dark hostile dungeon is not "putting up defenses", it's making the group vulnerable, and thus could fairly be seen as an attack.

It's just a dumb move on the rogue's part, a completely inappropriate stunt, at "best" equivalent to pulling a water pistol on a squad of soldiers who are already isolated behind enemy lines. Outside of stupid Hollywood movie scenes, pulling a gun doesn't start conversations, it ENDS them.

[Kardwill]

Tabletop games aren't movies, and in most tabletop games the strategically best answer to the mook with a gun sneaking up behind the group during a pre-conflict conversation with the villain is to just accept that one party member is going to be shot and have everyone in the group immediately go hostile and alpha-strike the villain.

Depends on the game. In a Fate game, this kind of standoff is a perfectly viable game situation. Trigger a compel, give a fate point to the PCs, and enjoy your scene where everyone trades social attacks, like in the movies (the game was specifically designed to emulate action movies, after all).

In tactical-heavy clunky games like D&D...
Yeah, that's a recipe for disaster, unless you have heavy buy-in from the players (I'm lucky enough to have it from my players : They trust my willingness to adhere to tropes and not screw them in those situations, so they're willing to humor me and play it out). With Tal's table? Yeah, no way it would have ended in any other way than with a bloodbath.

Nice touch with the "no monologue" rogue getting wasted before he could monologue, though ^^

[Lord of Shadows]

Our table would have done this completely differently.

Why on earth didn't the Rogue SAY SOMETHING after grabbing the light? Like, "Hello, old friends..." What... was he just going to grab the light and see what happens?

Sure, if someone sneaks up and grabs your light source, leaves you in the dark, and is followed by silence, you would expect it to be some hostile force gaining a tactical advantage.

For future reference, speaking a few sentences is a FREE ACTION in both 3x (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#speak) and Pathfinder (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/Gamemastering/Combat/#Speak).

Even after the fighting began, the Rogue can still talk...

And as far as Bob goes, the other players need to put him in his place when he goes Chaotic-Stupid. They outnumber him. And I am talking players here, not their characters.

I dunno, just my 2 coppers... Could have turned out MUCH differently. And MUCH more enjoyably...

[Kardwill]

Our table would have done this completely differently.

Why on earth didn't the Rogue SAY SOMETHING after grabbing the light? Like, "Hello, old friends..." What... was he just going to grab the light and see what happens?

Apparently, he did talk to them. And Bob decided he wanted to interupt his speech and fireball him without letting the other players try to do anything, because Bob, I suppose.

(I had this kind of guy in my group for the longest time, and didn't want to boot him out because I was an awkward geek. Until we started a new campaign, and I "forgot" to invite him.
Even when they're fun guys to hang out with, their ability to poison a game and wear out a GM is impressive.)

[Lord of Shadows]

Apparently, he did talk to them. And Bob decided he wanted to interupt his speech and fireball him without letting the other players try to do anything, because Bob, I suppose.

Sorry, I kind of zoned out and missed it if there was dialogue mentioned. But if there was, that just makes it worse.

So Bob involved the whole party in a useless fight that spent resources and hurt the party, which resulted in losing a potential ally needed for an upcoming fight, making the upcoming fight a lot harder than it needed to be, using more resources and hurting the party even more, because Bob has a trigger finger.

I wonder if Bob ever feels bad about what he does... Nah, I doubt it even occurs to him.


(I had this kind of guy in my group for the longest time, and didn't want to boot him out because I was an awkward geek. Until we started a new campaign, and I "forgot" to invite him.
Even when they're fun guys to hang out with, their ability to poison a game and wear out a GM is impressive.)

That was definitely the best solution...

[Segev]

I'm most amused by the fact that the rogue was so overconfident. This is hindsight being 20/20, since I'm basing the assessment of "overconfident" on the outcome, but clearly, he wasn't so much better in the dark than they were that he could avoid being killed.

Were I running it - and I'm not telling you you did it wrong, just how I would've done it - I'd have had him hiding just out of sight of the lantern, having rolled the best hide he could, and tried to talk to them from the dark. If they came after him, THEN dash in to do the smash-and-grab on the lantern. Because I do see why they'd assume that anything that would plunge them into darkness means them immediate harm.

[Tajerio]

Leaving aside the issue of the tactical advantage and whatnot, I think there's another concern here. You wanted to do a cool thing with the reintroduction of the rogue. There's not necessarily any problem there, except that this party is pretty hostile to your concept of cool things. You were also willing to present the party with what looked like, to them, a bit of a fait accompli to get it (no Perception rolls mentioned, no chance to take action to prevent losing the light). Your party abhor faits accomplis, reminiscent as they are of railroading. Now, I'm not in the same universe of suspicion as your players are. But if this same thing had happened to me in a game, I would have been annoyed by the unsubtle way in which the GM had crowbarred this guy into the scene, forced me to deal with him, and inconvenienced my PC in a very real way in the process.

And I think there is a lesson to be learned there for the future, which is that if you want to do a cool thing, have it happen in a way that doesn't appear to limit the players' agency. Or better yet, just set the adventure up so that cool things can happen whatever the PCs do, and don't commit to [specific cool thing] happening. Because I will agree with Quertus this far--when a GM wants [specific cool thing] to happen, the game can contort and twist around that in ways that might not be fun for anybody but the GM.

[Lord of Shadows]

Were I running it - and I'm not telling you you did it wrong, just how I would've done it - I'd have had him hiding just out of sight of the lantern, having rolled the best hide he could, and tried to talk to them from the dark. If they came after him, THEN dash in to do the smash-and-grab on the lantern. Because I do see why they'd assume that anything that would plunge them into darkness means them immediate harm.

Bob strikes me as the kind who would destroy the entire campaign world just to get to someone saying, "Hello, old friends..." out of the darkness. He has apparently never learned that actions have consequences...

OK, done Bob-bashing for now.

[zinycor]

Bob strikes me as the kind who would destroy the entire campaign world just to get to someone saying, "Hello, old friends..." out of the darkness. He has apparently never learned that actions have consequences...

OK, done Bob-bashing for now.

I don't even bother Bob-bashing, at this point this is Talakeal's fault to continue to play with Bob.

[kyoryu]

Thank you for taking the time to write all this out!

Nothing there is unreasonable, and I actually agree with most of it. The real sticking point for me is Bob's explanation that "any time the other side tries to get a tactical advantage to dissuade me from attacking, my response is going to be to escalate the situation to immediate lethal force," which really baffles me, and strikes me as generally paranoid and tactically inept outlook on life.

I don't think it's paranoid at all. It's probably learned, at your table or another one.

The logic is this:

A) The person is trying to get a tactical advantage on me
B) If they are doing so, they are predicting at least some chance of lethal combat
C) If I allow them to get the upper hand, they will likely win
D) The fact that they are maneuvering suggests that they do not have the upper hand, otherwise they would just attack
E) Therefore, I'd better attack now

This is exacerbated if your game+system doesn't have a normal way to retreat, meaning that the default combat stakes are "win or die".

As far as threats not working, they will only work if the cost of non-compliance is high enough to be avoided. If you want people that are threatened to comply, there needs to be at least a chance that the cost of not doing so is worse than the cost of compliance.

Like a knife at the throat - in reality, this is an effective threat because it's very easy to kill someone. Sure, maybe you can escape, but if you fail, you're probably dead.

At most D&D-like tables, it's an ineffective threat because d4 damage means *nothing*. Of course, personally, this is where I toss in the Chunky Salsa rule and say "okay, if you try to escape, it's going to be a save vs. (insert appropriate save based on system) or your throat is cut, you're out of the fight, and you'll bleed out in a few seconds." But the Chunky Salsa rule is controversial around here :)

[patchyman]

Who said I ignored any of the party's defenses or used DM FIAT? He fully used the normal rules for stealth and pick-pocketing, and the idea that you need to start rolling initiative and drop into combat rounds anytime a stealthed character approaches the party is out and out insane and not supported by the rules of any game I am aware of.

Weird question (because that is how my mind works), but why did you rule that grabbing a lantern out of another player’s hand was a Pickpocket check? It would seem to me to be an obvious Disarm attempt.

Some of the issue may have been the perception (not necessarily the reality) that you seem to have stacked the deck in favour of the rogue. Did the characters get a Per check to detect the Rogue before he could grab the lantern and extinguish it? If not, why not?

[patchyman]

Longer version:

The rogue had been kidnapped by cultists months ago, and the party declined to attempt a rescue. Recently, they had heard rumors that the cultists were working for some more sinister power. Bob sent in his familiar to investigate the cult and it was captured, so the party decided to kick in the door and demand its release. The cultists scattered without a fight, and the party was approached by an elderly beast man who was the go between between the cultists and their ilithid masters, and said they were being expected.

The party traveled down into the dungeon below the cultist's base, with was the lair of a cabal of illithids that had secretly been operating beneath the city. They were invited to have an audience with the elder brain, who probed their minds, delivered an apocalyptic prophecy, and told them that now that it had determined their intentions, it would let the familiar go as a show of good faith.

The party then turned to leave, and I told them that a someone grabs the lantern out of their torchbearer's hands, and you see a shadowy figure blow the torch out and then you hear a familiar voice say "What? I get captured and you let me rot down here for half a bloody year, but that damned cat goes missing and you send out the rescue team within the hour?"

Then Bob said "Wait, before he has a chance to talk, I want to shoot a fireball at him and interrupt him during the surprise round, and I want to hit as many of the illithids within the blast as possible.

He does so, and we roll initiative. Bob wins, and then shoots a second fireball at the elder brain and the remaining illithids. Then the rogue goes, and moves in to sneak attacks Bob, and then the illithid's go and charge the party (they have dark vision), and then the rest of the party goes and at that point they really don't have any choice but to fight for their lives.

Go back, read you previous post then come back and read this post. Pay specific attention to statements in your first post that are different from what you say here. Consider that people’s advice was based on what you wrote, and not what you subsequently clarified.

I mean, you specifically said that the party attacked him “before he could say a word”. Are you surprised that most people concluded the party didn’t recognize him and reacted as if they were in an ambush scenario?

[Lord of Shadows]

Like a knife at the throat - in reality, this is an effective threat because it's very easy to kill someone. Sure, maybe you can escape, but if you fail, you're probably dead.

At most D&D-like tables, it's an ineffective threat because d4 damage means *nothing*. Of course, personally, this is where I toss in the Chunky Salsa rule and say "okay, if you try to escape, it's going to be a save vs. (insert appropriate save based on system) or your throat is cut, you're out of the fight, and you'll bleed out in a few seconds." But the Chunky Salsa rule is controversial around here :)

Well... there is always Coup degrace (3.x here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm) and Pathfinder here (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/Gamemastering/Combat/#Coup_de_Grace))which both say that you can auto-crit a helpless enemy, and if they survive that they have to make a Fort save of 10+damage dealt or die.

Both systems define helpless as "paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy."

I suppose holding a knife to the throat qualifies. And chunky salsa is sometimes the best.. :smallsmile:

[Great Dragon]

@kyoryu: I very much like your "Chunky Salsa" style.
I was amused.

[kyoryu]

The “Chunky Salsa” rule: if something happens that would logically reduce your character to the consistency of chunky salsa, your character is dead.

While it’s phrased about death, it’s really a statement that logical results trump mechanics.

[Quarian Rex]

In regards to Bob's anti-authoritarian streak, have you thought about changing tactics and having rulers treat the party like peers instead of like subjects/servants/etc.? I get that there is the trope that royalty should be respected and such, but once the party is capable of laying waste to a significant portion of the castle them perhaps a wise ruler would switch to trying to court the favor of potential allies instead of demanding the loyalty of subordinates. Even if they have no respect for the players as a group they should have respect for the party's destructive capability, since failure to do so may result in a demonstration of that power (as seems to be Bob's more usual social tactic).

While diplomats may have to bow and scrape that is usually because they have little power locally and what power they do represent can be very far away. When an army is on ones doorstep one does not treat the general with disrespect unless one is looking for a fight. Once a party gets to a certain level they are essentially a walking army, perhaps you should treat them like such, at least politically.

There are a lot of social niceties/faux pas that will get ignored when the guest is carrying a big enough stick. If you want to reinforce the use of courtly manners without potentially escalating a foreign power perhaps have a sweating and clearly terrified court servant follow them around and desperately try to correct/cover up any social blunders. Things like quickly sweeping up after them if they didn't wipe their feet before entering, or hastily adding "Your Highness" or "Overlord Eminence the Unuttered, first of his name, last of his line, Keeper of the Deathwatch" every time the party addresses the monarch. This kind of thing would simultaneously demonstrate the importance of such political niceties (even if the PCs aren't doing it it still needs to be done), respect for the party's power (no one is grinding the encounter to a halt demanding petty social acts), and perhaps adding a very slight element of social shame (the PCs are the only ones needing a servant to show manners for them).

In D&D-land personal power can be far more important than political power and I don't think that is a lesson that rulers would forget any time soon. Properly taking that into account may be the key to mending things with your party.

Thoughts?

[Max_Killjoy]

The problem with trying to dominate a tiger into servitude is the high risk that the tiger may realize that you're all talk.

[Segev]

The problem with trying to dominate a tiger into servitude is the high risk that the tiger may realize that you're all talk.

Nonsense. I'm also scritches behind the ears and a source of delicious snacks. My tiny tigress rubs against my legs whenever I go into the kitchen; it's a bit of a tripping hazard. She and the tiniest tigress will argue over my lap, too. Though mercifully not violently. Just a bit of a race for it.

But yeah, when running my Exalted game, I've had plenty of times where the normal powers-that-be in a town or such have realized, suddenly, that the gorgeous woman and her two nondescript traveling companions are a Solar and two Lunar Exalts, and the entire attitude of the encounter changed. Even when they think Celestial Exalted are terrifying Anathema and horribly evil, they'd rather not provoke the horrifying soul-eaters into eating their souls today.

[Talakeal]

Stealing a group's only active source of light in a dark hostile dungeon is not "putting up defenses", it's making the group vulnerable, and thus could fairly be seen as an attack.

It's just a dumb move on the rogue's part, a completely inappropriate stunt, at "best" equivalent to pulling a water pistol on a squad of soldiers who are already isolated behind enemy lines. Outside of stupid Hollywood movie scenes, pulling a gun doesn't start conversations, it ENDS them.

That actually seems really in character for him. When he was a PC, he was a classic instigator, and pulling a water pistol on a squad of soldiers would not surprise me at all, so I guess I did good job RPing there! :smallbiggrin:


Leaving aside the issue of the tactical advantage and whatnot, I think there's another concern here. You wanted to do a cool thing with the reintroduction of the rogue. There's not necessarily any problem there, except that this party is pretty hostile to your concept of cool things. You were also willing to present the party with what looked like, to them, a bit of a fait accompli to get it (no Perception rolls mentioned, no chance to take action to prevent losing the light). Your party abhor faits accomplis, reminiscent as they are of railroading. Now, I'm not in the same universe of suspicion as your players are. But if this same thing had happened to me in a game, I would have been annoyed by the unsubtle way in which the GM had crowbarred this guy into the scene, forced me to deal with him, and inconvenienced my PC in a very real way in the process.

And I think there is a lesson to be learned there for the future, which is that if you want to do a cool thing, have it happen in a way that doesn't appear to limit the players' agency. Or better yet, just set the adventure up so that cool things can happen whatever the PCs do, and don't commit to [specific cool thing] happening. Because I will agree with Quertus this far--when a GM wants [specific cool thing] to happen, the game can contort and twist around that in ways that might not be fun for anybody but the GM.

Dice were rolled, it was not fiat.

Aside from this, everything here seems accurate.


I don't think it's paranoid at all. It's probably learned, at your table or another one.

The logic is this:

A) The person is trying to get a tactical advantage on me
B) If they are doing so, they are predicting at least some chance of lethal combat
C) If I allow them to get the upper hand, they will likely win
D) The fact that they are maneuvering suggests that they do not have the upper hand, otherwise they would just attack
E) Therefore, I'd better attack now

This is exacerbated if your game+system doesn't have a normal way to retreat, meaning that the default combat stakes are "win or die".

As far as threats not working, they will only work if the cost of non-compliance is high enough to be avoided. If you want people that are threatened to comply, there needs to be at least a chance that the cost of not doing so is worse than the cost of compliance.

Like a knife at the throat - in reality, this is an effective threat because it's very easy to kill someone. Sure, maybe you can escape, but if you fail, you're probably dead.

At most D&D-like tables, it's an ineffective threat because d4 damage means *nothing*. Of course, personally, this is where I toss in the Chunky Salsa rule and say "okay, if you try to escape, it's going to be a save vs. (insert appropriate save based on system) or your throat is cut, you're out of the fight, and you'll bleed out in a few seconds." But the Chunky Salsa rule is controversial around here :)

Putting aside the ethics of shooting at an unknown person with unknown motives and trying to hit as many bystanders as possible, to me I just don't follow from a tactical perspective. Can you explain where my logic fails here?

1: Unless you are explicitly there to kill someone, it is almost always better to accomplish your goals without violence as the risk of death or injury is high.
2: If someone hasn't attacked yet, they probably aren't intent on attacking. "Always keep them talking," as hostage negotiators say.
3: If they have a tremendous tactical advantage, it is in your best interest to do everything in your power to make sure that combat doesn't start until that advantage has gone away.
4: If they have a minor tactical advantage, its in your best interest to ignore it, as the odds of it actually meaning the difference between life and death are much smaller and less severe.

Basically, its a risk analysis of avoiding being killed. If someone has a gun to my back and is talking to me (or a similar situation), I need to run the odds of A: Me being able to get their drop on them and kill them despite their advantage vs. B: Them deciding they are going to kill me anyway despite the fact that they haven't done so already; and I can think of very few cases where the odds of A outweigh the odds of B.



Weird question (because that is how my mind works), but why did you rule that grabbing a lantern out of another player’s hand was a Pickpocket check? It would seem to me to be an obvious Disarm attempt.

Some of the issue may have been the perception (not necessarily the reality) that you seem to have stacked the deck in favour of the rogue. Did the characters get a Per check to detect the Rogue before he could grab the lantern and extinguish it? If not, why not?

Disarm is a combat action, involving using brute force and skill at arms to knock a weapon out of the hand of someone who is actively defending themselves. Sneaking up on someone and snatching something from them while they are distracted is a fundamentally different technique in my opinion.

Yes, a perception check was allowed.


Go back, read you previous post then come back and read this post. Pay specific attention to statements in your first post that are different from what you say here. Consider that people’s advice was based on what you wrote, and not what you subsequently clarified.

I mean, you specifically said that the party attacked him “before he could say a word”. Are you surprised that most people concluded the party didn’t recognize him and reacted as if they were in an ambush scenario?

Out of character they knew who it was and I that he was going to talk to them because I had already declared his first statement using his distinct accent. Then Bob interrupted me and said he wanted to attack before he had a chance to speak, so in character they had no idea who it was or what he wanted.


In regards to Bob's anti-authoritarian streak, have you thought about changing tactics and having rulers treat the party like peers instead of like subjects/servants/etc.? I get that there is the trope that royalty should be respected and such, but once the party is capable of laying waste to a significant portion of the castle them perhaps a wise ruler would switch to trying to court the favor of potential allies instead of demanding the loyalty of subordinates. Even if they have no respect for the players as a group they should have respect for the party's destructive capability, since failure to do so may result in a demonstration of that power (as seems to be Bob's more usual social tactic).

While diplomats may have to bow and scrape that is usually because they have little power locally and what power they do represent can be very far away. When an army is on ones doorstep one does not treat the general with disrespect unless one is looking for a fight. Once a party gets to a certain level they are essentially a walking army, perhaps you should treat them like such, at least politically.

There are a lot of social niceties/faux pas that will get ignored when the guest is carrying a big enough stick. If you want to reinforce the use of courtly manners without potentially escalating a foreign power perhaps have a sweating and clearly terrified court servant follow them around and desperately try to correct/cover up any social blunders. Things like quickly sweeping up after them if they didn't wipe their feet before entering, or hastily adding "Your Highness" or "Overlord Eminence the Unuttered, first of his name, last of his line, Keeper of the Deathwatch" every time the party addresses the monarch. This kind of thing would simultaneously demonstrate the importance of such political niceties (even if the PCs aren't doing it it still needs to be done), respect for the party's power (no one is grinding the encounter to a halt demanding petty social acts), and perhaps adding a very slight element of social shame (the PCs are the only ones needing a servant to show manners for them).

In D&D-land personal power can be far more important than political power and I don't think that is a lesson that rulers would forget any time soon. Properly taking that into account may be the key to mending things with your party.

Thoughts?

Generally people do speak to him with the respect someone of his power and status is due.

Note that I said he has lost characters multiple times doing this, which means that he didn't have the power to back up his actions.

He has pulled this same trick with literal gods before. He just doesn't like being told what to do, and I have a feeling he likes playing chicken with me if I try and reign him in, basically he knows that I don't want to wreck my campaign with a TPK, and if I do call his bluff he gets to take the moral high ground and call me a killer DM.

Although, to be fair to Bob, he has gotten MUCH better about this in the last few years.

[Great Dragon]

The “Chunky Salsa” rule: if something happens that would logically reduce your character to the consistency of chunky salsa, your character is dead.

While it’s phrased about death, it’s really a statement that logical results trump mechanics.

Which is great, but sometimes has to be explained to some players.

@Quarian Rex: I really like the "Speaking Servant" idea, I'm going to steal that.

@Segev: We might think alike.

I solve this problem in my game with the fact that the Ruler (even as low as a Count) is also a Person with Class/Subclass Levels - with CR appropriate Minions.

Sure, the Party might surpass the Count in Levels, but then they are now dealing with the Baron, and then the Earl, and then the Duke, and finally the (usually) 20th level Monarch. And no, i don't always do Quadratic Wizard types, I also like King Conan :biggrin:

IMO: people in Power are there because they earned it.
Especially in a D&D-esk world, where Adventures are as common as dimes (silver), if not pennies (copper).

I got super tired of the "Kid King/Queen" trope a long time ago.
Even if this is the case, someone of High Level (Merlin, etc) has got their back.

Sure, the PC/s might be forgiven for not constantly kow-tow-ing.
But, there can be a bigger reward for them at least showing respect.



He has pulled this same trick with literal gods before. He just doesn't like being told what to do, and I have a feeling he likes playing chicken with me if I try and reign him in, basically he knows that I don't want to wreck my campaign with a TPK, and if I do call his bluff he gets to take the moral high ground and call me a killer DM.

Although, to be fair to Bob, he has gotten MUCH better about this in the last few years.

Personally, I'd allow the TPK, and then either
(1) Save the Campaign Story and then figure out how to involve everyone's New Character/s.

Or
(2) set up an RP session to bring everyone else's PCs back, but make him spend the time to make a new one. He'll either realize that your calling HIS bluff, and stop - or get tired of making a new PC every odd game.

[zinycor]

Out of character they knew who it was and I that he was going to talk to them because I had already declared his first statement using his distinct accent. Then Bob interrupted me and said he wanted to attack before he had a chance to speak, so in character they had no idea who it was or what he wanted.

What? How does that relate to the paragraph you quoted from patchyman?



IMO: people in Power are there because they earned it.
Especially in a D&D-esk world, where Adventures are as common as dimes (silver), if not pennies (copper).

I got super tired of the "Kid King/Queen" trope a long time ago.
Even if this is the case, someone of High Level (Merlin, etc) has got their back.

Sure, the PC/s might be forgiven for not constantly kow-tow-ing.
But, there can be a bigger reward for them at least showing respect.


I don't get it... why are people running kings or Gods and the like that look down on the party? If I am the GM for an heroic game, with heroic players (heroic in the sense that they are incredible people doing incredible things, no moral components needed to be a hero Imho), then whatever authorities the party faces will either be an evil antagonist or some king looking to ally to the players.

Classic heroes like Hercules, Aquiles and Conan would not now to anyone, and kill any God or king that dared to disrespect them.

Personally I don't see any problem on spitting in the face of Gods or authorities, that's the dream.

[Zombimode]

At most D&D-like tables, it's an ineffective threat because d4 damage means *nothing*. Of course, personally, this is where I toss in the Chunky Salsa rule and say "okay, if you try to escape, it's going to be a save vs. (insert appropriate save based on system) or your throat is cut, you're out of the fight, and you'll bleed out in a few seconds." But the Chunky Salsa rule is controversial around here :)

Despite being actual rules... 3.5 Coup-de-Grace is excatly for those kind of situations.

It's not a fail-safe threat against every character, especially high-level (or at least high-fort-save) ones, but even a 3rd level Rogue can force a 10 + 2d4+4+2d6 = DC 26 fort save vs. death.

[Talakeal]

What? How does that relate to the paragraph you quoted from patchyman?

He was asking for clarification about the seeming contradiction between my two summaries.

I was explaining that it was the difference between in and out of character knowledge.

OOC the player's knew who it was and that he was trying to talk, in character they didn't know who it was or what he wanted.


Classic heroes like Hercules, Aquiles and Conan would not now to anyone, and kill any God or king that dared to disrespect them.

Personally I don't see any problem on spitting in the face of Gods or authorities, that's the dream.

And what about after Conan becomes a king? Would he suddenly start accepting disrespect now that it came from his underlings?


And its not really about disrespect; for example, one time the party was lost in the desert and had a vision of the goddess of nature giving them directions to a sacred oasis nearby, but asked them not to kill any of the animals who dwelt their. Bob (and Dave)'s response was to burn the oasis down to show the goddess what happens when she tells them what to do.

[Quertus]

Like most, I'm on Bob's side on this - at least, for the initial description of events. I also absolutely love the delicious irony of murdering someone who hates monologues… when they attempt to monologue. And the delicious irony of the party actually acting heroic, and killing evil despite the odds, to the GM's dismay.

Now, once all the details are added in, it paints a different picture. Trying to express one with the other was… counterproductive. But the PC acting the way they did, before the NPC began talking? That's just good role-playing.

Is attacking someone who has put you at a disadvantage a reasonable course of action? Absolutely! Imagine if that disadvantage was caused by a more active method - poison, loss of HP, a curse, etc. So long as victory is still possible, the correct* response to someone initiating hostilities is to end them. The only tactical error may have been in not dealing with the disadvantage / not seeking advantage (ie, I didn't read any mention of the party creating a new light source (unless corpses burn in your system, in which case kudos to Bob)).

Is "imposing disadvantage" tantamount to initiating hostilities? Absolutely. Any good "no PvP" game would have that Rogue on many counts of initiating PvP (or NPvP, as appropriate to his current status), including theft and imposing disadvantage in dire conditions (surrounded by Illithids of questionable intent).

Also, as I think has not been explicitly mentioned, you don't put someone at combat disadvantage unless you're looking at the situation in terms of combat. Which, in turn, forces the PCs* to look at the situation in terms of combat. At which point, "****, kill 'em all!" is the only logical response to so many Illithids*, who the paranoid adventurer will deduce probably brainwashed their former friend.

* According to adventurers who live to tell the tale

-----

To recap, the party negotiated with one of the most Evil groups in D&D. This group has been uncharacteristically benevolent. Just when the party has been set at ease, a former ally and long-term prisoner of these telepathic bad guys sneaks up on the party, and suddenly imposes disadvantage on them (but not the bad guys or himself). And the GM is surprised that the party responded violently?

-----


I fully agree. What I don't agree with is Bob's statement that acting with murderous force against someone who does something to dissuade you from attacking them is ALWAYS the correct action.

To cut out the pretense, Bob does this over and over again because he doesn't like dialogue in games and likes to feel powerful by killing people, and when that doesn't work to his advantage he then comes up with this big song and dance routine to justify his actions. As the DM, I don't really care what actions he takes, but it annoys me when he takes actions that he knows are disruptive and then blames me when for being "out to get him" when they don't work out in his favor.

And you've just stated you problem right there: you find Bob's gameplay disruptive. You know what he wants - why don't you find a way to give him what he wants that isn't disruptive?

Let's look at this in terms of one of your other problems: balancing the game. You designed and carefully tuned the balance of the boss fight with the assumption of the assistance of the NPC. And what if they didn't want the NPC to join (for whatever reason)? Or what if, as happened here, they expended resources killing the (Illithids and the) NPC? What advantage did you design into the adventure for these Bob-style choices?

Don't put on the fig leaf of "not caring what action he takes" when you've designed your adventure "do things my way or suffer".

Design your adventure "do things Bob's way, get treat".


Because most people who get threatened aren't wandering heroes, with multiple tools for combat/murder at their disposal that they are well trained to use.

Yeah, I'm just imagining some dumb hooligan walking up to tense negotiations between two opposing groups of soldiers, and thinking that it's a good idea to initiate friendly parley by pointing a gun at them.


Because I will agree with Quertus this far--when a GM wants [specific cool thing] to happen, the game can contort and twist around that in ways that might not be fun for anybody but the GM.

It's nice to know that others will carry the torch after my fires burn out. Or even when I'm just not around.

[Lord of Shadows]

Things like quickly sweeping up after them if they didn't wipe their feet before entering, or hastily adding "Your Highness" or "Overlord Eminence the Unuttered, first of his name, last of his line, Keeper of the Deathwatch" every time the party addresses the monarch. This kind of thing would simultaneously demonstrate the importance of such political niceties (even if the PCs aren't doing it it still needs to be done), respect for the party's power (no one is grinding the encounter to a halt demanding petty social acts), and perhaps adding a very slight element of social shame (the PCs are the only ones needing a servant to show manners for them).

I think it would all go straight to Bob's head, and, well.... pretty much be the end of the campaign world.

[King of Nowhere]

Longer version:

The rogue had been kidnapped by cultists months ago, and the party declined to attempt a rescue. Recently, they had heard rumors that the cultists were working for some more sinister power. Bob sent in his familiar to investigate the cult and it was captured, so the party decided to kick in the door and demand its release. The cultists scattered without a fight, and the party was approached by an elderly beast man who was the go between between the cultists and their ilithid masters, and said they were being expected.

The party traveled down into the dungeon below the cultist's base, with was the lair of a cabal of illithids that had secretly been operating beneath the city. They were invited to have an audience with the elder brain, who probed their minds, delivered an apocalyptic prophecy, and told them that now that it had determined their intentions, it would let the familiar go as a show of good faith.

The party then turned to leave, and I told them that a someone grabs the lantern out of their torchbearer's hands, and you see a shadowy figure blow the torch out and then you hear a familiar voice say "What? I get captured and you let me rot down here for half a bloody year, but that damned cat goes missing and you send out the rescue team within the hour?"

Then Bob said "Wait, before he has a chance to talk, I want to shoot a fireball at him and interrupt him during the surprise round, and I want to hit as many of the illithids within the blast as possible.

Hell, this changes EVERYTHING. because the party was not in a combat situation surrounded by hostiles, and because the rogue announced himself.
On the other side, it's still a reasonable response from them, because illithids were around. as far as they knew, everything else could have been an act to bring them into an ambush.

And it does make the rogue's move even DUMBER: he was surrounded by allies, he could have talked to the party openly. he had no reason whatsoever to blind them. So, this makes the whole sad story a case of "shoot him, he has a wallet (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShootHimHeHasAWallet)". relevant part:

Tragically, it is Truth in Television. In heavily-armed societies, anarchic or rebellious areas, and in warzones, many people have been shot because police or soldiers thought they might be about to fire a weapon at them... even though many were only trying to quickly produce identification documents. Your best chance of survival lies in announcing what you're going to do slowly, loudly, and clearly in a language the armed people can understand, asking if they understood you, and doing it slowly.

and curse you for not saying this earlier. I spent half an hour writing a reply to your first post, before I came upon the longer version, and had to restart from scratch. a lot of the context made a huge difference, and I also agreed with bob before reading the context.


Again, this absolutely baffles me, and I am having a hard time actually taking the argument seriously as anything but an attempt to score points on the internet.

If this is normal thinking, why would anyone ever threaten someone if the typical response is attacking in a blind rage?

It depends on context. mostly, because most of the times it is clear that someone threatening you is giving you a way out, while in this case it wasn't.



Threats can delay violence only in the case of clear communication of overwhelming force. this sums it up nicely. though if the party that's being threatened believes that they will be killed anyway, they may still try something desperate.
if a robber pulls a gun on me, the threat works because from the situation I presume the robber wants my money, is not going to kill me unless I try something stupid, and I don't have the combat skill to try to disarm him.
If the police pulls a gun on me, I know they are the police, they are not going to hurt me unless I do something stupid, they are only being paranoid because they expect they may have to deal with someone pulling a gun on them.
In all those cases, I know surrendering to the threat won't get me dead.

Your party was surrounded by illithids who may have been cooperative or may have been planning to fool them and set them up in an ambush. illlithids have darkvision, so taking out the light is a perfect setup for an ambush. and the friendly rogue may very easily have been dominated.
But most important, in that case surrendering may well have resulted in having their brains eaten. that's why in this case a threat elicited a deadly reaction. And Bob may well have been in the right if he wasn't, well, bob.
we all don't understand why you don't all kick him; you say three other players are fine enough?


In regards to Bob's anti-authoritarian streak, have you thought about changing tactics and having rulers treat the party like peers instead of like subjects/servants/etc.? I get that there is the trope that royalty should be respected and such, but once the party is capable of laying waste to a significant portion of the castle them perhaps a wise ruler would switch to trying to court the favor of potential allies instead of demanding the loyalty of subordinates. Even if they have no respect for the players as a group they should have respect for the party's destructive capability, since failure to do so may result in a demonstration of that power (as seems to be Bob's more usual social tactic).

While diplomats may have to bow and scrape that is usually because they have little power locally and what power they do represent can be very far away. When an army is on ones doorstep one does not treat the general with disrespect unless one is looking for a fight. Once a party gets to a certain level they are essentially a walking army, perhaps you should treat them like such, at least politically.

There are a lot of social niceties/faux pas that will get ignored when the guest is carrying a big enough stick. If you want to reinforce the use of courtly manners without potentially escalating a foreign power perhaps have a sweating and clearly terrified court servant follow them around and desperately try to correct/cover up any social blunders. Things like quickly sweeping up after them if they didn't wipe their feet before entering, or hastily adding "Your Highness" or "Overlord Eminence the Unuttered, first of his name, last of his line, Keeper of the Deathwatch" every time the party addresses the monarch. This kind of thing would simultaneously demonstrate the importance of such political niceties (even if the PCs aren't doing it it still needs to be done), respect for the party's power (no one is grinding the encounter to a halt demanding petty social acts), and perhaps adding a very slight element of social shame (the PCs are the only ones needing a servant to show manners for them).

In D&D-land personal power can be far more important than political power and I don't think that is a lesson that rulers would forget any time soon. Properly taking that into account may be the key to mending things with your party.

Thoughts?
good point. I did something similar with my campaign, when politicians were always nice to adventurers because they need them. smart adventurers also are very nice to each other, because you don't want to piss off someone with high level magic. and smart supervillains are also nice with their underlings, it builds up loialty much better. and after a while even the players started being nice, because they realized it would win them more allies - my world had definitely too many powerful people to fight all of them.
So, basically everyone was super-nice to everyone else. including people bent on world domination.




Putting aside the ethics of shooting at an unknown person with unknown motives and trying to hit as many bystanders as possible, to me I just don't follow from a tactical perspective. Can you explain where my logic fails here?

1: Unless you are explicitly there to kill someone, it is almost always better to accomplish your goals without violence as the risk of death or injury is high.
2: If someone hasn't attacked yet, they probably aren't intent on attacking. "Always keep them talking," as hostage negotiators say.
3: If they have a tremendous tactical advantage, it is in your best interest to do everything in your power to make sure that combat doesn't start until that advantage has gone away.
4: If they have a minor tactical advantage, its in your best interest to ignore it, as the odds of it actually meaning the difference between life and death are much smaller and less severe.

Basically, its a risk analysis of avoiding being killed. If someone has a gun to my back and is talking to me (or a similar situation), I need to run the odds of A: Me being able to get their drop on them and kill them despite their advantage vs. B: Them deciding they are going to kill me anyway despite the fact that they haven't done so already; and I can think of very few cases where the odds of A outweigh the odds of B.



your logic fails in several points
- at the premise of unknown intentions and innocent bystanders.
they were surrounded by illithids, who may have been friendly or may have been trying to sucker them into an ambush. and they may hav easily dominated the rogue. and pulling off the light would have been a perfect setup for an ambush, as illithids have darkvision and the players don't. Really, taking off the light is hampering the players the same way as springing a rope trap on them, or tiying them up. intentions may be unknown, but someone putting you in a position of weakness to threaten you rarely has goood intentions.
So, even if the intentions were unknown, there was a good chance that they were lethal. assuing th eworst was reasonable
- on point 2) if someone hasn't attacked yet but he's getting in a better position to attack, there's a good chance that he's going to attack later. If someone is pulling a gun on you, he isn't attacking you yet, and he may just want to show it off; but in a tense situation, he may very easily be pulling out the gun to shoot, and trying to shoot first is a reasonable response.
- on point 3) it wasn't a situation of tremendous tactical advantage, otherwise the party wouldn't have won. in fact, since the party won, I'd argue they were the one with the advantage. they were just strong enough that they could handle it even when disadvantaged. so the whole point doesn't stand.
Plus, the part about "keeping them talk" applies when you have reasons to think they want to talk. in a hostage situation they keep them talking because the kidnappers do not want to kill the hostages and are not going to do it unless cornered.
if taking off the light was the premise to an ambush, and it could be surmised the bad guys wanted the players dead. so attacking from a position of disadvantage was a desperate move from someone who had nothing to lose.
Consider this case. a robber pulls a gun on you. you know he just want your money, and you comply. Because you know he won't shoot you.
Now assume that you saw on the news that there is a robber who always shoots the victims to not leave witnesses, and they show a picture of him taken from a security camera. And you recognize him in the guy robbing you. Your disadvantage is the same, but now you try to disarm the guy. because your expectation now is that if you surrender you'll get dead anyway.
heck, it's like the first rule of professional killers. never let the guy know you want to kill him. always make him believe he can get away. otherwise, he may try soemthing desperate, and he may get lucky.
and it's also an important rule for people who are being kidnapped. recognize if those people want to kill you regardless, and if they do, try to get away, even against desperate odds.
- and I can't really understand how point 4) is related to it.




Sure, the Party might surpass the Count in Levels, but then they are now dealing with the Baron, and then the Earl, and then the Duke, and finally the (usually) 20th level Monarch. And no, i don't always do Quadratic Wizard types, I also like King Conan :biggrin:

IMO: people in Power are there because they earned it.
Especially in a D&D-esk world, where Adventures are as common as dimes (silver), if not pennies (copper).

In my world, the people in power are good at politics, diplomacy, administration. not necessarily at violence.
they can rule because they can persuade enough of the people that are good at violence that they can do a better job at ruling, and it's in everyone's interest to keep things like that.

[Max_Killjoy]

Talakeal, I don't mean this as a shot at you, but after a few of these threads it seems like we never get the whole story, with all the facts, the first time -- it's only after we start to comment that you add in crucial details in response to our statements that were based on what you originally gave us.

~~~~



In my world, the people in power are good at politics, diplomacy, administration. not necessarily at violence.
they can rule because they can persuade enough of the people that are good at violence that they can do a better job at ruling, and it's in everyone's interest to keep things like that.


Whereas in some editions of D&D, everyone gets levels and rulers are better at violence too.

[zinycor]

And what about after Conan becomes a king? Would he suddenly start accepting disrespect now that it came from his underlings? You are missing my point, the PCs at my game would be able to disrespect the kings or Gods cause they are PCs, and think insulting or killing whoever you want is heroic. Getting insulted isn't.



And its not really about disrespect; for example, one time the party was lost in the desert and had a vision of the goddess of nature giving them directions to a sacred oasis nearby, but asked them not to kill any of the animals who dwelt their. Bob (and Dave)'s response was to burn the oasis down to show the goddess what happens when she tells them what to do.

That is something me or my players would do. Seems pretty fun.

[Excession]

Talakeal, I don't mean this as a shot at you, but after a few of these threads it seems like we never get the whole story, with all the facts, the first time -- it's only after we start to comment that you add in crucial details in response to our statements that were based on what you originally gave us.

I once had a DM with that habit as well. You declare an action only to find out nothing about the scene just described is accurate. It can be infuriating.

[Bashhammer]

That is something me or my players would do. Seems pretty fun.

So wait, you're gonna destroy something that a goddess asked you, ASKED YOU, not to destroy, even though she helped you during a possibly life-threatening situation, all because she had the "gall" to ask you not to do it?

That sounds like the eptimum of terrible, jerk, and terrible jerk. What, if someone said "have a nice day!" would you and your players actively seek out having a bad day just to spite them?

[kyoryu]

Putting aside the ethics of shooting at an unknown person with unknown motives and trying to hit as many bystanders as possible, to me I just don't follow from a tactical perspective. Can you explain where my logic fails here?

1: Unless you are explicitly there to kill someone, it is almost always better to accomplish your goals without violence as the risk of death or injury is high.
2: If someone hasn't attacked yet, they probably aren't intent on attacking. "Always keep them talking," as hostage negotiators say.
3: If they have a tremendous tactical advantage, it is in your best interest to do everything in your power to make sure that combat doesn't start until that advantage has gone away.
4: If they have a minor tactical advantage, its in your best interest to ignore it, as the odds of it actually meaning the difference between life and death are much smaller and less severe.

It's pretty simple, really.

Someone maneuvering to get tactical advantage probably isn't your friend. People that do not have hostile intentions and that want to keep things calm generally do not surround/flank/etc. their opponents.

It's simple game theory.



X
Hostile
Peaceful


Attack
.5
.5


Talk
0
1



This assumes a 50/50 chance of success in a combat. In this case, if you are at least 50% convinced that the enemy wants to attack you, you are better off attacking. If you have a better than 50/50 chance of winning the combat, it takes less convincing to make it worthwhile. And in either case, attacking prevents the worst - 0 - outcome, so if you are loss averse (which makes sense, since getting TPKed is more like -100000), then it makes a lot of sense to just attack.


Basically, its a risk analysis of avoiding being killed. If someone has a gun to my back and is talking to me (or a similar situation), I need to run the odds of A: Me being able to get their drop on them and kill them despite their advantage vs. B: Them deciding they are going to kill me anyway despite the fact that they haven't done so already; and I can think of very few cases where the odds of A outweigh the odds of B.

The problem here is that you're right - if the gun is already at your back. If you're "talking" to someone and it seems like they're trying to move around you and put a gun in your back, the best thing to do is to prevent them from doing so.


Disarm is a combat action, involving using brute force and skill at arms to knock a weapon out of the hand of someone who is actively defending themselves. Sneaking up on someone and snatching something from them while they are distracted is a fundamentally different technique in my opinion.

And neither action is really something you do if you're trying to chat. Especially since you've had NPCs surround the party prior to a combat before (the orc camp).

[zinycor]

So wait, you're gonna destroy something that a goddess asked you, ASKED YOU, not to destroy, even though she helped you during a possibly life-threatening situation, all because she had the "gall" to ask you not to do it?

That sounds like the eptimum of terrible, jerk, and terrible jerk. What, if someone said "have a nice day!" would you and your players actively seek out having a bad day just to spite them?

Yeah, I love playing as an absolute Jerk.

Edit: Just to be clear, In my honest opinion, you can be as much of a jerk to NPCs as you wish as long as this doesn't bother the other people at the table. One of the wonderful things on RPGs is that as long as you have consent from the other people at your table, you can have your character do everything that you want and since you aren't doing really anything, there is no judgement.

In my opinion consent is the most important thing, and when Bob or Brian insult the other players, or attack the party's allies without reason, they are breaking consent and should be kicked from the table because of it.

[Bashhammer]

Yeah, I love playing as an absolute Jerk.

Uh-huh. Gonna put you on my "never play with this individual list", no offense.

[zinycor]

Uh-huh. Gonna put you on my "never play with this individual list", no offense.

Why? is something wrong?

[Bashhammer]

Why? is something wrong?

I don't like jerks. My characters never like jerks, most of them are of the friendly good guy style of personality. Having a someone who loves playing jerks in the same group is asking for trouble, so I'm gonna avoid it. I don't care about any potential "good rp" that might come out of it, I prefer NOT getting pissed off.

[zinycor]

I don't like jerks. My characters never like jerks, most of them are of the friendly good guy style of personality. Having a someone who loves playing jerks in the same group is asking for trouble, so I'm gonna avoid it. I don't care about any potential "good rp" that might come out of it, I prefer NOT getting pissed off.

Then I wouldn't play a jerk.

[Bashhammer]

Then I wouldn't play a jerk.

Ok, I just saw the edit of that other post. I'm still gonna be wary of people who claim that they love playing jerks, just as I'm wary of people who say they love playing evil and murderhobos. I'm gonna go back to my lurking, good night everybody.

[zinycor]

Ok, I just saw the edit of that other post. I'm still gonna be wary of people who claim that they love playing jerks, just as I'm wary of people who say they love playing evil and murderhobos. I'm gonna go back to my lurking, good night everybody.

Good Night.

[Talakeal]

Talakeal, I don't mean this as a shot at you, but after a few of these threads it seems like we never get the whole story, with all the facts, the first time -- it's only after we start to comment that you add in crucial details in response to our statements that were based on what you originally gave us.

The length of a post is inversely proportional to how many responses it gets. If I want to have a dialogue, I need to summarize it as quickly as possible, walls of text tend to get ignored. Heck, I have had more than one occasion where someone asked me for a more detailed explanation, I went to the trouble of writing out a very in depth response, and then the thread promptly died as neither they nor anyone else cared enough to read it.


I once had a DM with that habit as well. You declare an action only to find out nothing about the scene just described is accurate. It can be infuriating.

Don't assume that people talk the same way on forums as they do in person.


Especially since you've had NPCs surround the party prior to a combat before (the orc camp).

Wow, you must have a good memory, that was so long ago I don't recall it at all. When did this happen?



Like most, I'm on Bob's side on this - at least, for the initial description of events. I also absolutely love the delicious irony of murdering someone who hates monologues… when they attempt to monologue. And the delicious irony of the party actually acting heroic, and killing evil despite the odds, to the GM's dismay.

Now, once all the details are added in, it paints a different picture. Trying to express one with the other was… counterproductive. But the PC acting the way they did, before the NPC began talking? That's just good role-playing.

Is attacking someone who has put you at a disadvantage a reasonable course of action? Absolutely! Imagine if that disadvantage was caused by a more active method - poison, loss of HP, a curse, etc. So long as victory is still possible, the correct* response to someone initiating hostilities is to end them. The only tactical error may have been in not dealing with the disadvantage / not seeking advantage (ie, I didn't read any mention of the party creating a new light source (unless corpses burn in your system, in which case kudos to Bob)).

Is "imposing disadvantage" tantamount to initiating hostilities? Absolutely. Any good "no PvP" game would have that Rogue on many counts of initiating PvP (or NPvP, as appropriate to his current status), including theft and imposing disadvantage in dire conditions (surrounded by Illithids of questionable intent).

Also, as I think has not been explicitly mentioned, you don't put someone at combat disadvantage unless you're looking at the situation in terms of combat. Which, in turn, forces the PCs* to look at the situation in terms of combat. At which point, "****, kill 'em all!" is the only logical response to so many Illithids*, who the paranoid adventurer will deduce probably brainwashed their former friend.

* According to adventurers who live to tell the tale

-----

To recap, the party negotiated with one of the most Evil groups in D&D. This group has been uncharacteristically benevolent. Just when the party has been set at ease, a former ally and long-term prisoner of these telepathic bad guys sneaks up on the party, and suddenly imposes disadvantage on them (but not the bad guys or himself). And the GM is surprised that the party responded violently?

-----



And you've just stated you problem right there: you find Bob's gameplay disruptive. You know what he wants - why don't you find a way to give him what he wants that isn't disruptive?

Let's look at this in terms of one of your other problems: balancing the game. You designed and carefully tuned the balance of the boss fight with the assumption of the assistance of the NPC. And what if they didn't want the NPC to join (for whatever reason)? Or what if, as happened here, they expended resources killing the (Illithids and the) NPC? What advantage did you design into the adventure for these Bob-style choices?

Let's leave out the moral and emotional issues. I don't really care if Bob did the "right" thing, the rest of the party is evil, they are playing literal cannibals, slavers, child killers, and devil worshipers. It is mildly amusing / irritating that Bob insists on writing "Good" on his character sheet and comes up with litanies of excuses as to why his actions are justified, to the point where it is a running joke in our gaming group.

In short, neither myself nor the other players want a game of pure hack and slash, but Bob does. I am not sure if it is paranoia or just an attempt to get his way, but it seems like he will take any excuse to initiate combat and drag the party along with him.

The real issue is that he finds ways to surprise me in screwing over himself and the rest of the party, and then he bitches at me that I am making my encounters to hard, when I have no way of foreseeing how many complications he is going to bring to the party. Its a really frustrating issue that crops up in a lot of my games; Bob attacks something and then gets mad when it is too strong for him yes, but the other players also introduce elements to the game that they don't want to deal with.*

In this particular case I had no idea that he was going to blindly attack like that, because it was such a tactically inept move. It was meant to be a social encounter, and the rogue would only actually fight for them if they did amazingly well or attack them if they botched it up something fierce, but he wasn't a huge threat on his own, just a little something extra. What really made the encounter deadly was choosing to attack the Illithids without first activating another light source, and that really came out of left field for me.


*: I had another player who would do this all the time, come up with a plan and then get mad at me for following through with it. For example, he would hire civilians to be bait for monsters and then get mad at me when they got eaten, seduce an NPC and then get mad at me for bringing sexuality into the game, stage a rape to lure out a vigilante and then getting mad when he was branded a rapist, etc.


And it does make the rogue's move even DUMBER: he was surrounded by allies, he could have talked to the party openly. he had no reason whatsoever to blind them. So, this makes the whole sad story a case of "shoot him, he has a wallet (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShootHimHeHasAWallet)". relevant part:

It depends on context. mostly, because most of the times it is clear that someone threatening you is giving you a way out, while in this case it wasn't.
this sums it up nicely. though if the party that's being threatened believes that they will be killed anyway, they may still try something desperate.
if a robber pulls a gun on me, the threat works because from the situation I presume the robber wants my money, is not going to kill me unless I try something stupid, and I don't have the combat skill to try to disarm him.
If the police pulls a gun on me, I know they are the police, they are not going to hurt me unless I do something stupid, they are only being paranoid because they expect they may have to deal with someone pulling a gun on them.
In all those cases, I know surrendering to the threat won't get me dead.

Your party was surrounded by illithids who may have been cooperative or may have been planning to fool them and set them up in an ambush. illlithids have darkvision, so taking out the light is a perfect setup for an ambush. and the friendly rogue may very easily have been dominated.
But most important, in that case surrendering may well have resulted in having their brains eaten. that's why in this case a threat elicited a deadly reaction. And Bob may well have been in the right if he wasn't, well, bob.
we all don't understand why you don't all kick him; you say three other players are fine enough?


good point. I did something similar with my campaign, when politicians were always nice to adventurers because they need them. smart adventurers also are very nice to each other, because you don't want to piss off someone with high level magic. and smart supervillains are also nice with their underlings, it builds up loialty much better. and after a while even the players started being nice, because they realized it would win them more allies - my world had definitely too many powerful people to fight all of them.
So, basically everyone was super-nice to everyone else. including people bent on world domination.


your logic fails in several points
- at the premise of unknown intentions and innocent bystanders.
they were surrounded by illithids, who may have been friendly or may have been trying to sucker them into an ambush. and they may hav easily dominated the rogue. and pulling off the light would have been a perfect setup for an ambush, as illithids have darkvision and the players don't. Really, taking off the light is hampering the players the same way as springing a rope trap on them, or tiying them up. intentions may be unknown, but someone putting you in a position of weakness to threaten you rarely has goood intentions.
So, even if the intentions were unknown, there was a good chance that they were lethal. assuing th eworst was reasonable
- on point 2) if someone hasn't attacked yet but he's getting in a better position to attack, there's a good chance that he's going to attack later. If someone is pulling a gun on you, he isn't attacking you yet, and he may just want to show it off; but in a tense situation, he may very easily be pulling out the gun to shoot, and trying to shoot first is a reasonable response.
- on point 3) it wasn't a situation of tremendous tactical advantage, otherwise the party wouldn't have won. in fact, since the party won, I'd argue they were the one with the advantage. they were just strong enough that they could handle it even when disadvantaged. so the whole point doesn't stand.
Plus, the part about "keeping them talk" applies when you have reasons to think they want to talk. in a hostage situation they keep them talking because the kidnappers do not want to kill the hostages and are not going to do it unless cornered.
if taking off the light was the premise to an ambush, and it could be surmised the bad guys wanted the players dead. so attacking from a position of disadvantage was a desperate move from someone who had nothing to lose.
Consider this case. a robber pulls a gun on you. you know he just want your money, and you comply. Because you know he won't shoot you.
Now assume that you saw on the news that there is a robber who always shoots the victims to not leave witnesses, and they show a picture of him taken from a security camera. And you recognize him in the guy robbing you. Your disadvantage is the same, but now you try to disarm the guy. because your expectation now is that if you surrender you'll get dead anyway.
heck, it's like the first rule of professional killers. never let the guy know you want to kill him. always make him believe he can get away. otherwise, he may try soemthing desperate, and he may get lucky.
and it's also an important rule for people who are being kidnapped. recognize if those people want to kill you regardless, and if they do, try to get away, even against desperate odds.
- and I can't really understand how point 4) is related to it.


In my world, the people in power are good at politics, diplomacy, administration. not necessarily at violence.
they can rule because they can persuade enough of the people that are good at violence that they can do a better job at ruling, and it's in everyone's interest to keep things like that.

I really think you need to analyze it on a case by case basis, which is why Bob's absolute declaration makes no sense.

First off, in general, the PCs are the aggressors. They are armed home invaders, and a lot of people they are dealing with are acting in pure self defense.

Second, sometimes it is a really bad move tactically, to the point of just being irrational. If, for example, the bad guy shoots your gun out of your hand and then proceeds to ask if you can talk it over without killing, it doesn't matter if he is the vilest scoundrel in the world, it would be just plain stupid to charge the armed gunslinger in an indigent rage and try and slap him to death.


In this particular case the odds are like this:

A: The players don't know if the person putting out the lights is planning to attack them.
B: The players don't know if the illithids are in on it.
C: The players are at a huge disadvantage in the darkness.

So, by attacking, they are initiating combat in the dark against an unknown party AND a potentially friendly party.

By not attacking, they are only risking a single round worth of actions.

IMO, the optimal strategy would have been to light a torch, close ranks around the torchbearer, cast a defensive spell on the party, and then have everyone else either go full defensive or ready an action.

That way they are not initiating needless combat if one (or both) of the enemy groups are not hostile, and if the enemies ARE hostile, they are actually significantly better able to fight back.

Simply firing blindly into the darkness and going out of your way to hit as many bystanders as possible is, from a purely tactical perspective, the worst of both worlds.

[Great Dragon]

In my world, the people in power are good at politics, diplomacy, administration. not necessarily at violence.

they can rule because they can persuade enough of the people that are good at violence that they can do a better job at ruling, and it's in everyone's interest to keep things like that.

(Thanks for responding to me)

True, but they still earned that respect, and attacking them has Major Dire Consequences.

Sadly, for someone like Bob, unless the Threat is both Obviously Overwhelming and In His Face, he's going to attack.

(1) Because Bob knows Talakeal won't respond (like most DMs would)

(2) Also, because Bob's only in the game for cheap Power Fantasy thrills; and possibly throwing the Kingdom/Region into Anarchical Chaos would make Bob very happy.

Bob (with maybe assistance from Brian) might counter-threaten those "weak" administration types into working for him !!

But, probably not, too much talking...

[zinycor]

In short, neither myself nor the other players want a game of pure hack and slash, but Bob does. I am not sure if it is paranoia or just an attempt to get his way, but it seems like he will take any excuse to initiate combat and drag the party along with him.

The real issue is that he finds ways to surprise me in screwing over himself and the rest of the party, and then he bitches at me that I am making my encounters to hard, when I have no way of foreseeing how many complications he is going to bring to the party. Its a really frustrating issue that crops up in a lot of my games; Bob attacks something and then gets mad when it is too strong for him yes, but the other players also introduce elements to the game that they don't want to deal with.

So... You realize all of these things... And for some weird reason you continue to play with Bob? WHY?

[OldTrees1]

Again, this absolutely baffles me, and I am having a hard time actually taking the argument seriously as anything but an attempt to score points on the internet.

If this is normal thinking, why would anyone ever threaten someone if the typical response is attacking in a blind rage?

PS: Apparently your elaboration changed your story in some post. I missed it. I am still talking about the initial description of "NPC stranger blinds the party and the DM expected the party to not defend themselves against the hostile threat." You found "fighting back" to be a baffling reaction to being threatened. Hopefully this explanation can help your future predictions of player actions.

Talakeal, IRL people are taught to fight back when being attacked, kidnapped, or otherwise have their life threatened, unless and until they have a means of escape. Even when outclassed, merely being a riskier target is one of the only defense options people have.

Now imagine the person being threatened is strong enough to win the fight. Of course they are going to fight back.

If a stranger surprised you by putting an opaque bag over your head and tied it closed (blinding you), would you go quietly or would you try to escape? If you can't escape, would you fight back to try to enable a way to escape, or would to go quietly? (I probably would fight back rather ineffectively, but perhaps the noise and the resistance would make them look for a better victim)

If a stranger put a knife to your throat, would you just go quietly or would you look for an opportunity to kick them in the crotch/elbow their gut. The latter can give you the chance to move away from the knife. Which might just mean you survive the encounter. (I probably would seize up in fear instead, but I know what I should do)

You ask why is anyone ever threatened? 2 reasons:
A) Because some people seize up in a crisis, others shutdown in a crisis, some even go quietly because the animal brain focuses on the immediate threat rather than threatening outcome of going quietly. So as long as there are easy victims, they attacker can sometimes succeed.
B) The attacker picks their fights. They go in knowing they are stronger, better armed, have the initiative, and usually outnumber their victim. Any one of those advantages is a massive advantage.
So IRL people are taught to fight back (A) and how to fight back (B) as a means of making themselves a less viable target. The goal is to make threatening a less viable strategy (especially against them) which would decrease the total frequency of that kind of assault and increase the chance of an attempt being aborted.

[Segev]

Regarding Bob and playing chicken and taking "moral high ground" by whining that you're a "killer DM" if he picks a fight that results in a TPK...

Just remember three words: "Are you sure?"

It may not be enough the first time. If not, remind him of what, exactly, he's facing. Only do this if it's really something you'll have to pull punches on to avoid a TPK. If he insists, let him do it, and then run the TPK encounter.

Let the other PCs try to resolve it or surrender or whatnot, if they're willing to distance themselves from the provoking actions of Bob, but Bob's made his bed.

It's important that you reminded him what the situation was, and showed that it was his choice to pick a fight he couldn't win. If he claims it's because you're a killer DM, tell him that there was no need for the fight, and that Bob's character wouldn't have died if he'd not picked it. He can yell and whine all he wants, but he'll be very obviously the one in the wrong, and come off as childish.

[Talakeal]

If a stranger put a knife to your throat, would you just go quietly or would you look for an opportunity to kick them in the crotch/elbow their gut. The latter can give you the chance to move away from the knife. Which might just mean you survive the encounter. (I probably would seize up in fear instead, but I know what I should do).

Assuming I didnt panic, I would assess the situation. If he wanted to rob me or interrogate me or something, I would go along with him, I would only fight if it looked like he was intent on kidnapping, raping, or torturing, or simply luring me someplace private to kill me.

Also, keep in mind that in a gaming situation, the PCs are entering into the enemies lair armed and uninvited. If I was breaking into someone's house and an unknown party put a knife to my throat, my first thought would be that it was the houses' owner acting in self defense, and would do everything I could to convince him I wasn't a threat.


It's not a very effective threat if the one making it was the only one who ended up dead now was it?

It wasn't meant as a threat, it was meant as a deterrent, as he knew he couldn't take the party in a fight, but hoped the darkness would allow him time to speak his peace before being attacked if the party was hostile. Of course, neither he (nor I) counted on Bob's willingness to indiscriminately nuke bystanders.

[Kardwill]

1: Unless you are explicitly there to kill someone, it is almost always better to accomplish your goals without violence as the risk of death or injury is high.
2: If someone hasn't attacked yet, they probably aren't intent on attacking. "Always keep them talking," as hostage negotiators say.
3: If they have a tremendous tactical advantage, it is in your best interest to do everything in your power to make sure that combat doesn't start until that advantage has gone away.
4: If they have a minor tactical advantage, its in your best interest to ignore it, as the odds of it actually meaning the difference between life and death are much smaller and less severe.


Not in your game. In D&D, the actual risk is usually low (mid-to-high level PCs are very resilient, and most combats are tilted to their advantage), and in your game, it simply does not exist. You said it yourself in another thread : There is no consequence to a TPK in your campaign. The characters don't die, the situation doesn't go to hell, they don't lose any ressource. The threat of death/defeat simply doesn't exist.

If you want your players to play as if risk existed, then you need buy-in from tour group. You don't have Bob's, so he will never react as you think fit. Simple as that.

I'm a no-kill GM myself on some of my campaigns (in my Fate games, my players know I won't kill off their characters, unless the conflict/danger is explicitely framed as such. Although defeat will have other consequences), but I can afford it because my players are willing to cooperate. You can't.

If you want to enforce this "violence is scary" mentality at your table, then stop playing D&D in godmode. Play lethal games like Call of Cthulhu instead, where violence means a very real likelyhood of losing your character. And play one-shots instead of campaigns, so that your story continuity doesn't need the PCs survival. Then your players will start looking for alternate ways to solve problems. Or reroll another character every game, whatever.

[King of Nowhere]

IMO, the optimal strategy would have been to light a torch, close ranks around the torchbearer, cast a defensive spell on the party, and then have everyone else either go full defensive or ready an action.

That way they are not initiating needless combat if one (or both) of the enemy groups are not hostile, and if the enemies ARE hostile, they are actually significantly better able to fight back.

Simply firing blindly into the darkness and going out of your way to hit as many bystanders as possible is, from a purely tactical perspective, the worst of both worlds.

Perhaps. Depends on how likely you think it is being attacked. If you think it's very likely, you may still want to strike preemptively.

But regardless. When you put people in a tense situation, make them feel threatened, and then pull off a surprise, they rarely will pick the best tactic option. They won't have the time to analyze it, won't have the informations for an accurate assessment.
Lashing out blindly on the immediate assumption that they're out to get you is a perfectly realistic response. Heck, the page i linked from tvtropes has many examples of people similarly overreacting when they felt their life was threatened.

And to take a proverbial page out of your book, i did address your logic, but you didn't address mine.
People hampering your capacity to fight do so probably because they want to fight. Or at the very least they want to put you in a position of weakness to blackmail you or take advantage of you somehow. So treating them as hostiles is the proper course of action. Especially when you know they are a cult of illithids who would have no qualms murdering everyone.
Can you point out fallacies in it?

Also, as another poster correctly pointed out, all your logic of risk vs reward doesn't apply to your table because you run a non-lethal game. So even if the party is at a huge disadvantage, they are still in no risk whatsoever. This changes the equation for bob, giving him free rein to go murderhobo with impunity.

[Quertus]

In this particular case I had no idea that he was going to blindly attack like that, because it was such a tactically inept move. What really made the encounter deadly was choosing to attack the Illithids without first activating another light source, and that really came out of left field for me.

In this particular case the odds are like this:

A: The players don't know if the person putting out the lights is planning to attack them.
B: The players don't know if the illithids are in on it.
C: The players are at a huge disadvantage in the darkness.

So, by attacking, they are initiating combat in the dark against an unknown party AND a potentially friendly party.

By not attacking, they are only risking a single round worth of actions.

IMO, the optimal strategy would have been to light a torch, close ranks around the torchbearer, cast a defensive spell on the party, and then have everyone else either go full defensive or ready an action.


Of course, neither he (nor I) counted on Bob's willingness to indiscriminately nuke bystanders.

Wow. This is just so wrong, tactically speaking.

Yes, tasty brains, please respond to this sudden darkness by clustering up so that we Illithids can AoE SoL you… how many Illithids were present? That many times; more, if we have additional hidden allies.

I challenge the Playground to tell me a story of adventurers who were… what level is your party? Pre- Mind Blank, at least… who were not immune to mind effects, allowed a gaggle of Illithids a free round to mind blast them *after they cluster together*, and lived to tell the tale. Anyone? Because I've got plenty of stories of TPKs from fighting just a few Illithids, without giving them a free round. Illithids are scary!

From the PoV of the PCs, the Illithids are not "innocent bystanders". They are Evil telepathic brain-eating slavers. It is all but incomprehensible that this being who just turned out the lights just snuck into the chamber with the elder brain without the Illithids being aware of it. Which means that it is in cahoots with the Illithids. So, the Illithids ally just turned out the lights. If the Illithids didn't instajib their ally for this offense, it means that it was all part of their evil plan.

This isn't a case of "not knowing what's going on", this is a case of what's going on being very strongly telegraphed - in a way that's deceptive, and anti-Bob.

So, yeah, absolutely, for any sane adventurers, the only chance to walk out of there alive is to nuke the room. I'm guessing Bob is best at that.

The tactical error was the rest of the party* not making a light source.

* Or, well, of whoever was capable**, either a) the one who went first, or b) the one least capable of contributing in the current situation.
** And, if that isn't "everybody", you can count that as a second tactical error.

[Great Dragon]

@Bashhammer and zinycor

The problem could have been resolved by the group having a Session Zero, where likes and dislikes can be discussed, and conflict avoided. Hard lined "never" conditions stated, and if not acceptable - means still leaving under at least polite Attitudes.

I mean, I can play in a game where one player is portraying Deadpool's "I don't care about nothing much but me", and bad mouthing tendencies.
(The constant 4th Wall breaking would get tiresome after awhile)
Or Wolverine's "Don't Mess With Me" (but, I'm still a team player) attitude.

But, only if these conditions are met:
(1) This is kept IC, and the Player's OoC behavior is Friendly.

(2) This behavior isn't used to screw anyone, much less everyone, in the Group/Party. Sure, mouthing off to the (Authority/Ruler) might have RP consequences, but there isn't even a Remote Chance of combat because of that.

(3) This was established from the introduction of both Player and Character. "Hi: I'm Jim, and I'd like to play a Kalashtar Bear Barbarian with the attitude of Lobo."
But the above conditions were Accepted by Jim.

@Bashhammer I also tend to lurk.
But, if you are interested in Chatting, drop me a PM, or post a comment in Ancient Realms, and I'll respond as quickly as possible.


Sadly, Talakeal seems to only discover the Bad Player/s during actual game play, and his own desires to keep playing (at nearly any cost) is easy to figure out, and exploited by people like Bob.

But then, Bob also has the "I can just leave, and come back anytime I want" Don't Care Attitude (because he's not as interested in doing the Game like anyone else in the Group - especially Talakeal), and because there aren't any Consequences (from DM or - more importantly - Other Group Members) Bob gets away with it. Which just reinforces his attitude and behavior.

I'm simply waiting for Talakeal to announce that the game has wrapped up, and hope that when he resumes GMing, he'll either "Forget" to invite those disruptive Players, or be more willing to enforce consequences on them. And make it perfectly clear that this will be the case, in advance.

Some of the Suggestions that were made are good ideas. (Sorry, don't have time to look up who said what)

(1) Don't build complete Campaign Plots. Like: "Stop Vecna from becoming a God" these are Endgame Events.

(2) Use a series of one-shot Goals/Plots.
Then during non-game days figure out how to link them together. (I use modules, so tend to name them as Examples)
Like Phandelver (Basic Set) into Icespire Peak (Essentials Set), into (level adjusted) Sunless Citadel, into (World adjusted) Storm King's Thunder, into Tyranny of Dragons.

Or Night Below into >Out of the Abyss< into [/b]Decent into Avernus[/b] into Planescape.

Thus, going from 1st to 20th level is possible.

(3) Use PC specific information to enhance the game, but: Don't build the entire Game being Dependent on specific PC/s being present or even Alive. Let the Dice speak, and have consequences for bad plans and especially bad behavior.

Sure, avoid TPKs, but if that happens, allow it. Put in ways for PCs to come back, even at Low Level:

Use Celestials, (Arch)Devils, Demon Lords, Genies, Warlock Patrons, and even Gods (Both Good and Bad) to give them the means to get back into the Game. The real question is "What are they willing to pay for it?" Both IC and OoC.

Lots of RP to mine, there.

Well, if you read all that:
Thanks!!

[Talakeal]

Wow. This is just so wrong, tactically speaking.

Yes, tasty brains, please respond to this sudden darkness by clustering up so that we Illithids can AoE SoL you… how many Illithids were present? That many times; more, if we have additional hidden allies.

I challenge the Playground to tell me a story of adventurers who were… what level is your party? Pre- Mind Blank, at least… who were not immune to mind effects, allowed a gaggle of Illithids a free round to mind blast them *after they cluster together*, and lived to tell the tale. Anyone? Because I've got plenty of stories of TPKs from just fighting a few Illithids, without giving them a free round.

From the PoV of the PCs, the Illithids are not "innocent bystanders". They are Evil telepathic brain-eating slavers. It is all but incomprehensible that this being who just turned out the lights just snuck into the chamber with the elder brain without the Illithids being aware of it. Which means that it is in cahoots with the Illithids. So, the Illithids ally just turned out the lights. If the Illithids didn't instajib their ally for this offense, it means that it was all part of their evil plan.

This isn't a case of "not knowing what's going on", this is a case of what's going on being very strongly telegraphed - in a way that's deceptive, and anti-Bob.

So, yeah, absolutely, for any sane adventurers, the only chance to walk out of there alive is to nuke the room. I'm guessing Bob is best at that.

The tactical error was the rest of the party* not making a light source.

* Or, well, of whoever was capable**, either a) the one who went first, or b) the one least capable of contributing in the current situation.
** And, if that isn't "everybody", you can count that as a second tactical error.

There are a whole lot of incorrect assumptions in that paragraph. If you really want to go down the rabbit hole and discuss them line by line we can.

[zinycor]

There are a whole lot of incorrect assumptions in that paragraph. If you really want to go down the rabbit hole and discuss them line by line we can.

Illithids aren't evil at your game?

Edit: Also, what was the relationship between the idiotic rogue and the Illithids?, and how much of it was set before the rogue player left the table?

[Kardwill]

There are a whole lot of incorrect assumptions in that paragraph.
Illithids are an Iconic D&D monster, that have a pretty scary reputation for many players. Maybe you're playing them in another way, but "the evil, brain-eating, mind wiping, mastermind manipulators are trying to ambush us" will be the default assumption when most players hear about that situation.
The guys are not "just any creature", they are a trope. There's a reason "Stranger Things" choose to name one of its big bads after them : They're famous in D&D culture. And the image that sticks with them is "pretty much the most evil, untrustworthy guy you can imagine"

Role reversal and trope breaking have their use in a good story, but they are tricky, and can go haywire if a player is trigger happy.

[kyoryu]

There are a whole lot of incorrect assumptions in that paragraph. If you really want to go down the rabbit hole and discuss them line by line we can.

I may have a handle on what's going on. Maybe.

So, in your mind, the illithids don't really want to fight, and the reunion with the NPC was a cool thing and a cool way of making a cool scene rather than just having them talk, right?

So the question you have is "why would Bob attack when everybody just wanted to talk?" Which is a fair question.

The problem is, that you knew that they only wanted to talk. Maybe some of the other players did becuase they've figured out your style. But it's not clear from the events that the NPCs just wanted to talk.

If I'm a PC in your game, here's what I'm thinking:

"Illithids are scary! Man, I'm glad we got out of that one!" (And I'm sure you played up the tension of that because, well, why wouldn't you? A bargaining with illithids should be intense!)

"Wait... our lights went out... and an NPC with an obvious grudge is talking to us! Ack! It's a setup!"

Or at least, I'm considering that maybe it was a setup. I don't know. And that's the problem. I don't know if this is a setup that's going to lead to an attack or not. And if it is, then I'm hosed. The longer I stall, the better their position gets. My only chance is to take quick, decisive action, or gamble that they aren't going to attack.

Because the players don't know what you know. They only know what's happening in the scene. They don't know the motives, or your future plans, or what you "expect" them to do.

Now, i'm not saying that what Bob did was "right", or that I would have done the same thing. But it's not unreasonable.

Also, I'd recommend not trying to predict what the players will do. You obviously had this scene all planned out, and the big issue is that Bob didn't play his part. You tried to amp up the threat to force him down one path - and he still wouldn't go. I'd really recommend presenting questions to your players that they can react to however they want, rather than planning out scenes that you expect to be played to in a certain way.

[zinycor]

Also, I'd recommend not trying to predict what the players will do. You obviously had this scene all planned out, and the big issue is that Bob didn't play his part. You tried to amp up the threat to force him down one path - and he still wouldn't go. I'd really recommend presenting questions to your players that they can react to however they want, rather than planning out scenes that you expect to be played to in a certain way.

That's an awesome advice

[King of Nowhere]

There are a whole lot of incorrect assumptions in that paragraph. If you really want to go down the rabbit hole and discuss them line by line we can.

Maybe?

we don't know your campaign world in detail. you seem to homebrew a lot, so you likely put a different spin on lots of stuff. which is good. keeps things fresh. i've done my share of it myself. if i were to ask advice concerning orcs or goblins in my campaign, it wouldn't work because they are nothing like their common portrayal. I would have to add this, and describe them.
so maybe in your campaign illithids are not evil, or they don't eat brains, or don't have mind blast, or some other stuff.

But we cannot know any of this stuff, so we have to rely on the default. and by default, illithids are BAD. they want to enslave you and eat your brain, not necessarily in that order. they're NEVER your allies. They're NEVER friendly. and if they're being friendly, it's probably a ruse. hence, when an obvious ambush is set up, assuming that it is anything but an ambush is foolish.
And yes, bunching up against enemies heavy on area effect is a dumb strategy. much better to spread out. even bettr to kill as many as you can before they can cast their effect.
And every single person answering this thread is telling you the same, so you can't just discount our points.

Now, as you said, it's perfectly possible that your campaign works different.
If so, you either give us the complete picture, or you can't expect us to give answers based on anything but our limited knowledge.
I rarely discuss my campaign on this forum because I know it would require walls of text to explain the differences with a normal world setup. When I do, I do write walls of text, and it's better to have 2 relevant answers than to have 20 useless answers that miss the point because they don't know the world. If you want useful advice (well, besides "boot Bob") you could try the same.




Also, I'd recommend not trying to predict what the players will do. You obviously had this scene all planned out, and the big issue is that Bob didn't play his part. You tried to amp up the threat to force him down one path - and he still wouldn't go. I'd really recommend presenting questions to your players that they can react to however they want, rather than planning out scenes that you expect to be played to in a certain way.
+1 on that.
while there can be times when one decision is clearly better than another (like, allying with the good king and use his support against the big bad instead of fighting the king and the big bad at the same time), when there is actual conflict involved the party should get a choice and not be penalized for it. aside from the obvious good guys, i let the party pick their own allies.
And aside from meeting other obvious good guys, whenever there is conflict involved, my first plan is that there will be a fight. there probably won't be, my players have figured out that not making enemies you can avoid works better in the long run. but still, it's the first thing to consider, because it may happen and you can't let your campaign unravel because of it.
And if I don't want an encounter to entail a fight, I certainly don't make any dumb ambiguously threatening move towards the party.

EDIT: as a comparison, when I decided that one of my major villains would offer to ally with the party against an even greater villain, i took the following steps
- i explained clearly, out of character, that whether they wanted to do it or not was their choice. and that they would face no penalties whatever they did chooose (although of course this alliance would make things a bit easier, but mostly in that the villain was a spymaster and he would get them information, not in actual combat mechanics)
- the villain was unthreatening the whole time. he didn't bring a kill squad of bodyguards, he only had a wizard with a hair-trigger contingency to pop him to safety
- the villain, a masterful manipulator, was open and honest the whole time (as a master manipulator, he knew his best chance to stay alive was to not cross the party)
- the villain promised, if the party accepted, to reveal them important secrets about himself and his organization that would put the villain at a disadvantage in case he tried to backstab them. after the party accepted, he immediately complied
- when somebody betrayed the party and the party suspected the villain, the villain was completely helpful, and he immediately agreed to be interrogated through magical means to clear himself.

This is how you go befriending a group of professional killers who have every reason to suspect you. anything suspicious, and the party would have smoked him. which may have weakened them against the big bad, but they couldn't take the risk of being betrayed and getting weakened even more.
as for the villain, he knew that even if he had managed to defeat the party through his manipulation of their allies, the big bad would have destroied him afterwards. so it was in his best interest to try everything to be friend with the party.
As a result, he was still one of the most rich and powerful people in the world after the campaign ended.

this only worked because the party worked hard to establish a reputation for trustworthyness, though. the villain sided with them because he knew he could truust their word on an alliance, while the big bad would have probably eliminated him, as a potential rival, once he outlived his usefulness.
i doubt a villain could take such a big leap of faith in a party with Bob in it.

[zinycor]

Another thing, pickpocketing a light source, and then turning it off, against a group who largely can't see in the darkness, would likely be considered an offensive and aggressive action by most people and will be answered by some form of violence in a DnD setting.

Now, maybe the other people at your table have a better grasp on your particular tactics or can read you better in order to realize this isn't to be taken as an aggressive move, but those are very particular cases and having someone not being able to catch that should be expected.

This doesn't mean that Bob isn't a problem player, he is. Just not based on the behaviour you have described on this particular instance.


Assuming I didnt panic, I would assess the situation. If he wanted to rob me or interrogate me or something, I would go along with him, I would only fight if it looked like he was intent on kidnapping, raping, or torturing, or simply luring me someplace private to kill me.

Also, keep in mind that in a gaming situation, the PCs are entering into the enemies lair armed and uninvited. If I was breaking into someone's house and an unknown party put a knife to my throat, my first thought would be that it was the houses' owner acting in self defense, and would do everything I could to convince him I wasn't a threat..
That seems to be very particular to your play style, seems to me that most PCs would kill the homeowner and ask questions/apologize after the fact.

[kyoryu]

That seems to be very particular to your play style, seems to me that most PCs would kill the homeowner and ask questions/apologize after the fact.

Also, it's not a good analogy.

Illithids are not "average homeowners". Whether or not the PCs "broke in", they had just been negotiating/talking with the illithids, when all of a sudden things escalated.

Here's a better analogy. You've gone over to a gang's hangout to negotiate to get your cat back. After you do, you're ready to go, when somebody says they have a problem with you. The gang then circles around you. What do you do? You're heavily armed.

Still not a perfect analogy, but closer.

[Quarian Rex]

i doubt a villain could take such a big leap of faith in a party with Bob in it.


I might think that you would be wrong about that. Everything you described sounds like something that Bob would be completely on board for. Your mastermind did everything he could to show that he was trustworthy and didn't make any sudden moves. This is exactly how you should act around someone who is violent and paranoid, as most of Bob's characters seem to be. Remember, Bob didn't just start blasting in the middle of the Mind Flayer negotiations, he only opened up when an obvious ambush was initiated and his paranoia was proven to be justified.


Talakeal, I am not really looking for a response from you on this part, and this isn't in any way a judgement on your character, just accumulative perceptions of these threads from an outside observer to other outside observers who may or may not have seen these before.


Also, keep in mind that this thread is not our first rodeo with Talakeal. Over the years of similar threads certain... patterns emerge. Talakeal does something in game and his players object to it, so he details what he did and how they reacted to it, expressing dismay and confusion as to how it could have been. Almost every reply points out how the players response seems justified in that situation. Over the next page or twenty Talakeal gradually adds more detail to the situation, generally narrowing blame for the situation to Bob and usually altering the initially presented scenario to, in many ways, be the opposite of what was initially presented. Even after said update responses are almost all telling Talakeal that the players still seem justified (with a smattering of 'Get rid of Bob'). All the while Talakeal keeps repeating 'I'm baffled' despite the 'baffling' points being spelled out in exquisite detail (seriously, some of our posters are extremely effective communicators).

Despite these stories being completely onse-sided (to my knowledge Bob or any of the other players have never chirped up in one to provide an alternate perspective), while Bob's actions usually don't come off as right, they never seem to be wrong considering the situation (and history) either. The more of these threads that I read the more I tend to think that Talakeal's perception of Bob may be a ways off from what Bob actually is.

This actually brings to mind a pet training show I saw years ago (maybe it was Ceasar, I don't remember) where a woman was losing her mind because her cat seemed to hate her. It recently would walk up to the litter box and take a dump on the floor right next to it while staring at her, every damn time. She would scream that it was pooping out of spite and obviously hated her. Turns out that the cat was declawed (the last knuckle on each paw is severed) and she recently changed it's kitty litter to something that was sharply stabbing into the knuckle stumps. The cat was just trying to avoid pain while pooping. She changed back the kitty litter and the cat was fine, all that 'spite' just seemed to evaporate. I think that a lot of what Talakeal has described over the years has been like rubbing sharp kitty litter into the knuckle stumps of his players. While some of them may have gone somewhat numb to it Bob still has raw nerves, and Talakeal just sees spite.

I think there is a fundamental disconnect in their playstyles. Talakeal seems to have a very narrative focus (cool thing will happen at cool times) without regard for the consequence or implications of such narratively shoehorned moments, and Bob's characters react with violence to those consequences and implications that Talakeal doesn't see. Just look at the latest situation as presented in this thread. The thief ambushed the party and took two rounds of actions (1st/ stealth to party -> pickpocket lantern, 2nd/ destroy/douse lantern -> retreat from party) to put them at combat disadvantage in the middle of a room full of Mind Flayers (including an Elder Brain). Even ignoring the handwave required for the thief to take action without party response (aggravating as that would be), you still have the thief setting up an ambush in a room full of literal mind readers. This means that the Mind Flayers would have known what the thief was planning and what the party's, and specifically Bob's, response would be to such an aggressive act (this is one situation where metagaming knowledge of Bob's characters paranoia is appropriate and even objectively required). This also implied the Elder Brain's explicit permission for such an ambush. Bob saw the situation as presented and took 'appropriate' action. Talakeal just saw it as a 'cool thing at a cool time' and didn't see any of the implications, and seems to be actively opposed to doing so (see the continued response of 'I'm baffled' every time someone tries to explain the other side, no matter the detail or eloquence).

The irksome thing about these threads isn't necessarily the situations themselves, we have all had missteps on either side of the table and they can often lead to happy-little-accidents (like the thief who hates monologues getting killed before he can monologue), but Talakeal seems to have taken an almost ideological stance against Bob, and appears to deliberately ignore the existence of any perspective that might vaguely legitimize Bob's actions. While some of the other players seem to have learned to start playing the GM instead of playing the game Bob seems to refuse to do so and his characters tend to continually respond violently to perceived glitches-in-the-matrix. Considering that in all of these one-sided accounts Bob's actions are almost universally judged to be justified (if not right) I would suspect that Talakeal's characterization of him as a power-gaming anarchist with delusions of grandeur may be a little off the mark as well (that cat just keeps pooping out of spite!).

They really appear to be playing in each others blind spots. That combined with an apparent reluctance to provide relevant information (which I suspect is translated in game as sacrificing important details in the game world that would inform character choice for the sake of narrative focus) seems to lead to the fusterclucks that we see popping up every other week.

Are there solutions to this problem? Many I think, and they get detailed, clarified, and expounded upon every thread. But, if Talakeal is unwilling to view things from the other side of the DM screen long enough to see that actively destroying the party's only light source when surrounded by potentially hostile and dangerous monsters can be sen as a legitimatly hostile act, I don't know if he can ever break the cycle.

Again, I want to reiterate, this is not a judgement on Talakeal himself, this is just the cumulative observation of many of these threads. Perhaps one day something will be said that will make Talakeal have a come-to-jebus moment but in the meantime it is still a good source of gaming do's and don't's and some interesting DMing advice.

[King of Nowhere]

while Bob's actions usually don't come off as right, they never seem to be wrong considering the situation (and history) either. The more of these threads that I read the more I tend to think that Talakeal's perception of Bob may be a ways off from what Bob actually is.


well, I can recall the situation with the goddess giving direction to the oasis asking in turn that they don't hurt animals, and bob torching the oasis because he hated being told what to do. And I don't remember clearly anything older than that, but I am pretty sure that in many cases bob's actions never came off right in any case.

I agree with your analysis that tal's perspective is skewed, and he seems to have a logic all of his own that doesn't line up much with anyone else's. The last is just the most egregious example of him being unable to consider that people may take different decisions from him.
But bob still comes off as a bad player regardless.

[kyoryu]

well, I can recall the situation with the goddess giving direction to the oasis asking in turn that they don't hurt animals, and bob torching the oasis because he hated being told what to do. And I don't remember clearly anything older than that, but I am pretty sure that in many cases bob's actions never came off right in any case.

It's hard to justify that as anything but an act of Chaotic-Douchebag. That doesn't mean all of his actions can be summed up as that (and, let's be clear, we don't know if there is missing context there either)


I agree with your analysis that tal's perspective is skewed, and he seems to have a logic all of his own that doesn't line up much with anyone else's. The last is just the most egregious example of him being unable to consider that people may take different decisions from him.
But bob still comes off as a bad player regardless.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I think the biggest issue is that Talakeal doesn't fully grasp that other people are making decisions based upon a) only some of the information that Talakeal has and b) information from other sources. I think that this factors into a number of the problems he's described over time (and is why I've recommended erring on the side of giving more information).

[Quarian Rex]

well, I can recall the situation with the goddess giving direction to the oasis asking in turn that they don't hurt animals, and bob torching the oasis because he hated being told what to do.


Then why would you inflict divine intervention on a god-hater? Perhaps they should stick to working through their clergy and not try to manipulate someone who isn't a worshiper?

I'm not trying to say that Bob's actions are right (especially as they tend to be presented) but a player responding with burn-it-with-fire as a knee-jerk response to divine intervention (the traditional blunt instrument of Railroaders everywhere) is something that I can grok (if not necessarily agree with). A lot of these anecdotes are missing a whole lot of context, but with each thread we wind up getting a little more. It just seems like characterizing Bob as the villain might be missing the truth of the matter by a wide margin.

[zinycor]

I might think that you would be wrong about that. Everything you described sounds like something that Bob would be completely on board for. Your mastermind did everything he could to show that he was trustworthy and didn't make any sudden moves. This is exactly how you should act around someone who is violent and paranoid, as most of Bob's characters seem to be. Remember, Bob didn't just start blasting in the middle of the Mind Flayer negotiations, he only opened up when an obvious ambush was initiated and his paranoia was proven to be justified.


Talakeal, I am not really looking for a response from you on this part, and this isn't in any way a judgement on your character, just accumulative perceptions of these threads from an outside observer to other outside observers who may or may not have seen these before.


Also, keep in mind that this thread is not our first rodeo with Talakeal. Over the years of similar threads certain... patterns emerge. Talakeal does something in game and his players object to it, so he details what he did and how they reacted to it, expressing dismay and confusion as to how it could have been. Almost every reply points out how the players response seems justified in that situation. Over the next page or twenty Talakeal gradually adds more detail to the situation, generally narrowing blame for the situation to Bob and usually altering the initially presented scenario to, in many ways, be the opposite of what was initially presented. Even after said update responses are almost all telling Talakeal that the players still seem justified (with a smattering of 'Get rid of Bob'). All the while Talakeal keeps repeating 'I'm baffled' despite the 'baffling' points being spelled out in exquisite detail (seriously, some of our posters are extremely effective communicators).

Despite these stories being completely onse-sided (to my knowledge Bob or any of the other players have never chirped up in one to provide an alternate perspective), while Bob's actions usually don't come off as right, they never seem to be wrong considering the situation (and history) either. The more of these threads that I read the more I tend to think that Talakeal's perception of Bob may be a ways off from what Bob actually is.

This actually brings to mind a pet training show I saw years ago (maybe it was Ceasar, I don't remember) where a woman was losing her mind because her cat seemed to hate her. It recently would walk up to the litter box and take a dump on the floor right next to it while staring at her, every damn time. She would scream that it was pooping out of spite and obviously hated her. Turns out that the cat was declawed (the last knuckle on each paw is severed) and she recently changed it's kitty litter to something that was sharply stabbing into the knuckle stumps. The cat was just trying to avoid pain while pooping. She changed back the kitty litter and the cat was fine, all that 'spite' just seemed to evaporate. I think that a lot of what Talakeal has described over the years has been like rubbing sharp kitty litter into the knuckle stumps of his players. While some of them may have gone somewhat numb to it Bob still has raw nerves, and Talakeal just sees spite.

I think there is a fundamental disconnect in their playstyles. Talakeal seems to have a very narrative focus (cool thing will happen at cool times) without regard for the consequence or implications of such narratively shoehorned moments, and Bob's characters react with violence to those consequences and implications that Talakeal doesn't see. Just look at the latest situation as presented in this thread. The thief ambushed the party and took two rounds of actions (1st/ stealth to party -> pickpocket lantern, 2nd/ destroy/douse lantern -> retreat from party) to put them at combat disadvantage in the middle of a room full of Mind Flayers (including an Elder Brain). Even ignoring the handwave required for the thief to take action without party response (aggravating as that would be), you still have the thief setting up an ambush in a room full of literal mind readers. This means that the Mind Flayers would have known what the thief was planning and what the party's, and specifically Bob's, response would be to such an aggressive act (this is one situation where metagaming knowledge of Bob's characters paranoia is appropriate and even objectively required). This also implied the Elder Brain's explicit permission for such an ambush. Bob saw the situation as presented and took 'appropriate' action. Talakeal just saw it as a 'cool thing at a cool time' and didn't see any of the implications, and seems to be actively opposed to doing so (see the continued response of 'I'm baffled' every time someone tries to explain the other side, no matter the detail or eloquence).

The irksome thing about these threads isn't necessarily the situations themselves, we have all had missteps on either side of the table and they can often lead to happy-little-accidents (like the thief who hates monologues getting killed before he can monologue), but Talakeal seems to have taken an almost ideological stance against Bob, and appears to deliberately ignore the existence of any perspective that might vaguely legitimize Bob's actions. While some of the other players seem to have learned to start playing the GM instead of playing the game Bob seems to refuse to do so and his characters tend to continually respond violently to perceived glitches-in-the-matrix. Considering that in all of these one-sided accounts Bob's actions are almost universally judged to be justified (if not right) I would suspect that Talakeal's characterization of him as a power-gaming anarchist with delusions of grandeur may be a little off the mark as well (that cat just keeps pooping out of spite!).

They really appear to be playing in each others blind spots. That combined with an apparent reluctance to provide relevant information (which I suspect is translated in game as sacrificing important details in the game world that would inform character choice for the sake of narrative focus) seems to lead to the fusterclucks that we see popping up every other week.

Are there solutions to this problem? Many I think, and they get detailed, clarified, and expounded upon every thread. But, if Talakeal is unwilling to view things from the other side of the DM screen long enough to see that actively destroying the party's only light source when surrounded by potentially hostile and dangerous monsters can be sen as a legitimatly hostile act, I don't know if he can ever break the cycle.

Again, I want to reiterate, this is not a judgement on Talakeal himself, this is just the cumulative observation of many of these threads. Perhaps one day something will be said that will make Talakeal have a come-to-jebus moment but in the meantime it is still a good source of gaming do's and don't's and some interesting DMing advice.



That whole spoiler is amazing, Really hits the nail in the head and explains why Talakeal hasn't kicked Bob out of the game.


well, I can recall the situation with the goddess giving direction to the oasis asking in turn that they don't hurt animals, and bob torching the oasis because he hated being told what to do. And I don't remember clearly anything older than that, but I am pretty sure that in many cases bob's actions never came off right in any case.


Bob did make the right choice there, he was aided by another player (I believe Tal named that one Dave), therefore I believed they both cooperated and had a good time. Therefore, the right thing to do.

Don't confuse doing evil and/or Chaotic acts with making the wrong moves.

[kyoryu]

...

Talakeal, I am not really looking for a response from you on this part, and this isn't in any way a judgement on your character, just accumulative perceptions of these threads from an outside observer to other outside observers who may or may not have seen these before.


Also, keep in mind that this thread is not our first rodeo with Talakeal. Over the years of similar threads certain... patterns emerge. Talakeal does something in game and his players object to it, so he details what he did and how they reacted to it, expressing dismay and confusion as to how it could have been. Almost every reply points out how the players response seems justified in that situation. Over the next page or twenty Talakeal gradually adds more detail to the situation, generally narrowing blame for the situation to Bob and usually altering the initially presented scenario to, in many ways, be the opposite of what was initially presented. Even after said update responses are almost all telling Talakeal that the players still seem justified (with a smattering of 'Get rid of Bob'). All the while Talakeal keeps repeating 'I'm baffled' despite the 'baffling' points being spelled out in exquisite detail (seriously, some of our posters are extremely effective communicators).

Despite these stories being completely onse-sided (to my knowledge Bob or any of the other players have never chirped up in one to provide an alternate perspective), while Bob's actions usually don't come off as right, they never seem to be wrong considering the situation (and history) either. The more of these threads that I read the more I tend to think that Talakeal's perception of Bob may be a ways off from what Bob actually is.

This actually brings to mind a pet training show I saw years ago (maybe it was Ceasar, I don't remember) where a woman was losing her mind because her cat seemed to hate her. It recently would walk up to the litter box and take a dump on the floor right next to it while staring at her, every damn time. She would scream that it was pooping out of spite and obviously hated her. Turns out that the cat was declawed (the last knuckle on each paw is severed) and she recently changed it's kitty litter to something that was sharply stabbing into the knuckle stumps. The cat was just trying to avoid pain while pooping. She changed back the kitty litter and the cat was fine, all that 'spite' just seemed to evaporate. I think that a lot of what Talakeal has described over the years has been like rubbing sharp kitty litter into the knuckle stumps of his players. While some of them may have gone somewhat numb to it Bob still has raw nerves, and Talakeal just sees spite.

I think there is a fundamental disconnect in their playstyles. Talakeal seems to have a very narrative focus (cool thing will happen at cool times) without regard for the consequence or implications of such narratively shoehorned moments, and Bob's characters react with violence to those consequences and implications that Talakeal doesn't see. Just look at the latest situation as presented in this thread. The thief ambushed the party and took two rounds of actions (1st/ stealth to party -> pickpocket lantern, 2nd/ destroy/douse lantern -> retreat from party) to put them at combat disadvantage in the middle of a room full of Mind Flayers (including an Elder Brain). Even ignoring the handwave required for the thief to take action without party response (aggravating as that would be), you still have the thief setting up an ambush in a room full of literal mind readers. This means that the Mind Flayers would have known what the thief was planning and what the party's, and specifically Bob's, response would be to such an aggressive act (this is one situation where metagaming knowledge of Bob's characters paranoia is appropriate and even objectively required). This also implied the Elder Brain's explicit permission for such an ambush. Bob saw the situation as presented and took 'appropriate' action. Talakeal just saw it as a 'cool thing at a cool time' and didn't see any of the implications, and seems to be actively opposed to doing so (see the continued response of 'I'm baffled' every time someone tries to explain the other side, no matter the detail or eloquence).

The irksome thing about these threads isn't necessarily the situations themselves, we have all had missteps on either side of the table and they can often lead to happy-little-accidents (like the thief who hates monologues getting killed before he can monologue), but Talakeal seems to have taken an almost ideological stance against Bob, and appears to deliberately ignore the existence of any perspective that might vaguely legitimize Bob's actions. While some of the other players seem to have learned to start playing the GM instead of playing the game Bob seems to refuse to do so and his characters tend to continually respond violently to perceived glitches-in-the-matrix. Considering that in all of these one-sided accounts Bob's actions are almost universally judged to be justified (if not right) I would suspect that Talakeal's characterization of him as a power-gaming anarchist with delusions of grandeur may be a little off the mark as well (that cat just keeps pooping out of spite!).

They really appear to be playing in each others blind spots. That combined with an apparent reluctance to provide relevant information (which I suspect is translated in game as sacrificing important details in the game world that would inform character choice for the sake of narrative focus) seems to lead to the fusterclucks that we see popping up every other week.

Are there solutions to this problem? Many I think, and they get detailed, clarified, and expounded upon every thread. But, if Talakeal is unwilling to view things from the other side of the DM screen long enough to see that actively destroying the party's only light source when surrounded by potentially hostile and dangerous monsters can be sen as a legitimatly hostile act, I don't know if he can ever break the cycle.

Again, I want to reiterate, this is not a judgement on Talakeal himself, this is just the cumulative observation of many of these threads. Perhaps one day something will be said that will make Talakeal have a come-to-jebus moment but in the meantime it is still a good source of gaming do's and don't's and some interesting DMing advice.



I think there's a lot of truth here.

One possible suggestion might just to have the "cool moments" be explicit, to get on the same path. I think Talakeal has used the term "cutscene" before in describing things, so why not make them literal cutscenes, and just tell the party explicitly "This is just a cutscene, I'll let you know when it's over and regular play begins?" Or some other signifier. Like to use a video game trope, mention a camera movement to begin the cutscene, and then say something like "the camera returns back to the characters" when it's over.

[Talakeal]

Ok, so to further clarify:

I am not running D&D. I am running a homebrewed d20 fantasy game that has been greatly simplified to teach new players the game, and takes place in the same setting as my own Heart of Darkness system.

Most assumptions that apply to mid-level D&D still apply, but two of the things that have been removed from this game are racial alignments and racial spell like abilities. The illithids in question have a more alien mindset than evil, and these particular creatures are trying to ally with humans because their leader has received a vision of the future and determined that both humans and illithids will go extinct if they cannot learn to coexist. They are not slavers, in truth they are actually kind of the opposite of that, as they are operating hidden within a slave-owning human society and many of their cultists are escaped slaves whom they are hiding (these would be the "innocent bystanders" that Bob went out of his way to hit, although I don't believe I ever used the world innocent."

The players know that there are no alignments in this world, but I don't think any of them would even suspect mind flayers as having a built in AoE as half of them have never played D&D, and the other half haven't played in many years and were never the type to memorize the monster manual.

And further, this wasn't really a big deal. I don't care that Bob fire-balled everyone. I didn't foresee it, but its obvious that was my blind spot (although I am not sure if any of my players thought the same thing). Honestly, if we were going by "Talakeal wants a cool thing to happen," it probably would have been more in character for me to have a third faction attacking both groups now that they have allied based on my storytelling style, in which case attacking both sides is even dumber.

What bugged me was that afterward he bitched about how the encounter was too hard and they almost died, and when I said it was balanced on paper but I can't account for the party's tactics, he then insisted that "If someone moves to get a tactical advantage over you, even a purely defensive one obviously meant as a deterrent, the appropriate action, from both a moral and tactical perspective, is always to attack immediately."

The fundamental disconnect is that Bob wants a consequence free world where he can live out violent power fantasies and everything is always a CR appropriate encounter, where I am trying to create a living world which contains plenty of challenging (but ultimately fair) adventures.

[zinycor]

"If someone moves to get a tactical advantage over you, even a purely defensive one obviously meant as a deterrent, the appropriate action, from both a moral and tactical perspective, is always to attack immediately."


And that seems like a fair stance, I would only have a problems with the "always", but as a rule thumb... It is quite a nice one.

And as Have been stated, the measure taken by the rogue, was far form a "a purely defensive one obviously meant as a deterrent", even if you meant it as such.

[Talakeal]

And that seems like a fair stance, I would only have a problems with the "always", but as a rule thumb... It is quite a nice one.

And as Have been stated, the measure taken by the rogue, was far form a "a purely defensive one obviously meant as a deterrent", even if you meant it as such.

His specific example was a mage casting a protection spell.

[OldTrees1]

What bugged me was that afterward he bitched about how the encounter was too hard and they almost died, and when I said it was balanced on paper but I can't account for the party's tactics, he then insisted that "If someone moves to get a tactical advantage over you, even a purely defensive one obviously meant as a deterrent, the appropriate action, from both a moral and tactical perspective, is always to attack immediately."

The fundamental disconnect is that Bob wants a consequence free world where he can live out violent power fantasies and everything is always a CR appropriate encounter, where I am trying to create a living world which contains plenty of challenging (but ultimately fair) adventures.

Bob's tactical analysis was less wrong than yours. (Still wrong, but less so.)

Yes, blinding the party was a obvious offensive hostile move (even when both the NPC and the DM are oblivious to it). Blinding the party lowered their defenses and limited their defensive options against the Illithids (which you recently described as enemies in their home/lair). That is an offensive debuffing action. In response, the party should have fought back as a means of creating a means of escape. I would have suggested Stinking Cloud + Portable Hole + Dimension Door myself.

[zinycor]

His specific example was a mage casting a protection spell.

Such as? I don't believe I have seen a friendly NPC mage cast a protection spell without it being obvious why... If out of the blue an NPC casted a protection spell, I would at least be suspicious.

[King of Nowhere]

Bob did make the right choice there, he was aided by another player (I believe Tal named that one Dave), therefore I believed they both cooperated and had a good time. Therefore, the right thing to do.

Don't confuse doing evil and/or Chaotic acts with making the wrong moves.

as a rule of thumb
-pissing off someone who was willing to help you and may be willing to help you again later and may not be willing to help you anymore if you piss them off (you can also say pissing off an ally for short) is a bad idea
-making more enemies than you need to make is a bad idea
-directly insulting a god for no good reason is a bad idea.

Tactically wise, making people angry for no gain is a bad idea. I think Bob in my campaign world would soon find a dozen high level npcs from at least three competing countries and religions using scry-and-die on him and smoking him on the spot. Not because I am a killed or control-freak DM but because that's exactly how my world would react if someone made too many enemies and no allies among powerful people.


Ok, so to further clarify:

I am not running D&D. I am running a homebrewed d20 fantasy game that has been greatly simplified to teach new players the game, and takes place in the same setting as my own Heart of Darkness system.

Most assumptions that apply to mid-level D&D still apply, but two of the things that have been removed from this game are racial alignments and racial spell like abilities. The illithids in question have a more alien mindset than evil, and these particular creatures are trying to ally with humans because their leader has received a vision of the future and determined that both humans and illithids will go extinct if they cannot learn to coexist. They are not slavers, in truth they are actually kind of the opposite of that, as they are operating hidden within a slave-owning human society and many of their cultists are escaped slaves whom they are hiding (these would be the "innocent bystanders" that Bob went out of his way to hit, although I don't believe I ever used the world innocent."

The players know that there are no alignments in this world, but I don't think any of them would even suspect mind flayers as having a built in AoE as half of them have never played D&D, and the other half haven't played in many years and were never the type to memorize the monster manual.

See, it's amazing how much context can make a difference. this changes everything yet again...
this brings us back to the "shoot him he has a wallet" accident. unfortunate, avoidable, but the kind of thing that can reasonably happen because someone misinterprets something as a direct threat.

As for bob's statements, I agree that he's wrong in stating that the encounter was too ddifficult because it was made more difficult by his team using bad strategy. and he's the first offender, as he should have a light spell. plus, it was fully reasonable to have a difficult eno****er in the circumstances. if those illithids were even remotely smart, they should have brought some power to contain bob in case he went murderhobo.

But I have to mostly agree with him on the preemptive strike. And I still can't understand how you cannot see it: increasing your defence is an aggressive move. because it puts you in a better position to strike. Because it implies that you are expecting that you will fight. because you may be unable to safely initiate a combat without it. Because sometimes peace is ensured by threat of mutual assured destruction, and if improving your defences makes you able to survive retaliation, it actually puts your opponent at your mercy.
a bit of judgment should be used to evaluate each situation, but as a rule of thumb, if a wizard iss peacefully talking with me and he suddenly casts a protection spell - especially a protection spell that would be very useful against me - it would at least make me very worried. and it may elicit a fight-or-flight response.

[zinycor]

as a rule of thumb
-pissing off someone who was willing to help you and may be willing to help you again later and may not be willing to help you anymore if you piss them off (you can also say pissing off an ally for short) is a bad idea
-making more enemies than you need to make is a bad idea
-directly insulting a god for no good reason is a bad idea.

Tactically wise, making people angry for no gain is a bad idea. I think Bob in my campaign world would soon find a dozen high level npcs from at least three competing countries and religions using scry-and-die on him and smoking him on the spot. Not because I am a killed or control-freak DM but because that's exactly how my world would react if someone made too many enemies and no allies among powerful people.


I don't get it... As an adventurer you are always making enemies, and pissing off powerful entities. Only that these are evil. But pissing off good entities would somehow be worse?

Again, in my opinion is a good idea cause there was another player that helped him, so he had consent from at least one other player and disrespecting a good God, holier than thou, is always fun and a cause to laugh at the table.
Or at least that has been my experience.

Edit: Do the evil Gods at your table scry-and-die good aligned PCs at your game?

[Talakeal]

So I talked it over with the rest of the party. They all agreed that it felt like an ambush to them, but they also agreed that Bob going off and nuking everything without first establishing targets and restoring the light source was tactically inept.


Bob's tactical analysis was less wrong than yours. (Still wrong, but less so.)

Out of curiosity, what is "my tactical analysis?".

All I said was that it in general it is usually a bad idea to start attacking before you have confirmed the existence of a threat, and in that particular situation they would have been better served by going on the defensive and restoring the light, and nothing anyone has said has managed to convince me otherwise.

As the DM, I am omniscient, and I can say for a fact that he was wrong in his assumption that it was a prelude to an ambush by the illithids. I can't say how things would have gone had he chosen otherwise, but they did end up having to drink a lot of healing potions, lost several potential allies and a lot of information, and came very close to a TPK, but they did survive in the end (down several potential allies), so whether or not he made the right call or not is up to you I guess, but it didn't seem go over very well for them in hindsight, although I suppose they did survive, so it could have gone even worse.

Whether or not he was "justified" in attacking the illithids, well,

I think the biggest issue is that Talakeal doesn't fully grasp that other people are making decisions based upon a) only some of the information that Talakeal has and b) information from other sources. I think that this factors into a number of the problems he's described over time (and is why I've recommended erring on the side of giving more information).

In this particular case I was in the middle of giving the players more information when Bob actively interrupted me because he didn't want to lose out on a surprise round.


One possible suggestion might just to have the "cool moments" be explicit, to get on the same path. I think Talakeal has used the term "cutscene" before in describing things, so why not make them literal cutscenes, and just tell the party explicitly "This is just a cutscene, I'll let you know when it's over and regular play begins?" Or some other signifier. Like to use a video game trope, mention a camera movement to begin the cutscene, and then say something like "the camera returns back to the characters" when it's over.

The problem is that a feel like I am caught between Scylla and Charydbis. I get accused of railroading if I don't give the PCs enough rope to hand themselves with, and of killer DMing if I do.


And as Have been stated, the measure taken by the rogue, was far form a "a purely defensive one obviously meant as a deterrent", even if you meant it as such.

The rogue thought of it as such, as he never dreamed that Bob would start AOEing the crowd to get at him. Whether it objectively was or not is another matter, the PCs clearly didn't think so.


Such as? I don't believe I have seen a friendly NPC mage cast a protection spell without it being obvious why... If out of the blue an NPC casted a protection spell, I would at least be suspicious.

In that particular example, he was feeling threatened by the PCs and taking precautions in case they decided to attack him.

[zinycor]

So I talked it over with the rest of the party. They all agreed that it felt like an ambush to them, but they also agreed that Bob going off and nuking everything without first establishing targets and restoring the light source was tactically inept.


Couldn't any of the others get a light source?

[Talakeal]

Couldn't any of the others get a light source?

Yes, but by the time they had a chance to act Bob had already aggroed the entire room and a chaotic melee had broken out in the dark, and whoever was holding the light would have become a target.

[OldTrees1]

Out of curiosity, what is "my tactical analysis?".

You predicted the party would try to talk when they were blinded by an enslaved assassin and surrounded by enemy Illithids, in the presence of the Elder Brain, in the Illithid lair. Even for your Illithids that would have been a grave tactical error in most cases. Your tactical analysis only works if you are playing both sides. When you DMed, the party surprised you (aka your tactical analysis misjudged the situation by being unaware of how hostile the rogue was acting). It just goes to show a DM is only omniscient when they know how their words / actions are perceived by the players. If you were a Player, you would be looking at a high chance of self inflicted TPK (aka your tactical analysis misjudged the situation because usually that situation implied an ambush).

But, you just want to be "baffled" rather than learn why others read the blinding as an offensive debuff that would herald an ambush.

It is almost as if you have a pattern of signalling the opposite of what you mean to communicate.

PS: Do note I did call his tactical analysis wrong too. Stinking Cloud would have restoring parity by blinding the darkvision creatures and acted as area control to buy time for an escape. Depending on the part composition, the escape might have only taken 1 round.

[zinycor]

Yes, but by the time they had a chance to act Bob had already aggroed the entire room and a chaotic melee had broken out in the dark, and whoever was holding the light would have become a target.

So... They wanted Bob to willingly become the target they weren't willing to be?

[Talakeal]

So... They wanted Bob to willingly become the target they weren't willing to be?

Say what?


You predicted the party would try to talk when they were blinded by an enslaved assassin and surrounded by enemy Illithids, in the presence of the Elder Brain, in the Illithid lair. Even for your Illithids that would have been a grave tactical error in most cases. Your tactical analysis only works if you are playing both sides. When you DMed, the party surprised you (aka your tactical analysis misjudged the situation by being unaware of how hostile the rogue was acting). It just goes to show a DM is only omniscient when they know how their words / actions are perceived by the players. If you were a Player, you would be looking at a high chance of self inflicted TPK (aka your tactical analysis misjudged the situation because usually that situation implied an ambush).

But, you just want to be "baffled" rather than learn why others read the blinding as an offensive debuff that would herald an ambush.

It is almost as if you have a pattern of signalling the opposite of what you mean to communicate.

PS: Do note I did call his tactical analysis wrong too. Stinking Cloud would have restoring parity by blinding the darkvision creatures and acted as area control to buy time for an escape.

Tactical analysis =/= predicting player actions.

In this case I expected them to talk because I said they guy was talking, what I didn't see coming was cutting the guy off and nuking everybody before identifying hostiles.

But again, that's ok, players surprise DMs, its part of the game and not a bad thing. What I don't like is them wanting me to both give them the freedom to mess up and take responsibility for their failures when they do.

[OldTrees1]

Tactical analysis =/= predicting player actions.

The PCs are part of the tactical analysis. The Illithids and the Rogue were predicting the PCs to have certain reactions. You counted on some of those reactions. And those tactical analyses were wrong.



In this case I expected them to talk because I said they guy was talking, what I didn't see coming was cutting the guy off and nuking everybody before identifying hostiles.

Yup, you expected them to talk to the person that was attacking them. And neither you nor the rogue realized the rogue was attacking the party. Sounds like a mistake Bob would make.


But again, that's ok, players surprise DMs, its part of the game and not a bad thing. What I don't like is them wanting me to both give them the freedom to mess up and take responsibility for their failures when they do.

In this case you failed to communicate. You did not mean to have the Rogue attack the party. But you had the Rogue attack the party. You got upset that the Players did not understand what you failed to communicate. You have previous claimed to want to learn how to communicate better. So we all have told you what caused the inverted signal. You can either learn from that wisdom in spite of Bob also saying it. OR you can remain defensively baffled to spite yourself merely because Bob was also describing the root of the miscommunication.

Pride goeth before the fall.

[NichG]

So I talked it over with the rest of the party. They all agreed that it felt like an ambush to them, but they also agreed that Bob going off and nuking everything without first establishing targets and restoring the light source was tactically inept.

Out of curiosity, what is "my tactical analysis?".

All I said was that it in general it is usually a bad idea to start attacking before you have confirmed the existence of a threat, and in that particular situation they would have been better served by going on the defensive and restoring the light, and nothing anyone has said has managed to convince me otherwise.

I'm going to consider this without the Elder Brain, because (at least going by the Lords of Madness statblock) honestly it pretty much could have controlled the entire situation by fiat if it wanted and stopped all of the aggression (e.g. dropping Prismatic Sphere, using Mass Suggestion to say 'wait!' etc). Similarly, based on that stat block it pretty much could TPK the group alone. So instead lets say just 4 illithids and the rogue.

And yes, your stat blocks may be different for all of this but as you point out: you as the DM are omniscient, the players aren't. Therefore, unless you've specifically and extensively communicated otherwise in advance, this is what someone could reasonably imagine would happen. In fact, if we just assumed that these were generic classed adversaries rather than illithids, much of this would still hold (four sorcerors spamming Web and Stinking Cloud looks very similar).


Surprise round: Lights go out

Round 1, Party: Party member 1 casts Light. Party member 2 moves to adjacent to them, uses full defense. Party member 3 moves to adjacent to them, uses - I dunno - Protection from Evil? Party member 4 moves to adjacent to them, readies an action to melee attack anyone who comes into range.

Round 1, Illithids: Move to various positions. 'Everyone, please make four Will saves, DC 17'. A failure means that character is stunned for at least 3 rounds, average of 7.5. Odds are that at least half the party is stunned after this.

Round 1, Elder Brain: Trolling, it casts Maze on the party member with the light source. Nope, no Elder brain.

Round 1, Rogue: Moves adjacent to a stunned PC and sneak attacks.

Round 2, Party: ???

Round 2, Illithids: Repeat Mind Blast, or approach stunned targets and individually Planeshift with them to the Plane of Air to eat their brains/strand them without the chance of other members of the party intervening. If Planeshift is off the table, the rogue flanks and helps the illithids attack with their tentacles to try to get a 2-round Extract.



Round 1, Party: Fireball the universe, scatter formation, someone other than Bob light a torch, the other two focus fire on one illithid and try to take it down. Illithids don't have great saves, and only 44hp, so a CL 8 Fireball has a good chance of doing about half of their health to each of them. I'd say odds are, the Illithids are down to 3 after this, but the rogue is fine.

Round 1, Illithids: Mind Blast is now only going to hit individuals, so rather than forcing everyone to make 4 saves, they can make 3 of 4 PCs make 1 save. So lets say, if it was a 50% chance to be stunned following 4 saves, we're looking at either one PC stunned or all of them up. Lets say that one was stunned, and we're down to 3 vs 3. The rogue can still sneak attack the stunned target, or they can go after the torch again (lets say they do that, it's actually more effective potentially if the party really needs light).

Round 2, Party: Another Fireball would take out the remaining Illithids if they're in a cluster, but we can't assume that they would be or that Bob isn't the one stunned (focus fire on Bob with the Mind Blasts would actually be a reasonable strategy from the illithids). But the three standing party members can take out at least one more illithid together.

... and so on.


Basically, the defensive strategy leads to losing at least one additional PC and effectively doubling the health of the enemy due to losing the chance to fireball the enemy when they're clustered and in known position.

This may be something where you actually need to go through the scenario as a player with someone like Quertus DM-ing to understand and actually have it play out. You tend to talk about strategy and tactics in a zoomed out fashion by analogy to real life, media, and what you would personally do in a mugging, or things like that. Those situations are not the same thing.



The problem is that a feel like I am caught between Scylla and Charydbis. I get accused of railroading if I don't give the PCs enough rope to hand themselves with, and of killer DMing if I do.


It's sort of like you're telling someone 'come to my house, I can make turkey or fish', they're saying 'I'm a vegetarian, I can't eat either of those', and your response is 'wow, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't with this guy! Lets just give him turkey this time and see what happens. Oh, that didn't work? Next will be fish. No matter what I make, this guy complains!'

As everyone has been telling you, there is a fundamental incompatibility between what Bob wants, and what you are willing to prepare. You have enough information to recognize this. When you still insist on trying to force feed meat to the vegetarian, you don't get to receive pity for how difficult they're being, just like they don't get to receive pity if they keep asking you to prepare meals when they know you're going to make something they can't eat.

[Talakeal]

The PCs are part of the tactical analysis. The Illithids and the Rogue were predicting the PCs to have certain reactions. You counted on some of those reactions. And those tactical analyses were wrong.

I disagree. Reading how someone else is likely to react can be a part of a tactical analysis, but it is not by itself a tactical analysis.


In this case you failed to communicate. You did not mean to have the Rogue attack the party. But you had the Rogue attack the party. You got upset that the Players did not understand what you failed to communicate. You have previous claimed to want to learn how to communicate better. So we all have told you what caused the inverted signal. You can either learn from that wisdom in spite of Bob also saying it. OR you can remain defensively baffled to spite yourself merely because Bob was also describing the root of the miscommunication.


First off, who said I was upset? I said I was baffled by Bob's statement that someone looking to a get a tactical advantage over someone during negotiations always justified an attack from both a moral and tactical perspective.*

Second off, out of character I told them that he was talking to them, and then Bob said he wanted to retroactively attack first. How is that in any way a failure to communicate?


*: This was an example I used: "You are threatening to shoot a man if he doesn't cooperate. His minion sneaks up behind you and puts a knife to your throat, and then the man say's 'Are you sure you don't want to put your gun away and talk this over before someone does something they will regret?" In my mind, pulling the trigger is both tactically and ethically un-justified, but Bob full heatedly disagreed, and went further to say that if the guy had instead ducked behind cover it will still be a justified attack.


I'm going to consider this without the Elder Brain, because (at least going by the Lords of Madness statblock) honestly it pretty much could have controlled the entire situation by fiat if it wanted and stopped all of the aggression (e.g. dropping Prismatic Sphere, using Mass Suggestion to say 'wait!' etc). Similarly, based on that stat block it pretty much could TPK the group alone. So instead lets say just 4 illithids and the rogue.

And yes, your stat blocks may be different for all of this but as you point out: you as the DM are omniscient, the players aren't. Therefore, unless you've specifically and extensively communicated otherwise in advance, this is what someone could reasonably imagine would happen. In fact, if we just assumed that these were generic classed adversaries rather than illithids, much of this would still hold (four sorcerors spamming Web and Stinking Cloud looks very similar).

All of those assume AoEs. The enemy in this battle had absolutely no form of form of AoE attack; if they had I would have suggested a different tactic.

Also, a single fireball does not in any way come close to halving the HP of every enemy in this situation.


It's sort of like you're telling someone 'come to my house, I can make turkey or fish', they're saying 'I'm a vegetarian, I can't eat either of those', and your response is 'wow, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't with this guy! Lets just give him turkey this time and see what happens. Oh, that didn't work? Next will be fish. No matter what I make, this guy complains!'

As everyone has been telling you, there is a fundamental incompatibility between what Bob wants, and what you are willing to prepare. You have enough information to recognize this. When you still insist on trying to force feed meat to the vegetarian, you don't get to receive pity for how difficult they're being, just like they don't get to receive pity if they keep asking you to prepare meals when they know you're going to make something they can't eat.

The thing is, fish and turkey are mutually exclusive; difficulty and freedom are a gradient of things that must be used in moderation.

I do agree that Bob wants a lot more freedom and a lot less difficulty than the rest of the group, but I legitimately don't know how to run a game otherwise without constantly fudging, ret-conning, and dropping idiot balls to make sure Bob always wins, which are also things Bob has objected to.

Maybe some DMs can handle it, but I can't figure out how as Bobs desires seem mutually exclusive. So, I guess, to use your analogy, its like going to a butcher shop and demanding him to make great salad, maybe someone can do it, but I just don't have a clue.

[NichG]

All of those assume AoEs. The enemy in this battle had absolutely no form of form of AoE attack; if they had I would have suggested a different tactic.

Also, a single fireball does not in any way come close to halving the HP of every enemy in this situation.


One should assume AoEs in a world where 'Fireball' is a spell. There's no reason to assume that a competent opponent wouldn't have access to AoEs, even if we're not talking about illithids which stereotypically do have them innately. What you 'know' doesn't matter, because that information is not part of the scenario. The only information that is part of the scenario is that which has been explicitly revealed. Saying 'but they should have read my mind and done exactly as I was envisioning' is not valid.

Other posters have suggested handing out the stat blocks of things the party encounters at the start of each encounter. If you were doing that, your argument would be valid - they could read 'Huh, illithids have a Claw/Claw/Tusk attack sequence that deals acid damage in this system? Well, okay!'. But you vetoed that, so you chose to play an imperfect information game.

Which means things like analyzing 'what if the enemy has AoEs?' is an important tactical consideration, even if it turns out that this time they didn't. Because they just as well could have (or even more strongly, they should have if they are also tactically savvy).

Similarly, standard illithids have 44hp. If you say 'actually, these illithids have 400hp and are resistant to fire' or 'actually, these illithids have 4hp', then unless the party has received that information it doesn't factor in.



The thing is, fish and turkey are mutually exclusive; difficulty and freedom are a gradient of things that must be used in moderation.

I do agree that Bob wants a lot more freedom and a lot less difficulty than the rest of the group, but I legitimately don't know how to run a game otherwise without constantly fudging, ret-conning, and dropping idiot balls to make sure Bob always wins, which are also things Bob has objected to.

Maybe some DMs can handle it, but I can't figure out how as Bobs desires seem mutually exclusive. So, I guess, to use your analogy, its like going to a butcher shop and demanding him to make great salad, maybe someone can do it, but I just don't have a clue.

If I go to a butcher shop and say 'hey, make me a great salad please!' and they say 'I can't, this is a butcher shop' and I say 'oh, sorry, where's the nearest restaurant that serves salad?' then everything is okay. I and the butcher recognize we cannot meet eachothers' needs in that situation.

If I go to the butcher shop and say 'hey, make me a great salad please!' and they hand me a pastrami on rye with a single piece of lettuce, I eat it, then say 'I'm not paying because that wasn't a salad', and they say 'ok, come back tomorrow!' then the entire thing is dysfunctional. That's what is happening in your group. You and Bob are not considering that it is a legitimate option to discontinue the non-functioning relationship, rather than just pretending like it could be done correctly.

The way you run a game for Bob has been explained in this thread. Make NPCs give the PCs lots of respect, even undeserved and unearned. Make popcorn fights where the opposition is just legitimately weak, so even if they play very intelligently they're doomed to lose. Make fights center around showing how awesome the PCs are, not about creating a tactical challenge. Play up tropes that every NPC is a buffoon or stupid or silly, and that the PCs are the only ones with any sense and will go and straighten out NPCs foolishness and take over. Does that sound like a horrible game to you? Yeah, me too. But if you really actually wanted to make Bob happy, rather than just force him to eat pastrami on rye, that is the kind of thing you should be serving. Can't - or won't - serve that kind of meal? Send Bob to another shop.

[OldTrees1]

I disagree. Reading how someone else is likely to react can be a part of a tactical analysis, but it is not by itself a tactical analysis.
Fair point. You can make a rough but inaccurate approximation if you discount the capacity for reaction from the agents involved in the situation.


First off, who said I was upset?
I did. We can only perceive the image you present to us. This entire thread has been because you were upset over this or that. There is nothing wrong with being upset.


I said I was baffled by Bob's statement that someone looking to a get a tactical advantage over someone during negotiations always justified an attack from both a moral and tactical perspective.*

Second off, out of character I told them that he was talking to them, and then Bob said he wanted to retroactively attack first. How is that in any way a failure to communicate?

*: This was an example I used: "You are threatening to shoot a man if he doesn't cooperate. His minion sneaks up behind you and puts a knife to your throat, and then the man say's 'Are you sure you don't want to put your gun away and talk this over before someone does something they will regret?" In my mind, pulling the trigger is both tactically and ethically un-justified, but Bob full heatedly disagreed, and went further to say that if the guy had instead ducked behind cover it will still be a justified attack.

You were baffled by Bob wanting to attack the person that blinded them. You are framing it and Bob's statement in the context of a negotiation. A context that is not self evident from the actions of the NPC. You then started "heatedly disagreeing" with each other using analogies that became less and less relevant. However when you cut through the fat and return to the facts Bob was initially reacting to, the NPC had just enacted a hostile offensive debuff on the party and you expected the party to talk.

After having many people tell you why we describe the blinding as a hostile offensive debuff, are you still baffled by the forum describing it as the NPC attacking the party? At the end of the day, that blinding was probably the root of this horror story.

[Talakeal]

You were baffled by Bob wanting to attack the person that blinded them. You are framing it and Bob's statement in the context of a negotiation. A context that is not self evident from the actions of the NPC. You then started "heatedly disagreeing" with each other using analogies that became less and less relevant. However when you cut through the fat and return to the facts Bob was initially reacting to, the NPC had just enacted a hostile offensive debuff on the party and you expected the party to talk.

After having many people tell you why we describe the blinding as a hostile offensive debuff, are you still baffled by the forum describing it as the NPC attacking the party? At the end of the day, that blinding was probably the root of this horror story.

I didn't see the attack coming, but I wasn't exactly surprised. Neither Bob nor I were really upset, and I have spent easily a hundred times more time and emotional energy discussing this on the thread than I actually did with Bob, it was really just a couple of dispassionate sentences, and I never would have brought it to the forum if not for the innate illogic of the idea that you have to attack someone BECAUSE they put you in a situation where combat is disadvantageous, which still reads to me like a bit of black is white lunacy.

Honestly, Bob was a lot more pissed about me not requiring an initiative roll to pickpocket someone outside of combat, which even the other players laughed about and said would make the game world resemble a Metal Gear Solid game where people randomly went into alert mode without ever knowing why.


One should assume AoEs in a world where 'Fireball' is a spell. There's no reason to assume that a competent opponent wouldn't have access to AoEs, even if we're not talking about illithids which stereotypically do have them innately. What you 'know' doesn't matter, because that information is not part of the scenario. The only information that is part of the scenario is that which has been explicitly revealed. Saying 'but they should have read my mind and done exactly as I was envisioning' is not valid.

Other posters have suggested handing out the stat blocks of things the party encounters at the start of each encounter. If you were doing that, your argument would be valid - they could read 'Huh, illithids have a Claw/Claw/Tusk attack sequence that deals acid damage in this system? Well, okay!'. But you vetoed that, so you chose to play an imperfect information game.

Which means things like analyzing 'what if the enemy has AoEs?' is an important tactical consideration, even if it turns out that this time they didn't. Because they just as well could have (or even more strongly, they should have if they are also tactically savvy).

Similarly, standard illithids have 44hp. If you say 'actually, these illithids have 400hp and are resistant to fire' or 'actually, these illithids have 4hp', then unless the party has received that information it doesn't factor in.

But, the players didn't say "What if the enemy has AOEs?" They didn't discuss tactics or communicate with one another in any way.

Attacking them first was not a great strategy, but not absolutely horrible. Although I still stand by my statement that attacking an unknown target with unknown intentions is almost always a bad idea.

The real killer was initiating a fight in the dark and then continuing to fight in the dark, neither attempting to light a torch or withdraw to a location with better visibility. Simply casting continual flame on the fighter's sword, a tactic which Bob has used many time in the past, would have been immensely helpful.

Again, from my perspective, Bob shows weird double think, plunging the party into darkness is a huge threat, but seeking to create another source of light is not a priority.

[kyoryu]

the innate illogic of the idea that you have to attack someone BECAUSE they put you in a situation where combat is disadvantageous, which still reads to me like a bit of black is white lunacy.

That's not the point.

The point is that if they've started maneuvering, they might well continue and your already untenable situation will get worse.

Let's go back to your hostage negotiator answer. As you said, keep 'em talking. Right? Why?

Because that's what allows the FBI to get set up, to deploy their forces in advantageous positions, and to prepare to take out the hostage takers. If the kidnappers really want to get what they want, the smartest thing they can do is force movement now while they still have a tactical advantage. The longer they take, the worse it is for them - which is why "keep 'em talking" is a smart strategy - FOR THE FBI.

In this case, the party was not the FBI. They were the kidnappers. They were the ones getting maneuvered. And it had every possibility of becoming an even worse situation, the longer they waited.

[Talakeal]

That's not the point.

The point is that if they've started maneuvering, they might well continue and your already untenable situation will get worse.

Let's go back to your hostage negotiator answer. As you said, keep 'em talking. Right? Why?

Because that's what allows the FBI to get set up, to deploy their forces in advantageous positions, and to prepare to take out the hostage takers. If the kidnappers really want to get what they want, the smartest thing they can do is force movement now while they still have a tactical advantage. The longer they take, the worse it is for them - which is why "keep 'em talking" is a smart strategy - FOR THE FBI.

In this case, the party was not the FBI. They were the kidnappers. They were the ones getting maneuvered. And it had every possibility of becoming an even worse situation, the longer they waited.

I disagree that this is the purpose of hostage negotiations, but that would probably veer into politics.


In my experience, initiating combat when there is still a desire for a peaceful resolution is rarely a good idea, and attacking when you are at a tactical disadvantage is rarely a good idea. It might be a good idea based on the situation, but the problem was that Bob was using "being put at a tactical advantage," as a universal rationale for initiating combat, which seems to me to be a sort of backwards logic; being at a tactical disadvantage is a reason NOT to initiate combat, although combat still might be prudent based on other factors.

[NichG]

But, the players didn't say "What if the enemy has AOEs?" They didn't discuss tactics or communicate with one another in any way.

That's not really germane to a tactical analysis. Actually, one of the big mistakes I see players make is forgetting that NPCs are around them when they discuss their plans, leading to either an agreement 'okay, we'll hold that this is entirely OOC discussion but IC its just thoughts going through your characters' heads and not actual communication' or a lot of situations collapsing into bad positions. Openly speculating 'Do you think they have AoEs? Is that the bigger threat than their bruisers? Should we get in close formation or scattered formation? Bob, if we attack, why don't you lead with a Stinking Cloud?' during a tense negotiation is likely to lead to the other side initiating violence in the same way that blinding the PCs led to Bob initiating violence.

Even if the party has some kind of private comms, I occasionally have NPCs point out long gaps in the conversation where the players have been talking - IC - for 30+ seconds without saying anything out loud. It's particularly awkward with telepathic NPCs, who legitimately could be following the party's conversation about exactly how to screw them over.

So I'd consider not devolving into a 10 minute discussion of tactics during the 3 seconds of surprise to actually be quite reasonable. I might expect players to do that anyhow (and, for sake of making the game a better experience for the players over making the game realistic, basically let them talk it out even though they don't have the time IC), but I'm not going to be unpleasantly surprised if players are willing to decisively act in the moment during a sudden surprise. If I were playing in a system with more free-form initiative rules, I'd tend towards giving advantage to players who can immediately say what they want to do over players whose first reaction is to discuss what happened.



The real killer was initiating a fight in the dark and then continuing to fight in the dark, neither attempting to light a torch or withdraw to a location with better visibility. Simply casting continual flame on the fighter's sword, a tactic which Bob has used many time in the past, would have been immensely helpful.


I don't disagree with this.


Again, from my perspective, Bob shows weird double think, plunging the party into darkness is a huge threat, but seeking to create another source of light is not a priority.

Nor do I necessarily disagree with this.

But, by now, you should know enough to expect Bob to behave this way. It should have been predictable to you, whether you personally would behave the same way.

[Quarian Rex]

I do agree that Bob wants a lot more freedom and a lot less difficulty than the rest of the group, but I legitimately don't know how to run a game otherwise without constantly fudging, ret-conning, and dropping idiot balls to make sure Bob always wins, which are also things Bob has objected to.


I think you're making a bit of a strawman here. Does Bob want a lot more freedom than you have traditionally been seen to provide? That seems obvious. Saying that he demands autowins seems like the stretch here. From all the stories you provide it seems more likely that he wants to have actual intel on the situations he is going into and avoid what he perceives as 'GOTCHA!' moments from you, whether that be ogres with nasal based wind powers auto-throwing them into a crevasse, or a surprise ambush after tense negotiations with mind flayers taking place in the negotiation room. You chose to have the rogue drop the idiot ball by attacking during the negotiation, you chose to have the mind flayers permit the assault. You are the one who threw firecrackers into a mexican standoff then cried "Why you no talk?!?" when the bullets started flying.

Try playing the scenarios 'straight' without built-in I-win buttons (throwing specific special abilities on creatures that don't have them to achieve the aims you want) or sabotaging fragile interactions (ambushing the party during a tense negotiation when you don't want to re-enact the ending of Reservoir Dogs). You could have achieved your narrative goals far better if you had the rogue make his ambush anywhere but the mind flayer filled negotiation room. That would have removed most of the implied threat, potentially allowing something other than a raw fight or flight reaction. The rogue probably still would have died but he wouldn't have taken the mind flayers with him and something of the alliance could have been salvaged.

Let Bob actually be aware of what he is getting into (and have those perceptions be mostly accurate) and you will most likely see complaints of 'unbalanced' encounters disappear.

As for Bob casting Fireball vs. Light, see NichG's post here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24180045&postcount=869) for an extremely clear breakdown of why Fireball is usually the right call. Combats usually only last 2-3 rounds in d20. Taking non-combat actions (like casting Light) that do not directly damage/hinder your enemies (when you have the ability to do so) once combat has started is functionally the same as giving the enemy an extra surprise round, which in most cases is the same as suicide. That is just how the game works.

[Zombimode]

I think there's a lot of truth here.

One possible suggestion might just to have the "cool moments" be explicit, to get on the same path. I think Talakeal has used the term "cutscene" before in describing things, so why not make them literal cutscenes, and just tell the party explicitly "This is just a cutscene, I'll let you know when it's over and regular play begins?" Or some other signifier. Like to use a video game trope, mention a camera movement to begin the cutscene, and then say something like "the camera returns back to the characters" when it's over.

The thing is you can declare "cutscenes" all you want, that will only get the buy-in from players that will buy the concept of cutscenes anyway. Other players will interupt the GM narrating the cutscene by declaring their characters actions (like "Hm, that is a tense situation. I think I will activate my mindsight ability, so that no one can sneak up on us."). And if confronted with "Dude, you can't do that. This is a cutscene!" they will probably react with a confused look saying "What? My character is right there!. Why can't I act?".

[Talakeal]

I think you're making a bit of a strawman here. Does Bob want a lot more freedom than you have traditionally been seen to provide? That seems obvious. Saying that he demands autowins seems like the stretch here. From all the stories you provide it seems more likely that he wants to have actual intel on the situations he is going into and avoid what he perceives as 'GOTCHA!' moments from you, whether that be ogres with nasal based wind powers auto-throwing them into a crevasse, or a surprise ambush after tense negotiations with mind flayers taking place in the negotiation room. You chose to have the rogue drop the idiot ball by attacking during the negotiation, you chose to have the mind flayers permit the assault. You are the one who threw firecrackers into a mexican standoff then cried "Why you no talk?!?" when the bullets started flying.

Try playing the scenarios 'straight' without built-in I-win buttons (throwing specific special abilities on creatures that don't have them to achieve the aims you want) or sabotaging fragile interactions (ambushing the party during a tense negotiation when you don't want to re-enact the ending of Reservoir Dogs). You could have achieved your narrative goals far better if you had the rogue make his ambush anywhere but the mind flayer filled negotiation room. That would have removed most of the implied threat, potentially allowing something other than a raw fight or flight reaction. The rogue probably still would have died but he wouldn't have taken the mind flayers with him and something of the alliance could have been salvaged.

Let Bob actually be aware of what he is getting into (and have those perceptions be mostly accurate) and you will most likely see complaints of 'unbalanced' encounters disappear.

It would be a lot easier for me to take you seriously if you didn't accuse me of straw-manning and then go on to make a post where virtually every sentence is either worded in such a way as to give an inaccurate image or is an out-right lie.

For example, nobody was ever "auto-thrown" into a crevasse, and certainly not the whole group at once. And designing a custom monster and giving it a ranged attack so that it can be a credible threat to a mid level party is not the same thing as "throwing specific special abilities on creatures that don't have them to achieve the aims you want". Likewise, the illithid's didn't have a chance to permit anything, as Bob went out of his way to declare that he was going to surprise everyone with a fireball before anyone had a chance to react, and four of them hardly "fills a room".

I could go on, but really, why not just cut to the point without all the accusations and hyperbole? Because you might actually have a point about Bob wanting perfect information, but on the other hand, Bob kind of hates getting information. Like, in this particular example, and a half dozen others I can think of, he went out of his way to attack someone who was in the process of giving him exactly the information that he is being deprived.

He also has a standing "No divinations, not even once." Policy, but that's a whole 'nother topic.


As for Bob casting Fireball vs. Light, see NichG's post here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24180045&postcount=869) for an extremely clear breakdown of why Fireball is usually the right call. Combats usually only last 2-3 rounds in d20. Taking non-combat actions (like casting Light) that do not directly damage/hinder your enemies (when you have the ability to do so) once combat has started is functionally the same as giving the enemy an extra surprise round, which in most cases is the same as suicide. That is just how the game works.

We aren't playing 3.5 D&D.

I don't really see the point in getting into specifics, but that analysis does not apply here. For one thing, combats last a lot longer than 2-3 rounds in my game, for another, Bob could have cast a quickened continual flame spell without missing out on any actions.

[Koo Rehtorb]

So you're saying that putting out the lantern is a major deterrence that should have made them think twice before attacking, but also that reestablishing the light is a minor thing to do and they're stupid for not doing so basically for free?

[Talakeal]

So you're saying that putting out the lantern is a major deterrence that should have made them think twice before attacking, but also that reestablishing the light is a minor thing to do and they're stupid for not doing so basically for free?

Essentially, yes.

Note that the difficulty with which they can accomplish something is not directly proportional to its impact on the battle as your wording seems to imply.

[NichG]

I could go on, but really, why not just cut to the point without all the accusations and hyperbole? Because you might actually have a point about Bob wanting perfect information, but on the other hand, Bob kind of hates getting information. Like, in this particular example, and a half dozen others I can think of, he went out of his way to attack someone who was in the process of giving him exactly the information that he is being deprived.

As has been suggested in this thread, if you just wrote down the stats of everything in a scene and placed it openly on the table, that would likely be a different matter. Your description of Bob reads as someone who doesn't like it when you spend table time talking (I'm not making any claim here that that's reasonable, but that's what I get from the description), not someone who fundamentally wants to not know things.

Your approach to giving Bob information likely reads to him like 'Peon, let me illuminate your ignorance and humiliate you in a way that you are obligated to permit in order to gain scant advantage!'. You're giving him information conditional on him tolerating a snarky NPC disadvantage his character and gripe at him. It's also quite likely that he sensed that you were going to say things to make it so that he was 'supposed' to get along with the NPC and perhaps OOC convince the other players of that, and by pre-emptively attacking he could prevent you from doing that metagame manipulation. That's not him hating getting information, thats him hating being forced to tolerate NPCs pushing him around in order to get information. Pre-emptively attacking the NPC is him saying 'This is unacceptable to me, so I'm going use my ability to stop it'.

[Talakeal]

As has been suggested in this thread, if you just wrote down the stats of everything in a scene and placed it openly on the table, that would likely be a different matter. Your description of Bob reads as someone who doesn't like it when you spend table time talking (I'm not making any claim here that that's reasonable, but that's what I get from the description), not someone who fundamentally wants to not know things.

Your approach to giving Bob information likely reads to him like 'Peon, let me illuminate your ignorance and humiliate you in a way that you are obligated to permit in order to gain scant advantage!'. You're giving him information conditional on him tolerating a snarky NPC disadvantage his character and gripe at him. It's also quite likely that he sensed that you were going to say things to make it so that he was 'supposed' to get along with the NPC and perhaps OOC convince the other players of that, and by pre-emptively attacking he could prevent you from doing that metagame manipulation. That's not him hating getting information, thats him hating being forced to tolerate NPCs pushing him around in order to get information. Pre-emptively attacking the NPC is him saying 'This is unacceptable to me, so I'm going use my ability to stop it'.

It seems like you are fundamentally saying the same thing that I have been saying I fear to be the case; Bob wants to spend time killing and feeling superior to NPCs, and will make whatever justifications are necessary for that to happen.

[NichG]

It seems like you are fundamentally saying the same thing that I have been saying I fear to be the case; Bob wants to spend time killing and feeling superior to NPCs, and will make whatever justifications are necessary for that to happen.

Yes, I agree with that reading. Bob is likely not 100% self-aware of that and would likely object if it were said that plainly, but ultimately the impression I get is that, at least in this group, Bob is only actually comfortable when he's established as dominant in a situation. The things that set him off are things which undermine that dominance - his wishes not being followed (even when following them doesn't make sense), his preferences not controlling the dynamics, his expectations not bearing out or resulting in surprises, NPCs visibly treating him as inferior in any way.

I think it's likely that at least some of this comes from having repeated experiences of his control being undermined or things which to him feel like a betrayal or violation of consent. That is to say, the negative trust built up between you is probably making this worse than it would be in a fresh group.

[Kardwill]

Again, in my opinion is a good idea cause there was another player that helped him, so he had consent from at least one other player and disrespecting a good God, holier than thou, is always fun and a cause to laugh at the table.
Or at least that has been my experience.


Doing stupid stuff just to feel powerful is pretty cool, I agree. As long as everyone at the table is on board and laugthing with you. I have some pretty cool memories of this kind of foolishness.

But pissing on another player's fun just out of spite, when he obviously cares (in this case the GM)? Then you're just a common bully.

You need everyone at the table laugthing for it to work. And in this particular case, it's obvious Talakeal and his players have very different ideas for their games. Which can still work, but only if everyone is considerate and respectful for their fellow player's feelings.

Consent. It's the basic that has to be ironed out during session zero, and cultivated during playtime.

[Talakeal]

Doing stupid stuff just to feel powerful is pretty cool, I agree. As long as everyone at the table is on board and laugthing with you. I have some pretty cool memories of this kind of foolishness.

But pissing on another player's fun just out of spite, when he obviously cares (in this case the GM)? Then you're just a common bully.

You need everyone at the table laugthing for it to work. And in this particular case, it's obvious Talakeal and his players have very different ideas for their games. Which can still work, but only if everyone is considerate and respectful for their fellow player's feelings.

Consent. It's the basic that has to be ironed out during session zero, and cultivated during playtime.

Do note that the players were not unanimous in this decision, and the one survivor of the group who burned down the temple considered those that didnt to be traitors for not backing him up and quit the group.

[Kardwill]

Ok, so to further clarify:

I am not running D&D. I am running a homebrewed d20 fantasy game that has been greatly simplified to teach new players the game, and takes place in the same setting as my own Heart of Darkness system.


You're playing a D20 fantasy game with what looks like the D&D basic rules, D&D character classes, (repurposed) D&D iconic monsters (Like Illithids), for D&D-like adventures (dungeons) in a D&D-like setting, so from my point of view it really looks like you're playing a D&D variant, rather than "not D&D" ^^
That's the reason everyone is reacting like it's a D&D game and bringing D&D mentality and tactics into the conversation (and maybe your players do, too, even if they are not aware of it. Even if I dislike D&D, I must agree that this game has really shaped gamer culture. And even if they're not bringing "classic D&D" assumptions to your game, your "violence friendly" ruleset will still pretty much shape their experience)

The reactions to your post would probably have been very different if you described the same game for Fate or Runequest, where different "narrative physics" will apply due to the different rulesets.

[Talakeal]

You're playing a D20 fantasy game with what looks like the D&D basic rules, D&D character classes, (repurposed) D&D iconic monsters (Like Illithids), for D&D-like adventures (dungeons) in a D&D-like setting, so from my point of view it really looks like you're playing a D&D variant, rather than "not D&D" ^^
That's the reason everyone is reacting like it's a D&D game and bringing D&D mentality and tactics into the conversation (and maybe your players do, too, even if they are not aware of it. Even if I dislike D&D, I must agree that this game has really shaped gamer culture. And even if they're not bringing "classic D&D" assumptions to your game, your "violence friendly" ruleset will still pretty much shape their experience)

The reactions to your post would probably have been very different if you described the same game for Fate or Runequest, where different "narrative physics" will apply due to the different rulesets.

Its similar enough to D&D that the comparison plays out for conceptual problems like I created this thread to discuss, but once you get down into the nitty-gritty like "Illithids have a 60' Aoe Cone attack" or "Illithids have 44HP and will therefor be half dead after a fireball" it becomes meaningless.

[Quarian Rex]

It would be a lot easier for me to take you seriously if you didn't accuse me of straw-manning and then go on to make a post where virtually every sentence is either worded in such a way as to give an inaccurate image or is an out-right lie.

That seems to be an internet based communication breakdown. Second paragraph was meant to be a continuation of the first, illustrating previous events from a potential "GOTCHA!' perspective that I suspect Bob to have. Those interpretations were meant to be hyperbolic and one-sided to show how your actions as a DM could be viewed in a far more negative light than you seem allow yourself to see. You see flavorful challenge boost to an ogre, Bob sees an AoE railroad into the hole you want them to be in, one that hard counters Gaseous Form, something they were relying on as an emergency bypass (if I recall correctly, it's been a while). You saw a cheeky/dramatic reunion with an ex-PC, Bob saw an ambush on enemy home ground that pointed to an TPK if he didn't take the initiative.

You have shown a continued reluctance to view these situations from a position even slightly away from your own and this was just another attempt to get you to do so. One that apparently failed. My bad on that.



Likewise, the illithid's didn't have a chance to permit anything, as Bob went out of his way to declare that he was going to surprise everyone with a fireball before anyone had a chance to react, and four of them hardly "fills a room".

From someone elses perspective the rogue was allied with literal mind-readers (unless you homebrewed that away, in which case I have to ask what is the point of having mind flayers at all, much less an elder brain) who would have known his plans for some time as he mentally rehearses his 'clever' plan over and over again in anticipation showing up the party. A premeditated attack taking effect by the allies of telepaths implies the consent of those telepaths, unless you also altered them to have low intelligence and an innate trust in anyone who calls them friend (somehow I don't think that is the case). If you can't recognize the validity of this perspective then that lends credence to this just being a cool thing done at a cool time without any consideration for the implications. As has been pointed out, those don't seem to go so well for you.



We aren't playing 3.5 D&D.

I don't really see the point in getting into specifics, but that analysis does not apply here. For one thing, combats last a lot longer than 2-3 rounds in my game, for another, Bob could have cast a quickened continual flame spell without missing out on any actions.

I'm going to assume that Bob is a spontaneous caster (because I can't imagine a prepared caster actually memorizing a quickened version of Continual Flame), but that is asking him to blow a 6th level spell slot to light a torch. That is one hell of an ask. Not something that most sane casters would even consider when that same 6th level slot could be used to far more effectively turn the tide of battle, especially in what you described as a rather desperate battle. When the poop hits the fan, the glass cannon should be unloading as effectively as possible, not spending his action doing something that can be accomplished by literally anyone else.



Because you might actually have a point about Bob wanting perfect information, but on the other hand, Bob kind of hates getting information. Like, in this particular example, and a half dozen others I can think of, he went out of his way to attack someone who was in the process of giving him exactly the information that he is being deprived.

But that wasn't giving them information. That was attacking the party and then having the offending NPCs monologue interrupted by the counterattack. Also, all of this...


Your approach to giving Bob information likely reads to him like 'Peon, let me illuminate your ignorance and humiliate you in a way that you are obligated to permit in order to gain scant advantage!'. You're giving him information conditional on him tolerating a snarky NPC disadvantage his character and gripe at him. It's also quite likely that he sensed that you were going to say things to make it so that he was 'supposed' to get along with the NPC and perhaps OOC convince the other players of that, and by pre-emptively attacking he could prevent you from doing that metagame manipulation. That's not him hating getting information, thats him hating being forced to tolerate NPCs pushing him around in order to get information. Pre-emptively attacking the NPC is him saying 'This is unacceptable to me, so I'm going use my ability to stop it'.

Really keep this in mind. You are the omnipotent DM and every character interaction you have with Bob is instigated by you and you alone. You control his perceptions, he is merely capable of reacting to what you have presented. This isn't to say that you can't or shouldn't use snarky, cocky, or snide NPCs (everything has it's place), but you should be completely aware of how he will react to them (poorly) and potentially use that to further the story instead of constantly being derailed by it.



Bob wants to spend time killing and feeling superior to NPCs, and will make whatever justifications are necessary for that to happen.

Does he really? Or does he just not want to be talked to like a scrub? I mean, it seems like he is a spellcaster who can pull off at least 6th level spells, is there any reason why NPCs wouldn't give that consideration? Does he want to spend time killing and feeling superior to all NPCs, or just the ones that he sees as acting like jerks? When you say that he just attacks peaceable NPCs I have to take into account that you consider a rogue attacking the party in the middle of negotiations with mind flayers to be a perfectly reasonable avenue of discourse, and suspect that Bob's actions may be far more reasonable than you tend to describe.

[Satinavian]

Its similar enough to D&D that the comparison plays out for conceptual problems like I created this thread to discuss, but once you get down into the nitty-gritty like "Illithids have a 60' Aoe Cone attack" or "Illithids have 44HP and will therefor be half dead after a fireball" it becomes meaningless.
It is still close to D&D and if you want to discuss appropriate tactics, that will be the referrence. Otherwise you should provide the important rule alterations as context before the discussion.

And yes, i agree that taking the light out should most likely be seen as an agressive action.

But i don't think Bobs counterattacks with fireballs were an appropriate answer. Sure, there was a chance of this being part of the Illithids plan to kill the party. But considering that the person responsible for the darkness was not an Illithid and hidden during the whole negotiation makes something else more likely : That whatever third party is the danger to the Illithids and reason for them to work with the PCs wants to sabotage the negotiation. That this happens only after it seems to an outsider that Illithids and parties have come to some agreement is strong evidence for that.
So more appropriate would have been to only kill the rogue while trying to not hurt any Illithids until they act hostile, in case this really is a third party interferrence.

But while Bobs action is imho not the best answer, it is a very viable and plausible one.

[Talakeal]

But i don't think Bobs counterattacks with fireballs were an appropriate answer. Sure, there was a chance of this being part of the Illithids plan to kill the party. But considering that the person responsible for the darkness was not an Illithid and hidden during the whole negotiation makes something else more likely : That whatever third party is the danger to the Illithids and reason for them to work with the PCs wants to sabotage the negotiation. That this happens only after it seems to an outsider that Illithids and parties have come to some agreement is strong evidence for that.
So more appropriate would have been to only kill the rogue while trying to not hurt any Illithids until they act hostile, in case this really is a third party interferrence.

I was actually thinking the same thing; if that is Bob's go to answer, it would be child's play for mutual enemies to manipulate the group into attacking their would-be allies. Then I realized there is no way I could actually pull that off in game without is seeming like a gigantic screw-job.

[Kardwill]

I was actually thinking the same thing; if that is Bob's go to answer, it would be child's play for mutual enemies to manipulate the group into attacking their would-be allies. Then I realized there is no way I could actually pull that off in game without is seeming like a gigantic screw-job.

If the players are informed that someone wants to shut down the negociation, and you telegraph what is happening (by having a mindflayer shout a warning or sound confused, for example), then it would be a cool twist (and would probably have resulted in the other players trying to stop Bob from nuking everything.)
The really important part is communication : That's the difference between a gotcha and an honest twist. You need to communicat hints about what is happening, and you need to lay it thick, by whatever means necessary. The 3-hints-rule apply there.
Although with the strong trust issues you have with this group, they will probably still blame you :/

With your group, confusion will always result in bloodshed. That's how they rock. Either you eliminate sources of confusion, or you integrate that behaviour into your story, rather than let it blow up your plans. (For example, NPCs should know those guys are time bombs that simply can't be trusted)

[Cluedrew]

I agree with Talakeal that attacking in this case was a bad idea, I agree with everyone else that one should of seen it coming from that group. And that is currently all I have to say on that matter.

More importantly, Talakeal, when was the last time you had a game moment that was improved by having Bob there? You know what let's be optimistic, what were the last three times Bob added to the game?

[zinycor]

Maybe some DMs can handle it, but I can't figure out how as Bobs desires seem mutually exclusive. So, I guess, to use your analogy, its like going to a butcher shop and demanding him to make great salad, maybe someone can do it, but I just don't have a clue.
In your analogy the butcher could say. "I don't sell salad, go to a store that does" instead of insisting on trying to accommodate for that single client

[Quertus]

it was made more difficult by his team using bad strategy. and he's the first offender, as he should have a light spell.

Talakeal "very carefully balances" his encounters to exhaust every last spell slot from Bob, every time. It's one of Bob's complaints. It would be foolish for Bob to waste his limited resources doing something that literally anyone else could do.

Also, the "fight that was more difficult" was the subsequent boss fight, which Talakeal had carefully balanced assuming the assistance of the "this isn't an attack, honest" monologue-hating rogue.

Which reminds me: wasn't "the Rogue's gear" - let alone all the loot from the mindflayers - useful in that boss fight (and every other fight from there on out)? Shouldn't it have more than made up for "a few healing potions"?


but as a rule of thumb, if a wizard iss peacefully talking with me and he suddenly casts a protection spell - especially a protection spell that would be very useful against me - it would at least make me very worried. and it may elicit a fight-or-flight response.

If a Wizard is peacefully taking to me, and casts a buff spell, I'll (make a Sense Motive and) cast one of own, while (mentally noting that this Wizard is either about to betray me, or is an idiot, and) ask him what's going on.

If his familiar attacks me (which is closer to the situation at hand), I'll (consider the possibility that it's not actually his familiar; otherwise) **** is going down / getting real.


So I talked it over with the rest of the party.

Good.


They all agreed that it felt like an ambush to them

Good.


, but they also agreed that Bob going off and nuking everything without first establishing targets and restoring the light source was tactically inept.

And them continuing to not restore the light source? Did they also label that as tactically inept?


Out of curiosity, what is "my tactical analysis?".

All I said was that it in general it is usually a bad idea to start attacking before you have confirmed the existence of a threat,

Which the Rogue initiating hostilities qualifies. Which the Illithids and elder brain not reacting negatively to qualifies.


and in that particular situation they would have been better served by going on the defensive and restoring the light, and nothing anyone has said has managed to convince me otherwise.

A few TPKs from that level of tactical blunder should change… most people's tune. If you had handed the party the module beforehand, my opinion would change.


As the DM, I am omniscient, and I can say for a fact that he was wrong in his assumption that it was a prelude to an ambush by the illithids. I can't say how things would have gone had he chosen otherwise, but they did end up having to drink a lot of healing potions, lost several potential allies and a lot of information, and came very close to a TPK, but they did survive in the end (down several potential allies), so whether or not he made the right call or not is up to you I guess, but it didn't seem go over very well for them in hindsight, although I suppose they did survive, so it could have gone even worse.

Irrelevant. He made a reasonable call with the information that he had. What omniscient information you have is completely irrelevant to the game. Unless you start handing the group the module before the game. Which, honestly, would improve your game.

This reminds me why Knowledge: GM is the most important skill in D&D. Because reading Talakeal's encounters is really difficult impossible without it.


Couldn't any of the others get a light source?


Yes, but by the time they had a chance to act Bob had already aggroed the entire room and a chaotic melee had broken out in the dark, and whoever was holding the light would have become a target.

Good. Tell the elder brain "hold this". :smalltongue:

Good. The party tank finally has a way to draw aggro.

Regardless, if it's better than fighting in the dark, the party should have done that.



Surprise round: Lights go out

Round 1, Party: Party member 1 casts Light. Party member 2 moves to adjacent to them, uses full defense. Party member 3 moves to adjacent to them, uses - I dunno - Protection from Evil? Party member 4 moves to adjacent to them, readies an action to melee attack anyone who comes into range.

Round 1, Illithids: Move to various positions. 'Everyone, please make four Will saves, DC 17'. A failure means that character is stunned for at least 3 rounds, average of 7.5. Odds are that at least half the party is stunned after this.

Round 1, Elder Brain: Trolling, it casts Maze on the party member with the light source. Nope, no Elder brain.

Round 1, Rogue: Moves adjacent to a stunned PC and sneak attacks.

Round 2, Party: ???

Round 2, Illithids: Repeat Mind Blast, or approach stunned targets and individually Planeshift with them to the Plane of Air to eat their brains/strand them without the chance of other members of the party intervening. If Planeshift is off the table, the rogue flanks and helps the illithids attack with their tentacles to try to get a 2-round Extract.



Round 1, Party: Fireball the universe, scatter formation, someone other than Bob light a torch, the other two focus fire on one illithid and try to take it down. Illithids don't have great saves, and only 44hp, so a CL 8 Fireball has a good chance of doing about half of their health to each of them. I'd say odds are, the Illithids are down to 3 after this, but the rogue is fine.

Round 1, Illithids: Mind Blast is now only going to hit individuals, so rather than forcing everyone to make 4 saves, they can make 3 of 4 PCs make 1 save. So lets say, if it was a 50% chance to be stunned following 4 saves, we're looking at either one PC stunned or all of them up. Lets say that one was stunned, and we're down to 3 vs 3. The rogue can still sneak attack the stunned target, or they can go after the torch again (lets say they do that, it's actually more effective potentially if the party really needs light).

Round 2, Party: Another Fireball would take out the remaining Illithids if they're in a cluster, but we can't assume that they would be or that Bob isn't the one stunned (focus fire on Bob with the Mind Blasts would actually be a reasonable strategy from the illithids). But the three standing party members can take out at least one more illithid together.

... and so on.


This may be something where you actually need to go through the scenario as a player with someone like Quertus DM-ing to understand and actually have it play out.

I think I'm accustomed to fighting Illithids with either less odds of making the save, or worse luck with dice. Otherwise, yeah, I expected a noticeable difference between the two strategies - thank you for putting numbers to it.

I am curious what reputation I've built - what "someone like Quertus DM-ing" means to you, in this context.


The real killer was initiating a fight in the dark and then continuing to fight in the dark, neither attempting to light a torch or withdraw to a location with better visibility. Simply casting continual flame on the fighter's sword, a tactic which Bob has used many time in the past, would have been immensely helpful.

Again, from my perspective, Bob shows weird double think, plunging the party into darkness is a huge threat, but seeking to create another source of light is not a priority.

So, I've been assuming that, since you built the system, and since Bob has finite spells per day, that you actually made it balanced, and those finite shots deliver more "oomph" than a Muggle, who can swing their sword all day long. However, you've changed everything else, and your notion of balance is not exactly typical, so I figure I'd better explicitly ask: was Bob throwing around more damage than the other PCs? Would it have made tactical sense for anyone other than Bob to create a light source?

Oh, and just for good measure: did you successfully balance your encounters to deplete all of Bob's spells again today?


That's not really germane to a tactical analysis. Actually, one of the big mistakes I see players make is forgetting that NPCs are around them when they discuss their plans, leading to either an agreement 'okay, we'll hold that this is entirely OOC discussion but IC its just thoughts going through your characters' heads and not actual communication' or a lot of situations collapsing into bad positions. Openly speculating 'Do you think they have AoEs? Is that the bigger threat than their bruisers? Should we get in close formation or scattered formation? Bob, if we attack, why don't you lead with a Stinking Cloud?' during a tense negotiation is likely to lead to the other side initiating violence in the same way that blinding the PCs led to Bob initiating violence.

Even if the party has some kind of private comms, I occasionally have NPCs point out long gaps in the conversation where the players have been talking - IC - for 30+ seconds without saying anything out loud. It's particularly awkward with telepathic NPCs, who legitimately could be following the party's conversation about exactly how to screw them over.

So I'd consider not devolving into a 10 minute discussion of tactics during the 3 seconds of surprise to actually be quite reasonable. I might expect players to do that anyhow (and, for sake of making the game a better experience for the players over making the game realistic, basically let them talk it out even though they don't have the time IC), but I'm not going to be unpleasantly surprised if players are willing to decisively act in the moment during a sudden surprise. If I were playing in a system with more free-form initiative rules, I'd tend towards giving advantage to players who can immediately say what they want to do over players whose first reaction is to discuss what happened.

Story Time!

So, early in 3.0, I had a party retreat from a foe (say what?!) to discuss strategy (say what?!) They somehow fled through a hole in the ceiling, to decide how to deal with an "unusual" (probably just "unusual-looking" - same thing) foe.

A foe that could fly. And who didn't fly through the hole after them.

When they finished talking, one of the players noticed how intently I was paying attention to their plan. Their character yelled back down the hole, "you were listening to all of this, weren't you?".

The monster responded, "yes". :smallbiggrin:

Really, it seemed like the logical thing to do. If the party is going to lay out their capabilities and plans, intelligent monsters are more than happy to listen in, and both weigh their odds, and develop counter-strategies of their own. This monster liked its odds (and, either the party did not opt to negotiate, or the monster was not interested in negotiations, I forget which), and waited them out.

I'm a little more forgiving with noticing telepathy, except… doesn't 3e have a way to listen in on telepathic conversations?


And designing a custom monster and giving it a ranged attack so that it can be a credible threat to a mid level party is not the same thing as "throwing specific special abilities on creatures that don't have them to achieve the aims you want".

It kinda is. Just, you know, not *necessarily* in the way that you mean those words.


Likewise, the illithid's didn't have a chance to permit anything,

Sure they did. You had the Rogue start monologuing. And the Illithids didn't attack him. (Even ignoring that if your "Illithids" and "elder brain" were anything like the original, them not attacking the Rogue before he acted would be telling)


For one thing, combats last a lot longer than 2-3 rounds in my game, for another, Bob could have cast a quickened continual flame spell without missing out on any actions.

Again, how many spell slots did Bob have left over? How many 6th level slots (unless you changed that, too)?


So you're saying that putting out the lantern is a major deterrence that should have made them think twice before attacking, but also that reestablishing the light is a minor thing to do and they're stupid for not doing so basically for free?

Lol. I hadn't looked at the Rogue's total failure in that light (heh) yet.

[King of Nowhere]

I don't get it... As an adventurer you are always making enemies, and pissing off powerful entities. Only that these are evil. But pissing off good entities would somehow be worse?

Again, in my opinion is a good idea cause there was another player that helped him, so he had consent from at least one other player and disrespecting a good God, holier than thou, is always fun and a cause to laugh at the table.
Or at least that has been my experience.

Edit: Do the evil Gods at your table scry-and-die good aligned PCs at your game?

As an adventurer you will inevitably make enemies. there's no need to make more. the more enemies you make, the greater the risk. Especially when they are more powerful than you are.
I spoiler the rest for short because it only concerns my campaign world

The gods do nothing. the rest of the world does stuff.
My campaign world is more organized than your average one. powerful people gather together in powerful organizations to fight common enemies. high level people are famous and everyone with enough money and influence could hire some.
And a lot of that is reaction to murderhobos. when your world has high level adventuring parties going wild, you either gang together to find ways to contain them, or you give up on the whole "civilization" business.

I made all that stuff clear from the beginning. Murderhobos, loose cannons and similar people don't last in my campaign world. You start a brawl, break some bones, you get away with a fine. you get caught pickpoketing, you can get a light sentence. you burn donw a village, you can't just move to the next village and expect to have no repercussions. for something of that magnitude, the higher powers of the world will take otice, and their answer will not be level-appropriate. Every large nation, every religion (evil religions are of the "pragmatic ruthless evil with a reasonable purpose" variety and are practiced openly) and even some other powerful organizations, good or evil or neutral, can all gather or hire a 20th level party to kick your ass if you give them enough reasons to.
adventuring parties, including the players, have two choices. they can attach themselves to some higher power, gaining protection in exchange for some freedom. Or they can stay freelancers, pursue their goals, and avoid making enemies of the higher powers.

If you steal the holy artifact of hextor because you work for pelor, you can get away with it, because you have allies protecting you.
If you steal the holy artifact of pelor because you work for hextor, you can get away with it, because you have allies protecting you.
If you ally with no one and steal nobody's holy artifact, no one will bother you.
If you steal someone's holy artifact without anyone backing you up, the campaign ends with the party dragged into high security antimagic prisons. You'll have to escape to some of the most remote planes, at the least.

And I repeat, this is not something I conceived to railroad the players. this I conceived at the beginning of worldbuilding, asking myself how civilization could adapt with high level murderhobos. and my answer was, either it became sufficiently organized and powerful to contain them, or there would be no civilization.

The party eventually got so powerful that they became de facto leaders of the good powers; some even worshipped them as messiah and prophets. but they weren't alone. when the high priest of vecna unveiled an army of 400 liches and put together over a thousand level 10+ characters to conquer the world under his banner, the party stood against him with an equal army they gathered - some of them potential allies of vecna that they swayed with their previous adventures. I kept the actual tabletop fights contained to them vs the vecna leaders, but it was always assumed that the rest of both sides forces were doing other stuff.
the point is that while a single party may be powerful enough to tip the balance of such a war, nobody is powerful enough to take over the world alone. in my world you need allies.

You wouldn't like playing in my world.
I wouldn't like playing with your style.




As the DM, I am omniscient, and I can say for a fact that he was wrong in his assumption that it was a prelude to an ambush by the illithids.




All of those assume AoEs. The enemy in this battle had absolutely no form of form of AoE attack; if they had I would have suggested a different tactic.

you are omniscent, but your players are not. and if they take a wrong decisions because they miss the information needed, then they still took the right decision with the information they have. you can't expect your players to act according to informations they lack.

Especially when it comes to monster special abilities. You had the ogre with the breath attack, and the spirit of violence that could not be killed by weapon damage, just off the top of my memory.
If you pull stuff like that regularly, your players will expect surprises. you can't expect them to make plans based on knowing that a monster will not have an AoE.





But, the players didn't say "What if the enemy has AOEs?" They didn't discuss tactics or communicate with one another in any way.

then again, are we discussing what the optimal strategy for the party would have been, or your player's lack of communication?
they are two unrelated arguments.


I was actually thinking the same thing; if that is Bob's go to answer, it would be child's play for mutual enemies to manipulate the group into attacking their would-be allies. Then I realized there is no way I could actually pull that off in game without is seeming like a gigantic screw-job.
By the way, did you ever consider having the mind flayer surrender or offer to talk once bob started fireballing?
{Scrubbed}
but this goes much worse for the others, who lost not only allies, but their lives.
And all they really had to do was... react by talking to an aggression*. same as you were expecting from your party.
there is a sweet karmic simmetry here.

[*everyone in this thread spent so much time explaining why blinding the party is an aggression, it's not worth spending more words on it]
I surmise that if the mind flayers had reacted to the fireball by shouting "wait! don't shoot! this is a misunderstanding!" and had taken no aggressive actions against the party (they could have healed themselves, scattered to avoid morre fireballs, but absolutely no attacks, and neither debuffs or even aggressive buffs) then everyone except bob would have given it a chance.

In fact, since you keep talking about how it was a bad tactical decision to fight while at tactical disadvantage, don't you think it was an even worse decision for the mind flayers to fight while outpowered? the mind flayers died, so it's clear they were the ones at a disadvantage. the smart thing for them to do would have been to avoid the conflict if possible, at any cost.
Especially because they knew what the party did not, i.e. that this was actually a misunderstanding.

as you are fond of using analogies, take mine:
during world war 2, a british and an american platoon move in contested area during the night. at some point there is shooting, and the british platoon thinks the american (whom they can only see as vague shapes because of the night) are nazis shooting them. so the british open fire against their american allies.
what's the correct strategy for the americans there? fire back, try to kill their allies? or drop down, surrender, and try to explain the situation? heck, even discounting the value of not killing your ally, which of those two strategies have a higher likelyhood of the americans themselves making it out alive?




The problem is that a feel like I am caught between Scylla and Charydbis. I get accused of railroading if I don't give the PCs enough rope to hand themselves with, and of killer DMing if I do.



that's because you want to give them rope, but also protect them from the consequences of their actions. And the only way to solve this dicotomy is to have the campaign in god-mode. which kills the tension and can also be used for bad metagaming (like with the spirit immune to damage).
You have to make some choices there. trying to appease everyone never works.

I had some similar issues early on with my players, but I basically taught to whine less. I needed their trust for it, though, which I had because I've been friends with them for over a decade.
But I think you should also have trust with at least some party members, excepting bob, as you played for years with them and they should know you better. and if bob is the odd man out, once you can get trust from your other players, use them to keep bob contained. make it so that when bob complains that you are a killer dm out to cheat them, it's the other players who will shut him up.

[zinycor]

One thing that is a problem here:
1) the rogue didn't intend any harm to the party
+
2) the Illithids didn't mean any harm to the party
=
3) The party ended the fight depleted of resources and nearly died..

I believe that at any point the Illithids and the rogue could just stop their offensive and try to convince the party this was all a misunderstanding. Didn't the Illithids have enough single target damage to knock out a single sorcerer while talking to the other party members?

In fact. In the particular case of rogue, didn't it make more sense to him to just run away in the cover of darkness once the situation turned violent?

[Lord of Shadows]

Second off, out of character I told them that he was talking to them, and then Bob said he wanted to retroactively attack first. How is that in any way a failure to communicate?

Wait, what? (Boldface added) There are certain "allowances" made at almost every gaming table, some of which allow going back and "fixing" something in some way.There are also tables where everything happens as stated and in the order it was done, period, let the chips fall where they may.

So, knowing how "Bob" is, you retroactively turned the clock back to allow him to take an action that you had to have known would be a bad thing for the game? I recommend that, from now on, if you insist on allowing Bob at your table, that you don't let his character do anything "retroactively," since he seems to use that to steer things his way. In fact, I wouldn't allow "Bob" any allowances at all for a while, but that's just me.

I think he has more than qualified himself for special treatment. He may complain about it, but let him complain... whose table/game is it, yours or his?

PS - think what would have happened if you hadn't allowed the retro action. Bob might be pissed, but at this point in time, so what?

[zinycor]

whose table/game is it, yours or his?

I suspect his...

[NichG]

I think I'm accustomed to fighting Illithids with either less odds of making the save, or worse luck with dice. Otherwise, yeah, I expected a noticeable difference between the two strategies - thank you for putting numbers to it.

I am curious what reputation I've built - what "someone like Quertus DM-ing" means to you, in this context.


You generally take a hardline stance of playing things straight and not modifying in play things for drama, effect, narrative goals, or because of how you think things are supposed to go.



I'm a little more forgiving with noticing telepathy, except… doesn't 3e have a way to listen in on telepathic conversations?


I don't tend to make use of it as a gotcha (this happens far more often in the middle of negotiations than in the middle of fights in my campaigns), but there have been several cases where the other side sort of coughs awkwardly and says 'so, full disclosure by the way, I can hear that'. The most recent set of examples wasn't D&D, but a custom superhero system with very, very over the top information gathering powers possible (among other things). So this was sort of my 'hey, the system can do really detailed paranoid info warfare stuff - do we want to go there with it, or just pretend it doesn't apply to party chatter to keep things easy?' question to the players. This is a system where one PC periodically ran aggregate keyword trend searches on all sentient thought in the universe, to keep an eye out for extra-universal spies messing around. So eavesdropping on telepathy was kind of small potatoes by comparison.

[kyoryu]

I disagree that this is the purpose of hostage negotiations, but that would probably veer into politics.

Sure. There's multiple reasons. But none of them are good for the kidnappers, really.


In my experience, initiating combat when there is still a desire for a peaceful resolution is rarely a good idea, and attacking when you are at a tactical disadvantage is rarely a good idea. It might be a good idea based on the situation, but the problem was that Bob was using "being put at a tactical advantage," as a universal rationale for initiating combat, which seems to me to be a sort of backwards logic; being at a tactical disadvantage is a reason NOT to initiate combat, although combat still might be prudent based on other factors.

In real life or in games?

And here's the problem. The party has a starting 'tactical strength' of x. The enemies have y. The enemies make a move that puts the party at x-10 and the enemies at y+10. Who's to say that they won't make another such move, especially now that they have the cover of darkness? So the question is "do we trust that they're not going to attack enough to allow them this time, and possibly put us at x-50, and them at y+100?"

YOU know that they're not going to attack. The PLAYERS don't.

I mean, let's make a hypothetical situation here. Let's assume that the rogue and illithid were in cahoots and WERE planning on attacking the party.

Wouldn't going through a negotiation where they gave back a familiar, thus putting them at easy, and then distracting them while getting into ambush position be, like, the PERFECT ambush? In this case, the only possible mistake would have been the rogue would have made would have been making too strong of a move with putting the torch out. And even that may have been on purpose in order to allow maneuvering, bringing in of additional troops, etc.

So, without knowing what you know, how are the players supposed to distinguish between "cool cutscene" of the rogue putting out the light and talking to them and "preparation for an ambush" by having the rogue putting out a light and talking to them?


The thing is you can declare "cutscenes" all you want, that will only get the buy-in from players that will buy the concept of cutscenes anyway. Other players will interupt the GM narrating the cutscene by declaring their characters actions (like "Hm, that is a tense situation. I think I will activate my mindsight ability, so that no one can sneak up on us."). And if confronted with "Dude, you can't do that. This is a cutscene!" they will probably react with a confused look saying "What? My character is right there!. Why can't I act?".

Yes, but this puts the conflict front and center.


It would be a lot easier for me to take you seriously if you didn't accuse me of straw-manning and then go on to make a post where virtually every sentence is either worded in such a way as to give an inaccurate image or is an out-right lie.

And yet, regardless of objective truth I would bet dollars to donuts (not really a good bet these days, but whatever) that at least some of these match well with the player perception of these scenarios, given that the players do not know what you do.

[Kardwill]

I think there's a lot of truth here.

One possible suggestion might just to have the "cool moments" be explicit, to get on the same path. I think Talakeal has used the term "cutscene" before in describing things, so why not make them literal cutscenes, and just tell the party explicitly "This is just a cutscene, I'll let you know when it's over and regular play begins?" Or some other signifier. Like to use a video game trope, mention a camera movement to begin the cutscene, and then say something like "the camera returns back to the characters" when it's over.

I put cutscenes in my games. They're nice to introduce the big bad of the campaign (Strahd at his balcony, looking in the distance and telling his lackey that they'll have guests for diner), to get the players to know stuff so that the game makes sense (exactly like a TV show where the action gets away from the heroes for a context scene), or to give them OOC information so that they will make an informed choice for their characters (my very first cutscene was the enemy commander asking for an airstrike. I could have given them other clues that things were getting more dangerous by the minute, but it felt more cinematic this way, and they quickly "remembered" that the operation was supposed to be a simple smash-and-grab-and-run.)

But for scenes where the PCs are present, the scene is much more difficult to play "cleanly" without the players feeling manipulated.

[Max_Killjoy]

I put cutscenes in my games. They're nice to introduce the big bad of the campaign (Strahd at his balcony, looking in the distance and telling his lackey that they'll have guests for diner), to get the players to know stuff so that the game makes sense (exactly like a TV show where the action gets away from the heroes for a context scene), or to give them OOC information so that they will make an informed choice for their characters (my very first cutscene was the enemy commander asking for an airstrike. I could have given them other clues that things were getting more dangerous by the minute, but it felt more cinematic this way, and they quickly "remembered" that the operation was supposed to be a simple smash-and-grab-and-run.)

But for scenes where the PCs are present, the scene is much more difficult to play "cleanly" without the players feeling manipulated.

There's a HUGE difference between a "meanwhile" cutscene, versus a "now your characters can't do anything while I narrate" cutscene.

[kyoryu]

But for scenes where the PCs are present, the scene is much more difficult to play "cleanly" without the players feeling manipulated.


There's a HUGE difference between a "meanwhile" cutscene, versus a "now your characters can't do anything while I narrate" cutscene.

To be clear, it's not something I would do. Well, I've used cutscenes, but they're like Kardwill describes.

But, since Talakeal seems to want these kind of cool things (and has in the past explicitly referred to them as cutscenes and used the video game analogy), I think it's better to clearly communicate what's happening rather than having people under different ideas of what's going on (Talakeal thinking it's a cutscene, other players thinking that they should be able to interact).

[Great Dragon]

To be clear, it's not something I would do. Well, I've used cutscenes, but they're like Kardwill describes.

I only use "cutscenes" to describe something cool the player/s have done.
They are the star/s of the Movie, not the monsters or my DM-PC/s.
They determine how the Scene plays out, and I have to figure out what the responses to the PCs actions are - but after these actions are done, and are never pre-planned.

Sure, I can still have my DM-PC/s and Monsters do cool stuff (See post about Tralzog (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?598720-baldur-s-gate-descent-into-avernus) for an example) - but it's never my goal to overshadow the Players.
That scene was actually the Player's Idea, and I just ran with it.

About the Lantern Post:
The idea of taking out the Light source on the Party without Darkvision (and surrounded by entities of unknown intent) would not be something I did without expecting the Party to respond with hostilities. Even if that was the expectation of them restraining themselves to non-lethal damage, there would most likely still be a Fight.

[kyoryu]

At the minimum a fight shouldn’t be an unexpected response.

[Quertus]

I agree with Talakeal that attacking in this case was a bad idea,

You do? Any chance you can explain that? Because I can't say as I really get Talakeal's explanation. Unless you also mean, "from the PoV of an omniscient narrator" - that part I get.

Maybe if I could see things that way, I might… better bridge the conceptual gap?


You generally take a hardline stance of playing things straight and not modifying in play things for drama, effect, narrative goals, or because of how you think things are supposed to go.

I completely agree with that assessment. :smallbiggrin:

Unfortunately, I'm having a "blonde" moment. Why do you believe that playing under a GM like me would be helpful to Talakeal, in this context?


This is a system where one PC periodically ran aggregate keyword trend searches on all sentient thought in the universe, to keep an eye out for extra-universal spies messing around. So eavesdropping on telepathy was kind of small potatoes by comparison.

That is awesome. That's the kind of thing my characters usually have as long-term goals.

[Cluedrew]

You do? Any chance you can explain that? Because I can't say as I really get Talakeal's explanation. Unless you also mean, "from the PoV of an omniscient narrator" - that part I get.

Maybe if I could see things that way, I might… better bridge the conceptual gap?In character: because it is a lot more effort to steal a light than to stab the light bearer in the back. Out of character: the rogue had already spoken and it seems pretty obvious what is going on.

To Talakeal: I would like to repeat my question from last my last post: Could you give the last couple of times Bob's presence added to the game?

[Talakeal]

@Quertus:

I think you are kind of taking my talk of balancing a bit further than I ever meant it.

The sort of perfect balance you describe is obviously impossible, and if I read you're tone right, you know this but aren't sure if I know it.

What I do is really not so different from the 3.5 CR system, where the players are expected to face 4 encounters per day, each of which takes up approximately 20% of their resources. Now, obviously, this is just a white-room average, as there is no accounting for dice, tactics, or other wild-card factors.

The things that I do differently are as follows:

1: I use something similar to 5Es long rest variant so that I can balance over the adventure rather than the adventuring day to avoid 15MWD problems.
2: I use GP as a sort of "score card" with a very minor effect, if the group does badly they will need to spend wealth on consumables to complete their mission, and any resources left over can be used to earn money during the downtime between missions.


In response to a few of your specific questions:

A: I use spell point rather than slots.
B: This fight was tough because of incoming damage, people drank a lot of healing potions to stay alive.
C: while this one encounter was pretty bad, the adventure as a whole wasn't, Bob ended it with plenty of spells left.
D: The rogue had no magic items.
E: The ilithids were waiting to see what was going to happen, just like I expected the party to. They had no idea that Bob was going to interrupt the rogue and attack, and playing them as if they did is kind of unfair, as it requires me to read the PCs minds; which as has been pointed out, is a very bad thing for the DM to expect of the PCs.
F: Not everyone in the party had a lantern, and it also takes other party members a standard action and the use of a free hand to light and hold one, Bob can cast quickened continual flame as a free action on any item in the room to negate these downsides.

Edit: Also, the encounter wasn't balanced with the rogues help or harm. Basically, it was an optional social encounter before the fight. He was mad at the party for betraying him and selling him into slavery. Based on what was said during the conversation, I was going to allow for a diplomacy roll to see whether they parted on good or bad terms, and on an exceptionally bad / good roll, he would have participated in the fight for or against the PCs. He wasn't really a huge threat to one side or the other, and he wasn't factored into the fight's CR, and as I said it was the fighting in the dark that hurt the party.

[King of Nowhere]

E: The ilithids were waiting to see what was going to happen, just like I expected the party to. They had no idea that Bob was going to interrupt the rogue and attack, and playing them as if they did is kind of unfair, as it requires me to read the PCs minds; which as has been pointed out, is a very bad thing for the DM to expect of the PCs.


still doesn't explain why they didn't surrender or try to talk to the party instead of immediately fighting back.
they knew they needed to be friend to fight the ancient evil. their elder brain had done some kind of mind link with the party, so they should know that the party wasn't hostile unless threatened.
and they knew the dumb rogue was doing his stunt, so they knew it was all a misunderstanding.
the more I consider what they knew, the more I am baffled that they immediately attacked the party back without trying to explain. especially since they are supposed to be smart (unless you changed that about mind flayers too).
In fact, if they were smart, and if their brain leader had done some kind of mind reading on the party - heck, even if they just gathered information on the party by mundane means - they should have realized how bob would have reacted and would have stopped the rogue.

[zinycor]

In fact, if they were smart, and if their brain leader had done some kind of mind reading on the party - heck, even if they just gathered information on the party by mundane means - they should have realized how bob would have reacted and would have stopped the rogue.

Do you really expect the Illithids to know how Bob was going to act when Tal didn't?

[Talakeal]

That seems to be an internet based communication breakdown. Second paragraph was meant to be a continuation of the first, illustrating previous events from a potential "GOTCHA!' perspective that I suspect Bob to have. Those interpretations were meant to be hyperbolic and one-sided to show how your actions as a DM could be viewed in a far more negative light than you seem allow yourself to see. You see flavorful challenge boost to an ogre, Bob sees an AoE railroad into the hole you want them to be in, one that hard counters Gaseous Form, something they were relying on as an emergency bypass (if I recall correctly, it's been a while). You saw a cheeky/dramatic reunion with an ex-PC, Bob saw an ambush on enemy home ground that pointed to an TPK if he didn't take the initiative

Lead with that. If you are going to play devil's advocate, please say so, otherwise it just looks like you are trying to pick a fight.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Would you mind being a little more civil please? The only reason I am "droning on and on" about it is because people keep insisting that it was the right tactical choice, and I a rebutting them.

With my omniscient knowledge, attacking the illithids in the dark was a bad tactic. This is a fact.

From Bob's perspective it might have been the best choice. Maybe I should have seen it coming, and maybe I should have made an easier encounter based on the PCs being likely to take sub-optimal tactics. These are all points we can argue.


T
But, since Talakeal seems to want these kind of cool things (and has in the past explicitly referred to them as cutscenes and used the video game analogy), I think it's better to clearly communicate what's happening rather than having people under different ideas of what's going on (Talakeal thinking it's a cutscene, other players thinking that they should be able to interact).

That doesn't sound like something I would say. Do you happen to remember when I said this or about what?


Does he really? Or does he just not want to be talked to like a scrub? I mean, it seems like he is a spellcaster who can pull off at least 6th level spells, is there any reason why NPCs wouldn't give that consideration? Does he want to spend time killing and feeling superior to all NPCs, or just the ones that he sees as acting like jerks? When you say that he just attacks peaceable NPCs I have to take into account that you consider a rogue attacking the party in the middle of negotiations with mind flayers to be a perfectly reasonable avenue of discourse, and suspect that Bob's actions may be far more reasonable than you tend to describe.

Is this based on anything I have said? In this particular case, the rogue in question is basically slightly more sadistic pippen type, a clownish buffoon who has no regard for his own safety and takes great pleasure in getting his companions into trouble. I would never call him reasonable or accuse him of putting on heirs and talking down to people.


So, knowing how "Bob" is, you retroactively turned the clock back to allow him to take an action that you had to have known would be a bad thing for the game? I recommend that, from now on, if you insist on allowing Bob at your table, that you don't let his character do anything "retroactively," since he seems to use that to steer things his way. In fact, I wouldn't allow "Bob" any allowances at all for a while, but that's just me.

It wasn't so much a full on "do over" as Bob interrupting me, in and out of character, with a counter action of his own, and IMO only a jackass DM wouldn't allow that sort of immediate response.


In real life or in games?

And here's the problem. The party has a starting 'tactical strength' of x. The enemies have y. The enemies make a move that puts the party at x-10 and the enemies at y+10. Who's to say that they won't make another such move, especially now that they have the cover of darkness? So the question is "do we trust that they're not going to attack enough to allow them this time, and possibly put us at x-50, and them at y+100?"[/I]

Situationally that might be correct. I am only baffled by Bob's idea that the enemy attempting to get a tactical advantage is, by itself, moral and tactical justification for an attack regardless of the circumstances rather than a mitigating factor in a larger context.


Wouldn't going through a negotiation where they gave back a familiar, thus putting them at easy, and then distracting them while getting into ambush position be, like, the PERFECT ambush? In this case, the only possible mistake would have been the rogue would have made would have been making too strong of a move with putting the torch out. And even that may have been on purpose in order to allow maneuvering, bringing in of additional troops, etc.[/I]

Heavens no.

If they were planning on ambushing the party, they would have killed the familiar rather than releasing it, buffed up before the combat, and readied actions to attack as soon as the lights went out.

Also, they probably could have found a more effective way of putting the light out without giving away the rogue's position, up to and including killing / mind controlling the torchbearer.


But, since Talakeal seems to want these kind of cool things (and has in the past explicitly referred to them as cutscenes and used the video game analogy), I think it's better to clearly communicate what's happening rather than having people under different ideas of what's going on (Talakeal thinking it's a cutscene, other players thinking that they should be able to interact).




In character: because it is a lot more effort to steal a light than to stab the light bearer in the back. Out of character: the rogue had already spoken and it seems pretty obvious what is going on.

To Talakeal: I would like to repeat my question from last my last post: Could you give the last couple of times Bob's presence added to the game?

Agreed with the first part. As for the second:

Its actually hard for me to point at any one moment when any one character's presence added to the game as most moments of good gaming are group efforts.

In short, I keep Bob around because a: He genuinely likes my games, b: he is a lot better at recruiting new players than I am (he formed the current group and it would disolve if we kicked him), and C: He is a very good mechanical optimizer, he is professional game tester irl, and though his attempts to break systems are annoying in the moment, it really helps the quality of my material in the long run.

Keep in mind, the vast majority of games he is just fine, but you guys only here about the exceptional stuff. For example, nobody responded to "The session went fine," but four pages of discussion on "except for one little t


you are omniscent, but your players are not. and if they take a wrong decisions because they miss the information needed, then they still took the right decision with the information they have. you can't expect your players to act according to informations they lack.

Especially when it comes to monster special abilities. You had the ogre with the breath attack, and the spirit of violence that could not be killed by weapon damage, just off the top of my memory.
If you pull stuff like that regularly, your players will expect surprises. you can't expect them to make plans based on knowing that a monster will not have an AoE.


By the way, did you ever consider having the mind flayer surrender or offer to talk once bob started fireballing?
Because you drone on and on on how it was a bad tactic from bob to attack, how they lost allies and had a hard fight and so on.
but this goes much worse for the others, who lost not only allies, but their lives.
And all they really had to do was... react by talking to an aggression*. same as you were expecting from your party.
there is a sweet karmic simmetry here.

[*everyone in this thread spent so much time explaining why blinding the party is an aggression, it's not worth spending more words on it]
I surmise that if the mind flayers had reacted to the fireball by shouting "wait! don't shoot! this is a misunderstanding!" and had taken no aggressive actions against the party (they could have healed themselves, scattered to avoid morre fireballs, but absolutely no attacks, and neither debuffs or even aggressive buffs) then everyone except bob would have given it a chance.

In fact, since you keep talking about how it was a bad tactical decision to fight while at tactical disadvantage, don't you think it was an even worse decision for the mind flayers to fight while outpowered? the mind flayers died, so it's clear they were the ones at a disadvantage. the smart thing for them to do would have been to avoid the conflict if possible, at any cost.
Especially because they knew what the party did not, i.e. that this was actually a misunderstanding.

as you are fond of using analogies, take mine:
during world war 2, a british and an american platoon move in contested area during the night. at some point there is shooting, and the british platoon thinks the american (whom they can only see as vague shapes because of the night) are nazis shooting them. so the british open fire against their american allies.
what's the correct strategy for the americans there? fire back, try to kill their allies? or drop down, surrender, and try to explain the situation? heck, even discounting the value of not killing your ally, which of those two strategies have a higher likelyhood of the americans themselves making it out alive?



still doesn't explain why they didn't surrender or try to talk to the party instead of immediately fighting back.
they knew they needed to be friend to fight the ancient evil. their elder brain had done some kind of mind link with the party, so they should know that the party wasn't hostile unless threatened.
and they knew the dumb rogue was doing his stunt, so they knew it was all a misunderstanding.
the more I consider what they knew, the more I am baffled that they immediately attacked the party back without trying to explain. especially since they are supposed to be smart (unless you changed that about mind flayers too).
In fact, if they were smart, and if their brain leader had done some kind of mind reading on the party - heck, even if they just gathered information on the party by mundane means - they should have realized how bob would have reacted and would have stopped the rogue.

Ok, at this point I kind of feel like I am in another no win situation, playing the enemies too smart OR too dumb makes me look spiteful, and there is a very small window of appropriate.

In short, there was going to be a fight. Bob was looking for an excuse to attack them, he was really pissed off at them for capturing his familiar, and he took the first opportunity. Out of character, I knew there would be a fight, I just didn't foresee it coming at that moment, but again, I wasn't really surprised either, and so I just decided to go with it.

The illithids are super intelligent, but also super alien, to the point where attempted telepathic communication with the elder brain resulted in nothing but gibberish and a bad headache, so communication had to be done through an intermediary.

So, take your pick. OOC I knew a fight was coming anyway, and I had to make a split second decision, and so I just rolled with it. In character, you can either assume the mind flayers were so alien that they didn't understand human behavior, or so intelligent they knew betrayal was inevitable and decided this was their best chance to strike.

[Quarian Rex]

Lead with that. If you are going to play devil's advocate, please say so, otherwise it just looks like you are trying to pick a fight.

Hey, sometimes you get on a train of thought and forget to proofread. Like i said, internet communication errors and my bad. Which leads me to...



Speaking of which...


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Would you mind being a little more civil please?

... Yeah... I never said that. That seems to have come from King of Nowhere here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24180654&postcount=896). Easy to hear something in a way it wasn't meant then attributing ill intent to something that wasn't actually said, isn't it? Sounds like you and Bob have had a lot of practice mis-attributing intentions to each other, probably been doing so for years. Just keep this sort of thing in mind the next time you find yourself digging in your heels refusing to even consider a position because you think that it might be pro-Bob.

{Scrub} Even that sort of thing can be repaired but it will take work, and since your relationship is so lopsided (being the omniscient DM makes you the dictator of your shared experience) the onus for change really does fall to you. That's not what you want to hear but it is what you'll probably have to come to terms with eventually.






Does he really? Or does he just not want to be talked to like a scrub? I mean, it seems like he is a spellcaster who can pull off at least 6th level spells, is there any reason why NPCs wouldn't give that consideration? Does he want to spend time killing and feeling superior to all NPCs, or just the ones that he sees as acting like jerks? When you say that he just attacks peaceable NPCs I have to take into account that you consider a rogue attacking the party in the middle of negotiations with mind flayers to be a perfectly reasonable avenue of discourse, and suspect that Bob's actions may be far more reasonable than you tend to describe.

Is this based on anything I have said? In this particular case, the rogue in question is basically slightly more sadistic pippen type, a clownish buffoon who has no regard for his own safety and takes great pleasure in getting his companions into trouble. I would never call him reasonable or accuse him of putting on heirs and talking down to people.

It's based on everything you've said. Despite the rogue's actions being unanimously judged to be an attack you have maintained (bafflingly so) that they were peaceful and couldn't possibly be viewed as a hostile act. The character of the person committing the act is irrelevant. If you attack someone and then expect them to play nice then you are playing a dominance game with the characters and expecting them to submissively allow themselves to be bullied/belittled/intimidated/etc. No one plays a fantasy game to meekly get pushed around. Heroes don't submit.

This isn't to say that such things don't have a place in the game. Villains might tell the PCs to roll over and show their bellies, to take the lash without complaint, and that is the reason they are hated. This is seen time and again, the villain saying "Stay down!" and the hero desperately lashing out, seeking victory and refusing to submit. The difference with you seems to be that instead of seeing this as a trope and using it as a narrative tactic you actually expect the players to submit. That makes you personally (as the DM not as an NPC) the villain. And, just as any villain, time and time again you find your plans torn to shreds when the heroes lash out. And, time and time again, you repeat the same mistakes (Skeletor would be proud...?).

Please recognize the hyperbole in what I've just written to illustrate a point. Please consider how many times Bob has engaged with you as if you were the villain, then consider that there might be some truth in what I've just written.

[Talakeal]

snip.

{Scrubbed} I won't be responding to you further and I would appreciate if you do the same.


Although I do apologize for mangling the format of my previous post and mis-attributing the quote, I will fix it.

[Cluedrew]

Its actually hard for me to point at any one moment when any one character's presence added to the game as most moments of good gaming are group efforts.

In short, I keep Bob around because a: He genuinely likes my games, b: he is a lot better at recruiting new players than I am (he formed the current group and it would disolve if we kicked him), and C: He is a very good mechanical optimizer, he is professional game tester irl, and though his attempts to break systems are annoying in the moment, it really helps the quality of my material in the long run.

Keep in mind, the vast majority of games he is just fine, but you guys only here about the exceptional stuff. For example, nobody responded to "The session went fine," but four pages of discussion on "except for one little tTo the first paragraph: yes but groups are made of people. My favourite scene in role-playing was a 6 person group effort but I can still pin-point what the each person in the group did. So outlining his part of a group effort counts.

To the second paragraph: Isn't he the one who complains about them the most? Especially when anything to hurt his character happens. That kind of calls how much he enjoys it into question. I don't have much to say about the others, good play testers can be hard to find.

To the third paragraph: Considering the frequency of your posts and the severity of what is in them, the unmentioned highs would have to be pretty high. And if you want to dispel your image as some stockhome syndrome/self hurting GM, you may want to talk about them as well. I don't even remember getting any when we asked what type of moments both you and your players enjoyed. And there are plenty of other reasons to talk about it the good moments as well:


Heroes don't submit.Only in raw power fantasy games. Which admittedly is what most of this group is going for so it should be expected. But even in your standard heroic adventure there are some fights not worth fighting, especially when you can turn losing into some advantage. Some of my best character moments (and brilliant recoveries) have raising my character's hands into the air and unconditional surrendering. It works wonders in the right situation.

[King of Nowhere]

In short, there was going to be a fight. Bob was looking for an excuse to attack them, he was really pissed off at them for capturing his familiar, and he took the first opportunity. Out of character, I knew there would be a fight, I just didn't foresee it coming at that moment, but again, I wasn't really surprised either, and so I just decided to go with it.


ok, i missed that part. i was under the assumption that you wanted the party to ally with the mind flayers, and bob wrecked it (note for quertus: this is not a "I, the DM, want to make X happen and will railroad for it", but a case of "I, the DM, think the NPC, with the informations they have, will want to achieve X, and so they will take any measure they can. including being civil to the party, if needed"; in which case it would have resulted in the mind flayers being more careful to not accidentally provoke the party).
because if I assume that you wanted to show the mind flayer being friendly to the party, then they acted very dumbly. if you assumed that it would go awry in some way and you may as well provide some hooks for it, then it's all right.

I also apologize for being condescending in a few posts. As it turns out, it was mostly a matter of misunderstanding.

By the way, if I'm not mistaken you didn't have the mind flayers focus fire on a single player, so you may have intentionally been pulling punches there. I know it's very common because it can increase the tension when everyone is wounded, while with focusing fire only one person gets wounded, and you have to either scale down combat difficulty or have a large chance of losing a party member.

Personally I went with "at high levels you are actually expected to lose a party member or two in a meaningful fight, but resurrection is trivial to get at that point; just consider diamonds as an expendable akin to potions". but of course it doesn't work in the system you made.

[OldTrees1]

Situationally that might be correct. I am only baffled by Bob's idea that the enemy attempting to get a tactical advantage is, by itself, moral and tactical justification for an attack regardless of the circumstances rather than a mitigating factor in a larger context.

So you are no longer baffled by why the rogue's attack was perceived as an attack?

That direct quote of Bob's that has you baffled was made during the heated exchange. People tend to oversimplify, exaggeration, and even make poor analogies during heated exchanges as can be seen by the analogy you gave Bob. Taking that context into consideration, Bob's idea is probably much less extreme than the direct quote.


Its actually hard for me to point at any one moment when any one character's presence added to the game as most moments of good gaming are group efforts.

In short, I keep Bob around because a: He genuinely likes my games, b: he is a lot better at recruiting new players than I am (he formed the current group and it would disolve if we kicked him), and C: He is a very good mechanical optimizer, he is professional game tester irl, and though his attempts to break systems are annoying in the moment, it really helps the quality of my material in the long run.

Keep in mind, the vast majority of games he is just fine, but you guys only here about the exceptional stuff. For example, nobody responded to "The session went fine," but four pages of discussion on "except for one little t

So we are getting a skewed negative sample of Bob. I will remember that.
However with that context, if a professional game tester as raised critique about your difficulty setting, perhaps you should not dismiss it by ad hominem. We have a skewed negative sample of Bob in part because you frequently attack Bob's personality.

[zinycor]

Heroes don't submit.


I agree very, very strongly to this statement.

[Koo Rehtorb]

No one plays a fantasy game to meekly get pushed around. Heroes don't submit.

And they should expect to die for it and not complain when they do. A heroic death making a stand against impossible odds is cool.

[Quarian Rex]

Only in raw power fantasy games. Which admittedly is what most of this group is going for so it should be expected. But even in your standard heroic adventure there are some fights not worth fighting, especially when you can turn losing into some advantage. Some of my best character moments (and brilliant recoveries) have raising my character's hands into the air and unconditional surrendering. It works wonders in the right situation.


I completely agree. Unconventional player action can be a high point of the TTRPG experience. I don't think that's the issue here. The problem occurs when the DM engineers a situation for the players to submit and doesn't expect them to resist, or worse yet, fails to account even for the possibility of resistance. That is where things tend to fall apart.



And they should expect to die for it and not complain when they do. A heroic death making a stand against impossible odds is cool.

While you are not wrong, it depends largely on the context. Did Han Solo surrender when he was surrounded by a platoon of Stormtroopers? Yup, you betcha. Did he do so when Greedo wanted to take him in? Nope, he rolled the bones, betting that he could come out on top.

I also think that this is a key difference between narrative and more sand-boxy type games. In the sandbox there is a lot more room for disproportionate power levels because the PCs have the option of not dealing with them at any given time, and should be given a lot more info than would be familiar in most games for them to be able to make informed choices on where they should and shouldn't go. A more narratively focused game usually sacrifices intel for the sake of story/drama/suspense and so conflicts need to be built with the PCs capabilities in mind because they are usually denied the ability to engage with it in an informed manner.

If, in a sandbox game, the players attack an army, get overwhelmed, told to submit, resist, and then die, everyone has learned a lesson on the limits of their capabilities and biting off more than they can chew. No valid criticism can be had. If, in a narrative game, the players get ambushed by an army, get overwhelmed, told to submit, resist, and then die, there is nothing for the players to learn other than 'Do what the DM says' which is a poor lesson in an interactive gaming medium, one which players are loathe to learn. Here, shenanigans should be called as this is just 'rocks fall, everyone dies' by another name.

Similar situations but vastly different effects depending on whether the players or the DM chose to initiate the encounter.

Edit: Added response to Koo Rehtorb post that I had missed.

[Quertus]

Re: heroes don't submit

I'm not so sure about that. I do think that running away is usually not considered heroic. Discounting tales of brave Sir Robin, that is.

[kyoryu]

Eh, I dunno. Most heroice fiction involves a large number of setbacks to the heroes.

I mean, look at Ep. 5.

Heroes may get captured, and they're not stupid. Sometimes they lose. Sometimes they have to retreat and cut their losses. The difference, to me, is that they don't let that stop them. They keep fighting and find a way.

[zinycor]

Surrendering to an enemy because is the clever thing to do, is honestly great.

Surrendering to an ally NPC? Never, I would never do that, unless I had decided that NPC to already have my loyalty in character creation.

[kyoryu]

Surrendering to an enemy because is the clever thing to do, is honestly great.

Surrendering to an ally NPC? Never, I would never do that, unless I had decided that NPC to already have my loyalty in character creation.

If an ally is asking for a surrender, they're not an ally. I mean, I fundamentally agree with you, but just sayin'.

Also, some people really want the "we just crush everything" type of superheroic (not supers) game. And that's cool too. Good for them.

But heroes surrendering or losing, at least temporarily, is a well supported thing in heroic fiction.

[RedMage125]

I find it odd how this thread has evolved. It started out as Talakeal's players being petulant and whiny about Legendary Actions (which are a thing from 5e D&D).

Then lots and lots of story time about other players (usually the same 2) being whiny, petulant juveniles. Or are at least, painted that way until the story gets made more clear, and sometimes it seems to be Talakeal's fault.

Now he tells us that they're not even playing D&D? There's some kind of disconnect in the narrative here.

But really: why is this thread still going?.

Talakeal:
Everyone agrees: Either talk with Bob and the other guy, or kick them out of your game. You seem to have nothing to curb or mitigate their bad behavior, and seek sympathy from the forum for it.

[Quarian Rex]

Re: heroes don't submit

I'm not so sure about that. I do think that running away is usually not considered heroic. Discounting tales of brave Sir Robin, that is.

And there is a reason why no one selects brave Sir Robin at character selection.

Remember, this isn't a critique of character choice. There are all kinds of reasons to take the less-than-heroic path, whether they be narrative (beginning a corruption/redemption arc), character (playing a mercenary anti-hero), tactical, or even just on a whim. The problem occurs when resistance isn't a planned for/allowed/even conceivable option in the encounter. Just as most players would rather see their character die (and roll up another) than see them robbed/mugged of their precious belongings, there are some tropes that have to be taken into account when designing an encounter as a DM. Unless you want it to blow up in your face, that is.

While it is easy to say that you would personally hand over your belongings if your life was endangered (as most of us would), those rules don't really apply to a 'heroic' individual of great personal power controlled by a detached overmind (the Player) who would not be negatively impacted by that individuals death. When that isn't taken into account then things tend to become a fustercluck, as we have seen.




Eh, I dunno. Most heroice fiction involves a large number of setbacks to the heroes.

I mean, look at Ep. 5.

Heroes may get captured, and they're not stupid. Sometimes they lose. Sometimes they have to retreat and cut their losses. The difference, to me, is that they don't let that stop them. They keep fighting and find a way.

See my above response as well. I've tried to be pretty clear that I'm not talking about tactical retreats or even encounters going wrong in general. I'm talking about setting up encounters where you actually expect players to submit, or worse yet, don't even consider resistance as an option and so are blindsided when it inevitably happens. I'm objecting to the seeming assumption that they should let that stop them. That they won't keep fighting and find a way. That is the disconnect that I think can cause so many problems.

[kyoryu]

See my above response as well. I've tried to be pretty clear that I'm not talking about tactical retreats or even encounters going wrong in general. I'm talking about setting up encounters where you actually expect players to submit, or worse yet, don't even consider resistance as an option and so are blindsided when it inevitably happens. I'm objecting to the seeming assumption that they should let that stop them. That they won't keep fighting and find a way. That is the disconnect that I think can cause so many problems.

Yeah, I think the idea that the PCs should always win in RPGs is kinda boring, to be honest.

But either way, in a situation like that, the PCs going all murder-y is definitely an option that should be considered.

And as a GM, you shouldn't really have a "plan" for how things go. Your job is to present situations to the players - their job is to react to those. Once you start trying to coerce a particular response, you're on shaky ground.

[patchyman]

In short, I keep Bob around because a: He genuinely likes my games, b: he is a lot better at recruiting new players than I am (he formed the current group and it would disolve if we kicked him), and C: He is a very good mechanical optimizer, he is professional game tester irl, and though his attempts to break systems are annoying in the moment, it really helps the quality of my material in the long run.


I am a little confused:
A) On the one hand, Bob is a very good mechanical optimizer and a professional game tester in real life;
B) The party is also generally very cautious, to the point that you complain about them going back to town after every fight to recover;

However, in this campaign, the party has had multiple TPKs, and several near TPKs. In a separate thread, you have also raised the concern that unless the players spend all of their gold upgrading their equipment, they will be killed by the BBEG.

The only way I can reconcile all of these statements is that the encounters you are throwing at the party are far too challenging. Is this the case?

[King of Nowhere]

re: heroes don't submit

not really true, there are instances where heroes have to submit and are no less heroic for it. the best example that comes to my mind is from the reckoners trilogy, where the protagonists are muggles fighting a villains with superpowers, and the villain comes unexpected and tells the crowd to kneel, and the protagonists kneel and cower like everyone else, keeping their heads down and hoping they won't be recognized because otherwise they'd be dead.
and when the villain goes away they go back plotting how to set up a good trap to kill him.

but submitting to strenght isn't the only kind of submission. there is also submission out of respect.
near the end of my campaign my players could have taken over basically everything they wanted, but they took active steps to give back control of some powerful organizations to some specific npcs, because those npcs had earned their respect. and while they didn't exactly take orders, they certainly took seriously any suggestions they made.


Yeah, I think the idea that the PCs should always win in RPGs is kinda boring, to be honest.
+1


And as a GM, you shouldn't really have a "plan" for how things go. Your job is to present situations to the players - their job is to react to those. Once you start trying to coerce a particular response, you're on shaky ground.
well, depends on what you consider a plan. if you pull strings and retroactively change stuff to get the desired outcome, I agree. On the other hand, setting up things to push towards a certain resolution is fine, within reasonable limits.
I planned several fights as "and here the party is outmatched and will have to flee". And I will argue that is fine. It's only reasonable that a resourceful villain who has a good idea of the party's capability will tailor an ambush capable of overwhelming them and forcing them to flee for their lives.

And at least half of those fights, the party stood and fought and won anyway. often by using abilities they recently aquired, which increases realism: the villain didn't plan for it because his informations weren't up to date. now, if I had retroactively changed stuff there to make sure they would lose anyway, that would have been bad.

there was a time they had to face a lot of mid level elite mooks, who were spread out to avoid too much damage from area spells. but the cleric had just got access to firestorm, with a huge shapable area that could hit everyone, and the druid had just got access to a greater rod of quicken metamagic, and so the mooks got hit by three firestorms before most of them even got to act.

the next time, they were all protected from fire, and the party was forced to flee and lose after taking some losses. because there were several survivors who escaped the previous battle, and so it made sense that they'd be prepared for the same tactic. If I had retroactively given everyone protection from fire in the first fight, then it would have been unfair.

Re: Bob
Given his job, I'm surprised that he accuses tal to be a killer DM. he should know very well that if the DM actually wanted to kill a player, he could do it easily.
on the othe side, his complains about the difficulty of the fights are harder to ignore.
not that it's necessarily bad. tal likes to set up hard fights, and he made a lot of rules to avoid lethality. it's a perfectly legitimate stance. maybe bob is used to playtesting videogames, where everyone who is competent at optimization can solo them at high difficulty.
in fact, the desirable difficulty is a matter of style, so the argument that the fights are "too difficult" is entirely subjective. maybe less people would buy it, but a tabletop campaign is not something made to be sold to the largest possible number of people, but to appeal to the people at the table.
which, again, brings us back where we always end: you two want different, mutually exclusive things out of the game.
but being a professional doesn't make him automatically right on claims of difficulty

also do notice that a good party optimizer would never start fighting without consulting with the other players first.

[Quertus]

Re: Bob
Given his job, I'm surprised that he accuses tal to be a killer DM. he should know very well that if the DM actually wanted to kill a player, he could do it easily.
on the othe side, his complains about the difficulty of the fights are harder to ignore.
not that it's necessarily bad. tal likes to set up hard fights, and he made a lot of rules to avoid lethality. it's a perfectly legitimate stance. maybe bob is used to playtesting videogames, where everyone who is competent at optimization can solo them at high difficulty.
in fact, the desirable difficulty is a matter of style, so the argument that the fights are "too difficult" is entirely subjective. maybe less people would buy it, but a tabletop campaign is not something made to be sold to the largest possible number of people, but to appeal to the people at the table.
which, again, brings us back where we always end: you two want different, mutually exclusive things out of the game.
but being a professional doesn't make him automatically right on claims of difficulty

also do notice that a good party optimizer would never start fighting without consulting with the other players first.

True, difficulty level is mostly a matter of personal preference. But I do find it interesting that the system is intended as an introductory-level game, yet in play an optimizer and professional tester considers it high difficulty. Were I building a system intended as an introduction to RPGs, that would be disturbing feedback, worthy of at least a second professional opinion. I am dismayed that, as an introduction, it leaves players decidedly - deceptively - unprepared for D&D ("look, it's Illithids - we should bunch up and fight defensively"). And I am concerned that, should Talakeal attempt to publish this system, D&D will defend its intellectual property (Talakeal, you might want to remove all references to Illithids, beholders, and whatever else the Dragon of the Dungeon jealously guards).

I am confused by that last paragraph - why do you expect Bob to consult the group before attacking?

[zinycor]

I am confused by that last paragraph - why do you expect Bob to consult the group before attacking?

Isn't standard practice to ask your fellow players before doing something unexpected?

[patchyman]

True, difficulty level is mostly a matter of personal preference. But I do find it interesting that the system is intended as an introductory-level game, yet in play an optimizer and professional tester considers it high difficulty.

I agree with you 100%, to the point that I suspect Talakeal of epically trolling the members of this forum.

Go back to the original post in this thread where Bob is complaining about the use of Legendary actions by bosses. If you read it bearing in mind that (1) they are playing a home brew game; (2) based on 3.5, which doesn’t have Legendary Actions; and (3) Bob is a professional game tester; the post reads very differently.

Talakeal’s tendency to omit relevant information in most of the posts concerning his games (like the fact that it took him 800 posts to mention that the game is homebrew) suggests that none of this really happened.

[Cluedrew]

Talakeal’s tendency to omit relevant information in most of the posts concerning his games (like the fact that it took him 800 posts to mention that the game is homebrew) suggests that none of this really happened.I thought we all knew that already? I'd actually be surprised if this was the first time in the thread it has been mention but it has been mentioned in other help threads about this same problem group.

Actually I never asked but I always thought it was Heart of Darkness (http://www.heartofdarknessrpg.com/), the system you can find in his signature. I proof read that once but it was so long ago actually confirming whether that was the system in question was irrelevant because I had forgotten most of it.

To Talakeal: I would still like to hear about when Bob has contributed to the experience. Also if that is too much could I at least get the last couple epic moments, those times you are reminded "this is why I role-play", in this campaign that would be good as well.

[zinycor]

Talakeal’s tendency to omit relevant information in most of the posts concerning his games (like the fact that it took him 800 posts to mention that the game is homebrew) suggests that none of this really happened.

Personally I knew before the thread even started that this game is homebrew, That's why I always talk about "DnD and DnDlike" games.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Isn't standard practice to ask your fellow players before doing something unexpected?

Not really no.

[zinycor]

Not really no.

Wow, that's very weird... No wonder so many people have so many problems...

[NichG]

Wow, that's very weird... No wonder so many people have so many problems...

To be fair, I've seen this go the other way into decision paralysis. The right balance IMO is for players to do surprising things but to be considerate of eachother in doing so - that is, to recognize when others at the table have momentum or investment in a direction of play and not disrupt that.

Groups where every nontrivial action goes to committee can produce a lot of problems too (indecision, risk averseness, the group quashing the opinions of less assertive players, the group convincing themselves to not try things that in fact would have worked).

A healthy group needs at least one person who says 'I'm bored, I'm going to go get into a bar fight while the rest of you debate' or 'yes, I will push the big red button that says Do Not Push'. And that person needs to be socially savvy enough to not do it when it would trample on another player.

Edit:

Skimmed Heart of Darkness. If that's the system, I think it's necessary to drop D&D terminology almost entirely from this discussion. Its vaguely d20-ish, but some aspects seem more like they're on a World of Darkness scale than a D&D scale (e.g. as far as I can tell, it looks like the HP equivalent only goes up to 10, but it has M&M style damage saves to determine if you move down the track). Readying also works differently enough that it's unobvious how to read it in their situation, though I think its weaker than D&D readying (it's an initiative modifier)

[zinycor]

To be fair, I've seen this go the other way into decision paralysis. The right balance IMO is for players to do surprising things but to be considerate of eachother in doing so - that is, to recognize when others at the table have momentum or investment in a direction of play and not disrupt that.

Groups where every nontrivial action goes to committee can produce a lot of problems too (indecision, risk averseness, the group quashing the opinions of less assertive players, the group convincing themselves to not try things that in fact would have worked).

A healthy group needs at least one person who says 'I'm bored, I'm going to go get into a bar fight while the rest of you debate' or 'yes, I will push the big red button that says Do Not Push'. And that person needs to be socially savvy enough to not do it when it would trample on another player.

Edit:

Skimmed Heart of Darkness. If that's the system, I think it's necessary to drop D&D terminology almost entirely from this discussion. Its vaguely d20-ish, but some aspects seem more like they're on a World of Darkness scale than a D&D scale (e.g. as far as I can tell, it looks like the HP equivalent only goes up to 10, but it has M&M style damage saves to determine if you move down the track). Readying also works differently enough that it's unobvious how to read it in their situation, though I think its weaker than D&D readying (it's an initiative modifier)

Am not saying that every action should go to a comittee... am saying the edge cases where someone attacks an NPC out of the blue, or suddenly betrays a god because is fun, or whatever sudden weird thing. Telling the party before it happens, is common courtesy for murderhobboing...

[NichG]

(If it's Heart of Darkness then) this segment of the rules seems germane to what happened with the Illithids/Rogue/Party:



Defection

If a player wishes to switch sides during an action scene,they must declare their desire to do so at the start of their current team's turn instead of taking any actions.The defector's former allies then make a reflexive social test opposed by the defector's initiative. Those who succeed see the betrayal coming and may act accordingly, those who fail must consider the defector an ally until their following turn.If the character is defecting to another team, they will act during that teams turn. If they are instead setting out on their own, they will take a turn immediately after the team they defected from.


There are various ways it could have been run, I suppose, but one way to (meta-game) better ensure non-explosive negotiations would be to enter an action scene, declare all participants to be on the same side, and that way everyone is guaranteed that any attempt at betrayal at least grants a mechanical defense. So if run that way, the rogue could enter the scene 'on the party's side' in which case they couldn't take aggressive actions against the party, but also would have at least some warning if the party was going to take aggressive actions against them. Or alternately, they could enter the scene on a separate side, allowing them to take aggressive actions but also clearly signalling that taking aggressive actions against them was appropriate.

It also lets the Illithids remain on the party's side even if things break out with the rogue, so one could literally say that Bob's action of including them in friendly fire without explicitly initiating betrayal was against the rules of the system (because in that case, Bob is required to consider them an ally until the following turn).

[Koo Rehtorb]

People just need to be more willing to immediately nuke a wayward teammate and apologize to the NPCs he offended after he's dead.

[The Insanity]

To Talakeal: I would still like to hear about when Bob has contributed to the experience.
Talakeal stated that Bob basically created their group by recruiting the players (which he's good at, while Tal isn't). If Bob leaves, Tal is afraid his other players will leave too.

[Great Dragon]

Isn't standard practice to ask your fellow players before doing something unexpected?


Not really no.


Wow, that's very weird... No wonder so many people have so many problems...



To be fair, I've seen this go the other way into decision paralysis. The right balance IMO is for players to do surprising things but to be considerate of each other in doing so - that is, to recognize when others at the table have momentum or investment in a direction of play and not disrupt that.

Groups where every nontrivial action goes to committee can produce a lot of problems too (indecision, risk averseness, the group quashing the opinions of less assertive players, the group convincing themselves to not try things that in fact would have worked).

A healthy group needs at least one person who says 'I'm bored, I'm going to go get into a bar fight while the rest of you debate' or 'yes, I will push the big red button that says Do Not Push'. And that person needs to be socially savvy enough to not do it when it would trample on another player.

Teamwork is very Group Style (and Game Genre) dependant.

While as the GM, I can strongly encourage Teamwork, I shouldn't force it on the Players.

I'm going to have to re evaluate my opinions of both Bob and Brian.


Skimmed Heart of Darkness. If that's the system, I think it's necessary to drop D&D terminology almost entirely from this discussion. Its vaguely d20-ish, but some aspects seem more like they're on a World of Darkness scale than a D&D scale (e.g. as far as I can tell, it looks like the HP equivalent only goes up to 10, but it has M&M style damage saves to determine if you move down the track).

I tried to read through this, but I constantly Run Out of Time trying to actually figure it out. Those other tRPG references will actually help, thanks NichG



To Talakeal: I would still like to hear about when Bob has contributed to the experience. Also if that is too much could I at least get the last couple epic moments, those times you are reminded "this is why I role-play", in this campaign that would be good as well.



Talakeal stated that Bob basically created their group by recruiting the players (which he's good at, while Tal isn't). If Bob leaves, Tal is afraid his other players will leave too.

I'd also like some positive feedback on all the Group Members.

But, honestly IiRC, while all of them want to play, none of the others want to GM.
So, Ii UC only Talakeal's burning desire to both appease the group and play at any cost is keeping this thread alive.

[Quertus]

There are various ways it could have been run, I suppose, but one way to (meta-game) better ensure non-explosive negotiations would be to enter an action scene, declare all participants to be on the same side, and that way everyone is guaranteed that any attempt at betrayal at least grants a mechanical defense. So if run that way, the rogue could enter the scene 'on the party's side' in which case they couldn't take aggressive actions against the party, but also would have at least some warning if the party was going to take aggressive actions against them. Or alternately, they could enter the scene on a separate side, allowing them to take aggressive actions but also clearly signalling that taking aggressive actions against them was appropriate.

It also lets the Illithids remain on the party's side even if things break out with the rogue, so one could literally say that Bob's action of including them in friendly fire without explicitly initiating betrayal was against the rules of the system (because in that case, Bob is required to consider them an ally until the following turn).

Wow. Yeah, that definitely paints some different pictures.

I'm trying to decide how I feel about that.

Is it nice that, from a metagame perspective, you can use the system to manipulate the outcome? Does the system represent the "Sense Motive" rolls people should be making anyway (which Bob arguably did by dent of the Illithids not attacking the Rogue)? In which case, why does it produce seemingly different results? Has our - or, well, my - gaming experience clouded my judgement regarding how scenarios "should" play out?

Senility willing, I'll ponder this for a bit.

[Talakeal]

Sorry for the lack of updates over the weekend, I was sick and this thread was getting a bit headed, so I decided to take a break from the internet for a few days.

So, we played again. Everything went good, the players actually did really well, used great tactics, worked as a team, and kicked a lot of butt. Two sessions left until the climax!

I still definitely need to work on my communication, there were several times when I noticed I was being needlessly obtuse about stuff, and am making a definite effort to work on it.

There was also a situation that was the inverse of last week, where there was a standoff and the player's sent their new rogue to sneak up behind their enemies and pickpocket their weapons out of their holsters.






I agree with you 100%, to the point that I suspect Talakeal of epically trolling the members of this forum.

Go back to the original post in this thread where Bob is complaining about the use of Legendary actions by bosses. If you read it bearing in mind that (1) they are playing a home brew game; (2) based on 3.5, which doesn’t have Legendary Actions; and (3) Bob is a professional game tester; the post reads very differently.

Talakeal’s tendency to omit relevant information in most of the posts concerning his games (like the fact that it took him 800 posts to mention that the game is homebrew) suggests that none of this really happened.

If none of this really happened I am going to a lot of work for a troll; I am currently actually publishing a campaign diary of the game on this and several other forums, and would have written 150k words detailing a game that is all in my head.

The system in question is a home-brewed d20 fantasy game. It is not based on 3.5. It is similar to my Heart of Darkness system, and set in the campaign world, but it does not use the Heart of Darkness rules.

Bob was not the one described in the OP, it was Brian. I am keeping it fairly system agnostic, because it is something that comes up in any game where a lone boss monster has a mechanic to counteract the action economy of a group; be it legendary actions or lair actions in 5E, solo monsters in 4E, brutal power attacks in Lord of the Rings, Thunder Stomp in Warhammer, etc. Brain hates them all equally, and gets mad in any of the games we play, and I didn't think it was worth splitting hairs saying "not actually legendary actions in 5E but a functionally identical system which allows large monsters to take additional attacks when outnumbered by small creatures in the nameless home brew d20 fantasy game we are currently playing".


Honestly this thread has drifted far afield, and I am not quite sure why; I have made several more recent threads which died quickly, while this one keeps getting pumped to the top, and at this point I have just decided to go with it and use it as a general help thread for my games.



I am a little confused:
A) On the one hand, Bob is a very good mechanical optimizer and a professional game tester in real life;
B) The party is also generally very cautious, to the point that you complain about them going back to town after every fight to recover;

However, in this campaign, the party has had multiple TPKs, and several near TPKs. In a separate thread, you have also raised the concern that unless the players spend all of their gold upgrading their equipment, they will be killed by the BBEG.

The only way I can reconcile all of these statements is that the encounters you are throwing at the party are far too challenging. Is this the case?

Not really no.

Bob has a very different style of gaming than I do. I consider a 95% success rate to be sufficient, Bob wants it to be 100%. Likewise he likes to win by grinding until the encounters are trivial, something which doesn't really work in tabletop games.

Basically, I am adhering to what would be "average difficulty" if you were running later editions D&D by the books, 4-6 encounters per adventuring day each of which are each designed to use up ~15-20% of the party's resources in a white room scenario. But sometimes bad lucks or bad planning happen and things go south.

You might consider that too difficult, I don't, but I guess its ultimately subjective.



In a separate thread, you have also raised the concern that unless the players spend all of their gold upgrading their equipment, they will be killed by the BBEG.

I don't think it like that.

I said I don't want them to go into the final battle below full strength. I don't think it is at all likely that they will lose because they don't have level appropriate equipment, but it is a possibility that I want to avuid.


True, difficulty level is mostly a matter of personal preference. But I do find it interesting that the system is intended as an introductory-level game, yet in play an optimizer and professional tester considers it high difficulty. Were I building a system intended as an introduction to RPGs, that would be disturbing feedback, worthy of at least a second professional opinion. I am dismayed that, as an introduction, it leaves players decidedly - deceptively - unprepared for D&D ("look, it's Illithids - we should bunch up and fight defensively"). And I am concerned that, should Talakeal attempt to publish this system, D&D will defend its intellectual property (Talakeal, you might want to remove all references to Illithids, beholders, and whatever else the Dragon of the Dungeon jealously guards).

Difficulty and simplicity are not the same thing.

Bob prefers something like playing Pun-Pun in 3.5, very complex but allowing him to utterly ignore any challenge; while he would consider something like a fair fight between two first level fighters in 4e to be both too hard and too simple for his play style.

I am not trying to train players to play D&D specifically, I think the odds of me running a D&D group are pretty small at this point as I much prefer either Heart of Darkness or Mage: The Ascension, although I suppose I might run 5E if I can't find anyone interested in anything else.

Also, don't worry, nothing I publish has any D&D trademarks in it.


Skimmed Heart of Darkness. If that's the system, I think it's necessary to drop D&D terminology almost entirely from this discussion. Its vaguely d20-ish, but some aspects seem more like they're on a World of Darkness scale than a D&D scale (e.g. as far as I can tell, it looks like the HP equivalent only goes up to 10, but it has M&M style damage saves to determine if you move down the track). Readying also works differently enough that it's unobvious how to read it in their situation, though I think its weaker than D&D readying (it's an initiative modifier)

I really appreciate you taking the time to look at my system! If you have any questions of comments about it, I would love to hear them.


(If it's Heart of Darkness then) this segment of the rules seems germane to what happened with the Illithids/Rogue/Party:

There are various ways it could have been run, I suppose, but one way to (meta-game) better ensure non-explosive negotiations would be to enter an action scene, declare all participants to be on the same side, and that way everyone is guaranteed that any attempt at betrayal at least grants a mechanical defense. So if run that way, the rogue could enter the scene 'on the party's side' in which case they couldn't take aggressive actions against the party, but also would have at least some warning if the party was going to take aggressive actions against them. Or alternately, they could enter the scene on a separate side, allowing them to take aggressive actions but also clearly signalling that taking aggressive actions against them was appropriate.

It also lets the Illithids remain on the party's side even if things break out with the rogue, so one could literally say that Bob's action of including them in friendly fire without explicitly initiating betrayal was against the rules of the system (because in that case, Bob is required to consider them an ally until the following turn).

Yeah, the defection rules are a bit of a complex edge case, I am trying to keep things simple for new players, and the rules are really meant for in combat betrayal rather a team where side's are unclear to begin with.

[kyoryu]

Honestly, if "failure" equals "TPK", then 5% failure rate is too high.

The fix for this is to have failure modes (retreat, casting spells to escape, whatever) that are not TPKs.

[NichG]

I really appreciate you taking the time to look at my system! If you have any questions of comments about it, I would love to hear them.


First the good stuff:

- I like the quirks, flaws, etc system, and it looks like you've been pretty confident in making those potentially transformative for how a character plays. Things like being able to be totally immune to magic (both good and bad) as a character gen option jumps out at me as a good thing - it paints characters in bold, bright colors and really lets the style of play be transformed by a player's choices.

- The skills seem very detailed and have lots of use-cases, which I think helps players get an idea of what they can do with them. However, there's so much content there that I can't comment in detail based on the length of my read (about 30 minutes paging through the doc). With the short read I did, my initial impression at least was that the skills are more 'empower a character to do X' rather than 'check if a character passes X externally imposed challenge', which I appreciate.

- I generally like the idea of stats which contribute pools of special actions (e.g. Charisma -> Destiny, and the like). It makes them feel more impactful than just being another numerical modifier.

- The magical artifact system (including tonics, etc) seemed interesting. A lot will live and die on the specific mechanics, which I didn't have time to go into in depth, but it certainly caught my eye and would make me do a deeper read if I were making a character.

As far as criticisms, there are a few things that jumped out at me, but I might see more/differently on a deeper reading. In order of impression as I read:

- The actual document is organized in a way that makes it difficult to quickly get up to speed or use it as reference. Specifically, there's a lot of intricate setting detail up front. What I'd generally expect is for the most universally relevant things to be said first, then have the level of detail grow the further into the document I get. So that might mean doing something like establishing enough setting detail to make broad themes and moods clear, enough mechanical detail so that people know basically how the game works (barring character-specific options), etc, then going into the details that may not be relevant to every reader later on (either coupling it with setting and mood information as is usually done in World of Darkness books, or just making them separate sections).

- It sort of feels like the way that damage actually works is a bit hidden. You've got one section explaining that Endurance determines Vitality and that Vitality=0 is a breakpoint that gets you in trouble. Then you have the thing about damage saves in the combat section under Damage. However, the consequence of failure is described as e.g. 'being wounded', 'being wounded really badly', etc. At first I thought this was actually just some fluff thing where the DM decides what happens (especially since the system has particular rules for broken limbs, etc, but its not obvious how the rules tell you that you have a broken limb), but then I noticed later on that 'being wounded' = '2 damage', and 'being wounded, but receiving treatment' = '1 damage'. I'd want to see that summed up in one or two sentences under the Damage section in combat, before going into the details. For example: "Characters have a vitality score based on Endurance, and a resilience score. When a character suffers potential harm, they roll against a DC set by the attack, using their resilience. If they fail, they are wounded, which immediately decreases their vitality by 2, and may suffer additional consequences. A fumble leads to a critical wound (4 damage) and further consequences.'

- Progression seems... odd to me. It might be okay, but my instinct is that a player who approaches the progression in a balanced way is going to be far behind a player who approaches it in a min-max fashion. That said, at the same time, progression seems to create much smaller changes in ability than something like declaring 'I use a tool for this task'. For example, the entire range of variation in casting ability due to changes in Essence over the lifetime of a character seems to be equal to 'I use a grimoire' (also, I'm not actually sure how Essence increases...). So my instinct (if I were playing in a campaign using this system, or DMing it) would be to read into that very carefully and look for what the arc of a character is going to be like. I sort of have the feeling that the character themselves might matter less than gear in the end, and progression might feel very underwhelming (especially if you spread points around rather than just maxing out your most relevant stats). It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it could end up being one of those places where there's a strong mismatch in expectations leading to the system feeling unsatisfying or boring. One contributing factor is the relatively larger number of stats (8).

- Similarly, the stats seem a little unbalanced to me. Getting more Vitality seems really good. Getting destiny via Charisma seems really good. Getting a +3 to +5 for each point of Intelligence seems reasonable. Beyond that, ones which add to rolls are going to be fighting against the large variance of a d20. If I invest in Charisma, I can basically double my expected value on one roll (perhaps the roll that matters for life or death), but I would need to invest 10 points in something else to achieve the same effect. I'm not entirely sure I'm reading it right though - maybe I'm mistaken in thinking that some stats act primarily through adding to d20 rolls, and they all have some sort of special mechanic?

- I'm not sure that having a sequence of +X weapons and armor makes sense with the sort of impression I get from the rest of the system. It's like, in one direction you can have a game of stacking modifiers, but in the other direction you can have a game of broadening versatility. The way that damage saves work feels to me like it would be a lot harder to really feel a +1 (see in D&D for example, where +1 damage is actually weaker than +1 to hit in almost all cases, but psychologically the direct damage scaling feels more real since you have to roll a lot of d20s to feel a 5% chance in probabilities). It probably still is quadratically effective, but it's hidden behind a second statistical check, so I'd guess it would feel very flat. If I were redesigning it, I'd maybe instead focus on the fact that the system has lots of rules for e.g. disabling limbs and the like, and make 'magic weapons' be more about how those extra consequences of the enemy failing a damage save play out. A good example for this is Black Company d20's masterwork crafting rules - every + you get gives you the option to add an extra feature to the weapon or armor. But again, caveat that I might have misread things since I was going very fast.

- The system has both initiative as well as simultaneous action per side. I don't think I understand this, but it feels like it would significantly decrease the relevance of initiative in most situations.

- The way that spell effects scale with difficulty seemed unclear to me. It might be listed somewhere in the rules, but it took a bit of digging to figure out how someone casts spells in the first place (it's discussed in one place in the Enlightened trait, but then another place where it's talking about schools of magic and in a third place where it's talking about the spellcasting skills). I probably just need to go over spells in detail to really get an idea here, at which point I'd be looking at how much of the cool stuff is front-loaded versus is delivered as a progression reward.

There's probably a lot more I could say if I dug into it in depth (it's what, 600 pages? so that would take quite a bit), but that's the result of a 30 minute or so read. I did not look for combos or rules interactions or anything like that on this pass - I feel like a lot of things will hinge on whether you can use a bonus to a roll to unlock more bonuses (e.g. 'by casting this spell, I can hit the DC of that spell'). Another thing I'd look for is if characters other than spellcasters have some way to form and advance a base of power and versatility (e.g. going through the skill uses in more detail).

[King of Nowhere]

Honestly, if "failure" equals "TPK", then 5% failure rate is too high.

The fix for this is to have failure modes (retreat, casting spells to escape, whatever) that are not TPKs.

+1
When my campaign reached high level and the party started to get involved with big stuff, the lethality of the fights became high. As in, a good half of the fights killed a pc. And more than 5% of the times they had to escape to avoid a tpk.
But i designed the campaign with this in mind. True Resurrection was easy to get, and i made sure they were well stocked in escape mechanism. Every single character could have teleported the whole party away, and most of them were also difficult to affect with dimensional anchors, or could easily get rid of them.
So it was absolutely normal that sometimes the bad guys managed to outmanuever them and the party had to gtfo. The villains also retreated from losing fights if possible.

But i never read anything of the sort here. The party seems to fight to the death, and in case of tpk it is handwaved that they escaped somehow.
Maybe i'm wrong and they did run sometimes that we were not told.

But certainly the actual difficulty depends a lot on dscape mechanics.

[Talakeal]

Honestly, if "failure" equals "TPK", then 5% failure rate is too high.

The fix for this is to have failure modes (retreat, casting spells to escape, whatever) that are not TPKs.

It does not. This means that the players are forced to retreat, give up, fail to accomplish their goal, or something goes wrong and they accomplish their goal at too great a price (for example, defeated the bad guys but got the hostages killed in the cross fire).

Also not that the 5% is per adventure, not per encounter.

TPKs are almost unheard of in my games, and in my current game actually impossible as HP represent morale rather than injury and running out of them causes retreat rather than death.

[King of Nowhere]

TPKs are in my current game actually impossible as HP represent morale rather than injury and running out of them causes retreat rather than death.

If the party gets defeated in combat, it's still a tpk. Especially because the enemies don't get the same treatment, they just die normally (and drop loot).
I actually consider your rule a tpk retconned by deus ex machina. Not to bash on it, it's a perfectly legitimate style, but it is a tpk regardless of how you protect the players from its consequence

[Talakeal]

If the party gets defeated in combat, it's still a tpk. Especially because the enemies don't get the same treatment, they just die normally (and drop loot).
I actually consider your rule a tpk retconned by deus ex machina. Not to bash on it, it's a perfectly legitimate style, but it is a tpk regardless of how you protect the players from its consequence

Not sure if I agree with you about the deus ex machina part.

Having a system without rules for PC death is not a deus ex machina imo, a deus ex machina would be something like having Elminster teleport in and save the PCs bacon every time they were about to lose or something.


First the good stuff:

- I like the quirks, flaws, etc system, and it looks like you've been pretty confident in making those potentially transformative for how a character plays. Things like being able to be totally immune to magic (both good and bad) as a character gen option jumps out at me as a good thing - it paints characters in bold, bright colors and really lets the style of play be transformed by a player's choices.

- The skills seem very detailed and have lots of use-cases, which I think helps players get an idea of what they can do with them. However, there's so much content there that I can't comment in detail based on the length of my read (about 30 minutes paging through the doc). With the short read I did, my initial impression at least was that the skills are more 'empower a character to do X' rather than 'check if a character passes X externally imposed challenge', which I appreciate.

- I generally like the idea of stats which contribute pools of special actions (e.g. Charisma -> Destiny, and the like). It makes them feel more impactful than just being another numerical modifier.

- The magical artifact system (including tonics, etc) seemed interesting. A lot will live and die on the specific mechanics, which I didn't have time to go into in depth, but it certainly caught my eye and would make me do a deeper read if I were making a character.

As far as criticisms, there are a few things that jumped out at me, but I might see more/differently on a deeper reading. In order of impression as I read:

- The actual document is organized in a way that makes it difficult to quickly get up to speed or use it as reference. Specifically, there's a lot of intricate setting detail up front. What I'd generally expect is for the most universally relevant things to be said first, then have the level of detail grow the further into the document I get. So that might mean doing something like establishing enough setting detail to make broad themes and moods clear, enough mechanical detail so that people know basically how the game works (barring character-specific options), etc, then going into the details that may not be relevant to every reader later on (either coupling it with setting and mood information as is usually done in World of Darkness books, or just making them separate sections).

- It sort of feels like the way that damage actually works is a bit hidden. You've got one section explaining that Endurance determines Vitality and that Vitality=0 is a breakpoint that gets you in trouble. Then you have the thing about damage saves in the combat section under Damage. However, the consequence of failure is described as e.g. 'being wounded', 'being wounded really badly', etc. At first I thought this was actually just some fluff thing where the DM decides what happens (especially since the system has particular rules for broken limbs, etc, but its not obvious how the rules tell you that you have a broken limb), but then I noticed later on that 'being wounded' = '2 damage', and 'being wounded, but receiving treatment' = '1 damage'. I'd want to see that summed up in one or two sentences under the Damage section in combat, before going into the details. For example: "Characters have a vitality score based on Endurance, and a resilience score. When a character suffers potential harm, they roll against a DC set by the attack, using their resilience. If they fail, they are wounded, which immediately decreases their vitality by 2, and may suffer additional consequences. A fumble leads to a critical wound (4 damage) and further consequences.'

- Progression seems... odd to me. It might be okay, but my instinct is that a player who approaches the progression in a balanced way is going to be far behind a player who approaches it in a min-max fashion. That said, at the same time, progression seems to create much smaller changes in ability than something like declaring 'I use a tool for this task'. For example, the entire range of variation in casting ability due to changes in Essence over the lifetime of a character seems to be equal to 'I use a grimoire' (also, I'm not actually sure how Essence increases...). So my instinct (if I were playing in a campaign using this system, or DMing it) would be to read into that very carefully and look for what the arc of a character is going to be like. I sort of have the feeling that the character themselves might matter less than gear in the end, and progression might feel very underwhelming (especially if you spread points around rather than just maxing out your most relevant stats). It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it could end up being one of those places where there's a strong mismatch in expectations leading to the system feeling unsatisfying or boring. One contributing factor is the relatively larger number of stats (8).

- Similarly, the stats seem a little unbalanced to me. Getting more Vitality seems really good. Getting destiny via Charisma seems really good. Getting a +3 to +5 for each point of Intelligence seems reasonable. Beyond that, ones which add to rolls are going to be fighting against the large variance of a d20. If I invest in Charisma, I can basically double my expected value on one roll (perhaps the roll that matters for life or death), but I would need to invest 10 points in something else to achieve the same effect. I'm not entirely sure I'm reading it right though - maybe I'm mistaken in thinking that some stats act primarily through adding to d20 rolls, and they all have some sort of special mechanic?

- I'm not sure that having a sequence of +X weapons and armor makes sense with the sort of impression I get from the rest of the system. It's like, in one direction you can have a game of stacking modifiers, but in the other direction you can have a game of broadening versatility. The way that damage saves work feels to me like it would be a lot harder to really feel a +1 (see in D&D for example, where +1 damage is actually weaker than +1 to hit in almost all cases, but psychologically the direct damage scaling feels more real since you have to roll a lot of d20s to feel a 5% chance in probabilities). It probably still is quadratically effective, but it's hidden behind a second statistical check, so I'd guess it would feel very flat. If I were redesigning it, I'd maybe instead focus on the fact that the system has lots of rules for e.g. disabling limbs and the like, and make 'magic weapons' be more about how those extra consequences of the enemy failing a damage save play out. A good example for this is Black Company d20's masterwork crafting rules - every + you get gives you the option to add an extra feature to the weapon or armor. But again, caveat that I might have misread things since I was going very fast.

- The system has both initiative as well as simultaneous action per side. I don't think I understand this, but it feels like it would significantly decrease the relevance of initiative in most situations.

- The way that spell effects scale with difficulty seemed unclear to me. It might be listed somewhere in the rules, but it took a bit of digging to figure out how someone casts spells in the first place (it's discussed in one place in the Enlightened trait, but then another place where it's talking about schools of magic and in a third place where it's talking about the spellcasting skills). I probably just need to go over spells in detail to really get an idea here, at which point I'd be looking at how much of the cool stuff is front-loaded versus is delivered as a progression reward.

There's probably a lot more I could say if I dug into it in depth (it's what, 600 pages? so that would take quite a bit), but that's the result of a 30 minute or so read. I did not look for combos or rules interactions or anything like that on this pass - I feel like a lot of things will hinge on whether you can use a bonus to a roll to unlock more bonuses (e.g. 'by casting this spell, I can hit the DC of that spell'). Another thing I'd look for is if characters other than spellcasters have some way to form and advance a base of power and versatility (e.g. going through the skill uses in more detail).

Thanks again! If you (are anyone else) ever want to give it a more in depth look, I always appreciate it and am happy to receive any feedback or answer any questions.

I agree with most everything you said, even the bad stuff. A few responses to specific points:

The heavy setting stuff at the beginning is actually a pretty common complaint, but it might be a bit late to do anything about now. Basically, when the book was first written, it was patterned off of early 2000s White Wolf Books, particularly Exalted 1E, which seemed to take pride in putting the setting before the rules, figuratively and literally, and I was aping that style.


Damage was actually one of the things that changed a lot in play testing, so I see how it might be poorly laid out. Basically, when you are hit by an attack you test to see if you take damage. If your damage total is less than your vitality, you are fine. If your damage total exceeds your vitality, you need to make a save every time you take damage or suffer worse effects up to and including death.


Progression does tend to be fairly flat, and this is intentional. Essence is a sort of soft pacing mechanism, and isn't used much, although some merits do scale based on essence (most relevant being Legendary Skill), and Essence automatically increases over time. There is obviously a sweet spot between specialist and generalist characters, but exactly where that lies often depends on the size and composition of the group as a whole.


Every stat modifies rolls and provides some sort of passive benefit. Obviously, some are more useful for some characters than others, but all of them are important for every character.


Gear with increasing quality is very important to the game; it has strong themes of colonialism in the backstory, and Atlantean metellurgy is what allows more or less human characters to stand up to magic and monsters. Note, however, that the bonuses on gear are all technological in nature, actual magic artifacts are both much rarer and more mechanically interesting.


All characters on the same side act simultaneously. Initiative is only used for determining who can, in D&D parlance, act in the surprise round and to resolve complex situations involving delayed actions or interrupting other characters.


Spells do not scale with difficulty as such. To cast a spell, a character must roll a d20 and add their occult skill, and the result must exceed the spell's difficulty. All spells have a base difficulty listed in their entry, but metamagics can be applied to modify the spell's difficulty and effects. The rules for spell casting are laid out in Chapter Three in the Occult Skills section, and are greatly elaborated on in Chapter Six.

[patchyman]

If none of this really happened I am going to a lot of work for a troll; I am currently actually publishing a campaign diary of the game on this and several other forums, and would have written 150k words detailing a game that is all in my head.

The system in question is a home-brewed d20 fantasy game. It is not based on 3.5. It is similar to my Heart of Darkness system, and set in the campaign world, but it does not use the Heart of Darkness rules.

Bob was not the one described in the OP, it was Brian. I am keeping it fairly system agnostic, because it is something that comes up in any game where a lone boss monster has a mechanic to counteract the action economy of a group; be it legendary actions or lair actions in 5E, solo monsters in 4E, brutal power attacks in Lord of the Rings, Thunder Stomp in Warhammer, etc. Brain hates them all equally, and gets mad in any of the games we play, and I didn't think it was worth splitting hairs saying "not actually legendary actions in 5E but a functionally identical system which allows large monsters to take additional attacks when outnumbered by small creatures in the nameless home brew d20 fantasy game we are currently playing".


Honestly this thread has drifted far afield, and I am not quite sure why; I have made several more recent threads which died quickly, while this one keeps getting pumped to the top, and at this point I have just decided to go with it and use it as a general help thread for my games.




Fair enough. I apologize for being overly suspicious.

[TexAvery]

Eh, I dunno. Most heroice fiction involves a large number of setbacks to the heroes.

I mean, look at Ep. 5.

Heroes may get captured, and they're not stupid. Sometimes they lose. Sometimes they have to retreat and cut their losses. The difference, to me, is that they don't let that stop them. They keep fighting and find a way.

Or even ROTJ (assuming I got the correct "ep5", and it still works if I didn't) - Luke hands over his lightsaber (!) and surrenders, to be taken to Palpatine's throne room in manacles. It was, of course, not true submission/ surrender, but a serious gambit to get himself face to face with the BBEG. It, of course, worked in a movie with a script, but is not the way most D&D players would expect to play (not leastwise because it split the party and created a three-way fork for the final act which would have been a nightmare to run).

So yeah, I literally read all thirty-two pages of this over the last several days, during my "kick around on the internet" time. Wow. And so many specific things I wanted to respond to from months ago, but will keep my comments to the more recent items.

Talakeal, one thing I haven't seen anyone note is how much you enjoy the WW system. In my experience, people who like WW will rub me the wrong way, quite badly, in D&D. Even when describing your setting doc (which I haven't looked at yet but hope to soon), you talk about putting the setting before the rules, in the spirit of WW. If Bob is like me in this respect (and if he's a crunchy game tester, I almost guarantee he is), he wants a world with a consistent set of rules he can interact with. You seem to want to story to be told, and want the players to share your vision for that story, and have no issues with the rules being shaped to fit that story.

To bounce from the Star Wars example above, I absolutely loathe Star Trek. It pretends (and claims) to be "serious SF instead of that Star Wars space opera nonsense", but the holodeck behaves differently from week to week based on how the writer wants it to. As does the transporter. As does... literally everything else. Every time it changes, I lose my suspension of disbelief. Clearly a lot of other people disagree, but I'd be curious how Bob feels.

For all that the rogue encounter was discussed, no one has commented on this: you had a framework for how you expected it to play out, which would have made an outstanding scene in a movie. At least one of your players did not see your vision for that scene, and it seems people here (including me) don't either, at a very high rate. For what it's worth, the rogue's comment as you wrote them sounded like the prelude to a fight (explaining his reasons for anger) rather than the prelude to a parlay. It only works with information they couldn't have had.

That sort of thing is how I felt every time I tried to play WW games, and it was worse the more enthusiastic other people were. Every action felt like it was "wrong", and that everyone else was reading from a script I didn't have, and it ended poorly (though nothing like what you describe). It was frustrating, and I went through the motions for the sake of my friends and having literally any form of social life, but it was miserable.

I used to live in Boulder; if I still did I would love to be able to sit in on a session. Not that I believe you're lying or deliberately misrepresenting the situation, but it would be interesting to see the whole situation from another perspective.

Since this thread has become quite large in scope, I also want to address "gotcha" monsters. Off the top, they're terrible. They're terrible in a technical, game-design perspective, in that they force the player to take the hit up front and only learn for the next encounter (possibly as a new character). To GG, that was the intent, and players were expected to churn through huge numbers of low-level characters before "earning" the right to survive more than a few sessions (which is terrible and abusive on its own). It also caused a disconnect with future versions, in which players are encouraged to become invested in their characters and put effort into developing and expressing their personalities. In a system in which that character might die for no good reason other than the DM "teaching the player not to reach into a log", why bother? Just stab things in the face until you need to roll up a new one. If I ever write out the system in my head, characters will be very durable against death for exactly that reason.

This affects video games as well. Back in Doom, the monster closets pissed me off to no end, until I started walking backwards over every major powerup or key. That worked, but it was still terrible design for playing through the first time; it was from an arcade perspective where the player was expected to replay and restart levels and episodes until they learned all the gotchas. I hated it (but there were fewer options, and especially fewer options that had anything like the rest of the experience Doom brought). In Halo, more aliens are certainly placed onto the level in various circumstances, but to my memory it was never "pick up powerup, get shot in the back with no warning". That was a game expected to be played through more-or-less linearly.

D&D would be much better off with the "gotcha" monsters eliminated or reworked. The rust monster is cool if there's a warning, ditto for the slimes and oozes that eat weapons or split when hit with a blade (as long as it's not a tool to take away the fighter's favorite or best weapon, and the party has a way to deal with it). The mimic... maybe as a once-a-year surprise, if the party can deal with it fairly easily. The "ogre" with the "big nose" that lets it sneeze a Gust of Wind? I would have never made that connection, especially as lots of monsters are described as having large noses. On the other hand, your sick/ infected dragon sounds awesome, and from the description you've given I'd actually be surprised if it did breathe fire as normal. I certainly wouldn't describe that one as a "gotcha".

I don't know if that was even everything I wanted to say, but that seems like plenty enough for now.

[Great Dragon]

Or even ROTJ (assuming I got the correct "ep5", and it still works if I didn't)

SW =TPM is ep1, TCW is ep2, RotS is ep3, ANH is ep4, ESB is ep5, ROTJ is ep6, TFA is ep7, TLJ is ep 8 and RoS is ep9. Don't feel too bad, I have to type it out to remember the names of these as well.

But, I did see and understand the point that while surrender (or even a TPK) isn't necessarily Death, it is a setback to the PC/s.


So yeah, I literally read all thirty-two pages of this over the last several days, during my "kick around on the internet" time.
My hat is off to ya.


Talakeal, one thing I haven't seen anyone note is how much you enjoy the WW system.
In my experience, people who like WW will rub me the wrong way, quite badly, in D&D.

I also have problems with WW - in that even though they use the same Mechanics, very few of the "Creature" Books are compatible with each other. The Fluff being super focused on that one Creature isn't my problem, it's that both the Fluff and the Crunch are designed to have that Creature overshadow all the others that's the problem. Or, in the case of MAGE, how much of a 'struggle' it is to be one.


To bounce from the Star Wars example above, I absolutely loathe Star Trek.

The S.T. tRPG is a little more consistent then the Shows, but that fact doesn't help because the Players expect the GM to just technobabble (or Deus ex Machina RP) their way out of the corner they painted themselves into.


For all that the rogue encounter was discussed, no one has commented on this: you had a framework for how you expected it to play out, which would have made an outstanding scene in a movie. {snip} It only works with information they couldn't have had.

My main point was that tRPGs aren't supposed to be scripted, and Players shouldn't be expected to just sit and let bad things happen to their Characters like they are members of the Audience.


That sort of thing is how I felt every time I tried to play WW games, and it was worse the more enthusiastic other people were. Every action felt like it was "wrong", and that everyone else was reading from a script I didn't have, and it ended poorly (though nothing like what you describe). It was frustrating, and I went through the motions for the sake of my friends and having literally any form of social life, but it was miserable.

These kind of situations can happen in any game - from Monopoly (against the Financial Expert) to MGT (where the Player spend $5k on building their deck to perfection) to M&M/V&V where you were content being Iron Fist for power level, and everyone else is on Magneto's Level.


D&D would be much better off with the "gotcha" monsters eliminated or reworked. The rust monster is cool if there's a warning, ditto for the slimes and oozes that eat weapons or split when hit with a blade (as long as it's not a tool to take away the fighter's favorite or best weapon, and the party has a way to deal with it). The mimic... maybe as a once-a-year surprise, if the party can deal with it fairly easily. The "ogre" with the "big nose" that lets it sneeze a Gust of Wind? I would have never made that connection, especially as lots of monsters are described as having large noses. On the other hand, your sick/ infected dragon sounds awesome, and from the description you've given I'd actually be surprised if it did breathe fire as normal. I certainly wouldn't describe that one as a "gotcha".

I hated EGG, in the fact that everything he did required expertise level understanding of the Rules and a ton of Meta. But, while DA cared more about the PC's "Personality" and 'Development', even he had a lot of situations where the player not knowing what was going on could kill the PC.
Not everyone (IC or - especially - OoC) is on Batman's level as a Fighting Detective.

I agree that there should be more context and Environmental cues to a lot of the Gotcha monsters.
The lone chest in the last room of the hallway? = should always be suspected of being a Mimic.
Or at least some kind of Trap or Ambush.

Why are there no trails everywhere when encountering slimes and oozes? These things are literally mindless eating machines, and they should be in constant motion looking for food. I strongly dislike the Video Game Logic where everything is Suspended in Time until the PC/s arrive. Sure, I can't always plan these things out, like when I hit a Random Monster Generator to get what the next Encounter is, but I still at least try to describe what is encountered in as believable a manner as possible.

And the Cursed/Diseased Dragon wouldn't have been a Gotcha, especially if there were NPCs nearby that gave any comments about it. But, the options that people gave for giving descriptions for being discovered without those NPCs - dying vegetation, animals covered in rotting slime, etc - would have been enough to Clues to the Players to have their PCs prepare for an unusual encounter.

[GrayDeath]

Checking in on the "WW/D&D" Axis: I like both Systems.

But I would NOT like going to a story focus adverrtized Vampire Game and experience everybody playing "Murdermachines of Doom" and the Setting consisting of "you are Sabbat Elites, go destroy this city".

As little as I would like a D&D (like) advertized Game where, aside from one or 2 setting specific things, the rules were placed "after" the story.

So yeah, hawking in on the Play Style disconnect. But you have received a lot of recommendations on ho to approach that problem already. :)

[TexAvery]

SW =TPM is ep1, TCW is ep2, RotS is ep3, ANH is ep4, ESB is ep5, ROTJ is ep6, TFA is ep7, TLJ is ep 8 and RoS is ep9. Don't feel too bad, I have to type it out to remember the names of these as well.

Oh, I knew which was which, but "ep5" alone could mean a bunch of different series.


My main point was that tRPGs aren't supposed to be scripted, and Players shouldn't be expected to just sit and let bad things happen to their Characters like they are members of the Audience.

These kind of situations can happen in any game - from Monopoly (against the Financial Expert) to MGT (where the Player spend $5k on building their deck to perfection) to M&M/V&V where you were content being Iron Fist for power level, and everyone else is on Magneto's Level.

I'm lumping these together because to me, they're sort of the same thing and possibly me not communicating well enough. The issues I had with WW weren't about system mastery, it was not getting the overall thrust of the game. In WW, everyone (else) seemed to be flowing through a story, while I was looking for an engine to interact with and always seemed to run counter to the goals of the party.


I hated EGG, in the fact that everything he did required expertise level understanding of the Rules and a ton of Meta. But, while DA cared more about the PC's "Personality" and 'Development', even he had a lot of situations where the player not knowing what was going on could kill the PC.
Not everyone (IC or - especially - OoC) is on Batman's level as a Fighting Detective.

I agree that there should be more context and Environmental cues to a lot of the Gotcha monsters.
The lone chest in the last room of the hallway? = should always be suspected of being a Mimic.
Or at least some kind of Trap or Ambush.

Why are there no trails everywhere when encountering slimes and oozes? These things are literally mindless eating machines, and they should be in constant motion looking for food. I strongly dislike the Video Game Logic where everything is Suspended in Time until the PC/s arrive. Sure, I can't always plan these things out, like when I hit a Random Monster Generator to get what the next Encounter is, but I still at least try to describe what is encountered in as believable a manner as possible.

And the Cursed/Diseased Dragon wouldn't have been a Gotcha, especially if there were NPCs nearby that gave any comments about it. But, the options that people gave for giving descriptions for being discovered without those NPCs - dying vegetation, animals covered in rotting slime, etc - would have been enough to Clues to the Players to have their PCs prepare for an unusual encounter.

Yes, overall the various assumptions of "classic" D&D do a poor job of serving the goals of most modern players. And the Batman-level of detective skills require a script, either to ensure that he succeeds in finding the answer or that missing the answer is non-fatal. With a script, needing to research (or just search) everything to barely be able to squeak out a victory is great. In a game, it can mean spending an hour searching an empty room, driving everyone batty with frustration, then walking into the next room and dying because that was the room to search. It is profoundly unsatisfying unless everyone is perfectly in-tune, and it can all still fall apart in a moment if someone gets off-track.

[Great Dragon]

Thanks for responding to me!! Very appreciated.


Oh, I knew which was which, but "ep5" alone could mean a bunch of different series.
Which is what prompted me to put "SW" at the beginning of that info :biggrin:
Otherwise there would be 10k posts of "which ep5"?


I'm lumping these together because to me, they're sort of the same thing and possibly me not communicating well enough. The issues I had with WW weren't about system mastery, it was not getting the overall thrust of the game. In WW, everyone (else) seemed to be flowing through a story, while I was looking for an engine to interact with and always seemed to run counter to the goals of the party.

I found that WW was even more "GM decides" than 5e.
If the GM wants mechanics to be used to get though a Challenge, there's like the smallest motor to get your boat across the lake - assuming you brought enough 2-stage oil to run it.
But, if the GM wants to just use description and TotM to accomplish goals - that's actually easier.


Yes, overall the various assumptions of "classic" D&D do a poor job of serving the goals of most modern players. And the Batman-level of detective skills require a script, either to ensure that he succeeds in finding the answer or that missing the answer is non-fatal. With a script, needing to research (or just search) everything to barely be able to squeak out a victory is great. In a game, it can mean spending an hour searching an empty room, driving everyone batty with frustration, then walking into the next room and dying because that was the room to search. It is profoundly unsatisfying unless everyone is perfectly in-tune, and it can all still fall apart in a moment if someone gets off-track.

For me, I didn't sit down at the table to be handed a script.
Piecing Clues on how to unlock the Door to the next Level is about as far as I go.
And if I failed the blasted Investigate/Search DC and failed to find a piece, I'm not interested in scouring the entire level looking for it. The Rule of Three Clues should be enforced, even if I have to play House with the Hag's Kids or something.

[Max_Killjoy]

For me, I didn't sit down at the table to be handed a script.


Indeed -- or to write a script "collaboratively", for that matter.

[Cluedrew]

To Max_Killjoy: I think I know you well enough to know why you say you don't want to write a script, but why the quotes around "collaboratively"?

[Satinavian]

To Max_Killjoy: I think I know you well enough to know why you say you don't want to write a script, but why the quotes around "collaboratively"?
It is a snarky side comment against narrative game design where all the players has metapowers to significantly add to the story, but where drama and storytelling still is the main focus instead of e.g. events flowing naturally from what is already established and likely to happen.

[Great Dragon]

More replies to me!
Thanks, folks.


It is a snarky side comment against narrative game design where all the players has metapowers to significantly add to the story, but where drama and storytelling still is the main focus instead of e.g. events flowing naturally from what is already established and likely to happen.

If "Metapowers" was the intent for game play from Day One, I can tolerate it.
Like "Fate" or "Masks" or M&M.

But, yeah D&D wasn't designed around that; and I really dislike "Retconning" Metapowers.
Only the DM should have these, and still only use them to keep "events flowing naturally from what is already established and likely to happen."

[Max_Killjoy]

To Max_Killjoy: I think I know you well enough to know why you say you don't want to write a script, but why the quotes around "collaboratively"?


1) Because those games often emphasize "collaborative storytelling".

2) Because in my experience it comes down more to certain players trying to impose their vision of what "should" happen to make the story on other players' characters and important NPCs... and sometimes that player is the GM, using those rules as a new form of railroading... and then saying things about "collaboration".

[Cluedrew]

I mean whether or not you want to call it storytelling (I gather you don't), whatever you call it I should hope it is collaborative otherwise you would effectively be sitting at the side lines.
That sounds like a subversion of the intended use of mechanics. Don't let the hypocrite's flag distract you from the real thing.
So... I don't think the problem is "collaborative", is it and I'm just missing something?Ha, secret text.

[Talakeal]

Well, we had our last session tonight. And the campaign died as it lived, with the players bitching constantly and me being frustrated.

Some highlights:

As I mentioned in another thread, several of the players had been refusing to spend any money for the last four or five sessions, because they realized that while permanent items will pay off in the long run, there isn't a long run, and so they just bought tons and tons of consumables and used them all. This really frustrated me, as it stinks of metagaming (their characters have no way of knowing the campaign is ending) and just kind of trivializes what is supposed to be the epic climax.


During said climax, the villain moves to attack the mage, and one of the other players interrupts with an attack of opportunity that they use to trip him and, being unable to reach the mage, attacks the barbarian instead. The barbarian's player tells me that since I already declared his intent to attack the mage, he can't now change his action and thus his turn is wasted. I say that isn't a rule in this game, or indeed any modern RPG I can think of, but he tells me that I do that to them all the time, and that he is just being fair. This legitimately baffles me as I don't think I have ever done anything like that, and the only thing I can think of is that this is some sort of passive aggressive revenge for the haunting incident a few months back.


Despite having a really easy time in the fights due to all the stored consumables, that players are still bitching about how tough the monsters are now because, it being the last session, with the player characters being the strongest they have ever been, the enemies they are facing are appropriate level for their current power level. Thus every fight they whine about how the monsters (who will be dead a few rounds later) are.


While fighting an eldritch abomination in the final dungeon, the players complain about how tough it is, and I tell them to cool it, its the final boss, of course its tough. Now, I was planning on running an epilogue session next time, but I learned that people are too busy to game for the next three weeks, so I decided to just have a late session and run the epilogue that night. The players then get mad at me for having combat in the epilogue, because by calling the previous fight the "last boss" I have promised that there would be no more fights, and thus I am a liar.


So, the premise of the campaign is that they are in a city where magic is outlawed save for the lord's court magician and his apprentices. One of the PCs spontaneously became a sorcerer, and was facing exile, but they cut a deal with the court wizard; if he would take her on as an apprentice, then the group would, when they were strong enough, venture into a warded dungeon on the far side of the kingdom and bring him whatever they found within. So, they finally do so, finding ancient arcane machinery that has recently activated, torn a rift in reality, and brought an eldritch abomination into the world, which they defeat and trap in a magic sword. As a result, the sword is too dangerous to actually wield.
They return to the wizard and tell him what they did, and he says he will keep the magic sword safe, and they announce that they will not be handing it, or anything else, over to him. They say they are justified in doing this because A: The eldritch horror was not actually in the dungeon at the time the pact was made, B: the sword was not initially from the dungeon and therefore not his to claim, and C: The machinery was too heavy for them to transport. The wizard, feeling that he has been played for a fool, but knowing that the PCs are too powerful, both personally and politically, for him to force to hand anything over (let alone face repercussions for their perceived betrayal) tells him that he is through with them and the entire damned city, smashes his staff upon the stones, and in a blinding flash of light he has disapeared and his tower begins to crumble around them. I felt this was a pretty traditional fantasy trope for a scorned archmage, but my players didn't see it that way.
They were, presumably, looking forward to killing the wizard and looting his tower, and then when events played out as they did, they told me that they were "Tired of my NPCs always acting like spoiled two year olds throwing a tantrum and taking their toys and going home just because they don't always get their way."


So, in the end, rather than feeling a sense of satisfaction in actually completing a two year campaign, I just feel frustrated and depressed. I told my players that I couldn't do it any more and would not be GMing for them in the foreseeable future, and they, no surprise, were pissed off at me and, despite me having asked Brian to take over DMing for me months ago, flat out stated that he wouldn't do it and its either I continue to GM for the group or they disband.



Or even ROTJ (assuming I got the correct "ep5", and it still works if I didn't) - Luke hands over his lightsaber (!) and surrenders, to be taken to Palpatine's throne room in manacles. It was, of course, not true submission/ surrender, but a serious gambit to get himself face to face with the BBEG. It, of course, worked in a movie with a script, but is not the way most D&D players would expect to play (not leastwise because it split the party and created a three-way fork for the final act which would have been a nightmare to run).

So yeah, I literally read all thirty-two pages of this over the last several days, during my "kick around on the internet" time. Wow. And so many specific things I wanted to respond to from months ago, but will keep my comments to the more recent items.

Talakeal, one thing I haven't seen anyone note is how much you enjoy the WW system. In my experience, people who like WW will rub me the wrong way, quite badly, in D&D. Even when describing your setting doc (which I haven't looked at yet but hope to soon), you talk about putting the setting before the rules, in the spirit of WW. If Bob is like me in this respect (and if he's a crunchy game tester, I almost guarantee he is), he wants a world with a consistent set of rules he can interact with. You seem to want to story to be told, and want the players to share your vision for that story, and have no issues with the rules being shaped to fit that story.

To bounce from the Star Wars example above, I absolutely loathe Star Trek. It pretends (and claims) to be "serious SF instead of that Star Wars space opera nonsense", but the holodeck behaves differently from week to week based on how the writer wants it to. As does the transporter. As does... literally everything else. Every time it changes, I lose my suspension of disbelief. Clearly a lot of other people disagree, but I'd be curious how Bob feels.

For all that the rogue encounter was discussed, no one has commented on this: you had a framework for how you expected it to play out, which would have made an outstanding scene in a movie. At least one of your players did not see your vision for that scene, and it seems people here (including me) don't either, at a very high rate. For what it's worth, the rogue's comment as you wrote them sounded like the prelude to a fight (explaining his reasons for anger) rather than the prelude to a parlay. It only works with information they couldn't have had.

That sort of thing is how I felt every time I tried to play WW games, and it was worse the more enthusiastic other people were. Every action felt like it was "wrong", and that everyone else was reading from a script I didn't have, and it ended poorly (though nothing like what you describe). It was frustrating, and I went through the motions for the sake of my friends and having literally any form of social life, but it was miserable.

I used to live in Boulder; if I still did I would love to be able to sit in on a session. Not that I believe you're lying or deliberately misrepresenting the situation, but it would be interesting to see the whole situation from another perspective.

Since this thread has become quite large in scope, I also want to address "gotcha" monsters. Off the top, they're terrible. They're terrible in a technical, game-design perspective, in that they force the player to take the hit up front and only learn for the next encounter (possibly as a new character). To GG, that was the intent, and players were expected to churn through huge numbers of low-level characters before "earning" the right to survive more than a few sessions (which is terrible and abusive on its own). It also caused a disconnect with future versions, in which players are encouraged to become invested in their characters and put effort into developing and expressing their personalities. In a system in which that character might die for no good reason other than the DM "teaching the player not to reach into a log", why bother? Just stab things in the face until you need to roll up a new one. If I ever write out the system in my head, characters will be very durable against death for exactly that reason.

This affects video games as well. Back in Doom, the monster closets pissed me off to no end, until I started walking backwards over every major powerup or key. That worked, but it was still terrible design for playing through the first time; it was from an arcade perspective where the player was expected to replay and restart levels and episodes until they learned all the gotchas. I hated it (but there were fewer options, and especially fewer options that had anything like the rest of the experience Doom brought). In Halo, more aliens are certainly placed onto the level in various circumstances, but to my memory it was never "pick up powerup, get shot in the back with no warning". That was a game expected to be played through more-or-less linearly.

D&D would be much better off with the "gotcha" monsters eliminated or reworked. The rust monster is cool if there's a warning, ditto for the slimes and oozes that eat weapons or split when hit with a blade (as long as it's not a tool to take away the fighter's favorite or best weapon, and the party has a way to deal with it). The mimic... maybe as a once-a-year surprise, if the party can deal with it fairly easily. The "ogre" with the "big nose" that lets it sneeze a Gust of Wind? I would have never made that connection, especially as lots of monsters are described as having large noses. On the other hand, your sick/ infected dragon sounds awesome, and from the description you've given I'd actually be surprised if it did breathe fire as normal. I certainly wouldn't describe that one as a "gotcha".

I don't know if that was even everything I wanted to say, but that seems like plenty enough for now.

I think I may be giving you the wrong impression. I am not really a "story" guy, I believe that stories are something that emerges through the course of play, and the of either the GM writing a script for the PCs to follow or of "collaborative storytelling" and "narrative mechanics" can go hang. I do, however, think the fiction of the setting, of which the player characters and their personalities are the largest part, are more important than the rules and should generally come out on top when the two are in conflict.

The problem is not that the players do unexpected things, its that not all approaches are equal, yet my players expect the game to be balanced around them, which is just something I don't know how to do. Killing a monster, bribing it, sneaking past it, fast talking it, poisoning it, etc. are all drastically different ways to solve the problem, some more difficult than others, and when I am balancing the dungeon I have to go with what I think of as the "most likely" approach, I just can't think of any better way to do it.

And I still don't understand what a "gotcha monster" is or why its a bad thing; as close as I can tell its that some players don't like to be surprised or don't like to lose. I can see how you can have an unfair surprise, for example something that provides very severe consequences for what is normally good practice, like an ear worm or something, but that is apparently not what we are talking about.

Out of curiosity, what are "monster closets"?

[zinycor]

Am very happy for you since it finally ended, now since that group disbanded you are now free to go play with a normal group.

[Cluedrew]

"Tired of my NPCs always acting like spoiled two year olds throwing a tantrum and taking their toys and going home just because they don't always get their way."If only they could see the wonderful irony.


So, in the end, rather than feeling a sense of satisfaction in actually completing a two year campaign, I just feel frustrated and depressed. I told my players that I couldn't do it any more and would not be GMing for them in the foreseeable future, and they, no surprise, were pissed off at me and, despite me having asked Brian to take over DMing for me months ago, flat out stated that he wouldn't do it and its either I continue to GM for the group or they disband.OK seriously, don't do it. Let the group disband. You are not enjoying this*, they might be getting some enjoyment out of putting you through this but I think the fact they refuse to try to run it shows they know what they are putting you through. Stop putting yourself through this.

* And if you say you are, write a post gushing about the great moments you had in this campaign.

[Talakeal]

Oh, one other thing:

Remember how a few months back Bob was mad that I was threatening to nerf his magic item? Well, after that conversation I decided I was through with "gentleman's agreements" and put a hundred yard maximum range on his item, and of course that made Bob bitter and resentful.

I probably heard some variant of "Well, I could just take out the monsters from here, but I won't because Talakeal gets mad when I do that and I don't want to listen to him whine," probably half a dozen times last night.

[Great Dragon]

I am also glad that the game is done.
And I seriously hope that you put your foot down with some very firm conditions upon resuming being the G/DM for this group. Otherwise, just decide to let them disband and look for a new group.

Talakeal "Out of curiosity, what are "monster closets"?"

I remember a video game (Gauntlet?) where in certain rooms (or along the path) there were Doors or Boxes ("Closets") where monsters would Spawn, and would keep spawning until someone attacked and destroyed the Door/Box where the monsters were coming out.

I think this is what is meant.

[Elysiume]

"Monster closet" refers to an innocuous setpiece that spawns an enemy. Rather than having them either be present from the start of the level or just sort of phase in out of thing air, they jump out of a closet, or a locker, or an air vent. Sometimes the entrance is initially obvious (e.g. a closed door), sometimes it's not (a seemingly-innocuous piece of wall with a hidden door, a random grate, etc.).

[Talakeal]

Huh. I wonder which Doom he was referring to then, as I have played the original PC games and the only spawning in those games occurs on nightmare difficulty and doesn't have any sort of object or area associated with it. I am assuming its either Doom 3 or the 2016 remake?

[DataNinja]

And I still don't understand what a "gotcha monster" is or why its a bad thing; as close as I can tell its that some players don't like to be surprised or don't like to lose. I can see how you can have an unfair surprise, for example something that provides very severe consequences for what is normally good practice, like an ear worm or something, but that is apparently not what we are talking about.

A "Gotcha monster" tends to be something that punishes or penalizes something that would usually be smart play, or needed something external to be told, or whatever.

If you're fighting a type of enemy that, say, you know from past experience is weak to bright light attacks (I'm not going for any specific system here), but then you have an enemy of that type that happens to be supercharged by bright light attacks instead, and there's no warning about it? That's a gotcha. (If there was some tidbit about "beware, some darkness dwellers have adapted, and they shape the light against those who wield it" beforehand, that would not be. It would introduce the tactical choice of "oh, do we use bright light attacks? We should keep an eye out for anything that might help us figure this out." Or if they were dressed differently, wearing mirrors, or symbols of the sun proudly, or whatever.)

Basically: If it exists to provide a tactical choice, that's fine. If it leaves the players saying "...what? How could we ever have seen that coming?" that's bad. And what exactly that entails does change from group to group.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Your game, and everyone in it, sounds like ****. Forget not GMing for them, stop associating with them in general.

[Talakeal]

A "Gotcha monster" tends to be something that punishes or penalizes something that would usually be smart play, or needed something external to be told, or whatever.

Those are two very different things. Which is, I think, my problem with understanding this concept. People are using it to describe a variety of things that are only tangentially related.



If you're fighting a type of enemy that, say, you know from past experience is weak to bright light attacks (I'm not going for any specific system here), but then you have an enemy of that type that happens to be supercharged by bright light attacks instead, and there's no warning about it? That's a gotcha. (If there was some tidbit about "beware, some darkness dwellers have adapted, and they shape the light against those who wield it" beforehand, that would not be. It would introduce the tactical choice of "oh, do we use bright light attacks? We should keep an eye out for anything that might help us figure this out." Or if they were dressed differently, wearing mirrors, or symbols of the sun proudly, or whatever.)

I guess my problem with this is I don't see why learning through experience is fundamentally a bad thing.

In a story, "show don't tell" would be the rule of the day, it is far more interesting to see someone attempt to cut off the hydra's head and have two grow in its place than to have an oracle standing in town telling Hercules this fact beforehand.

As long as you factor the "surprise" into the difficulty of the encounter, and it doesn't have irreparable consequences, I am not quite sure why it is such a bad thing.

For example, when I had the monster that spawned two more when killed, I assumed the players would discover this through experience, and so I budgeted the encounter for three of them; the initial one and then the two that would be spawned when the players killed it the first time because they didn't know any better.

[NNescio]

Huh. I wonder which Doom he was referring to then, as I have played the original PC games and the only spawning in those games occurs on nightmare difficulty and doesn't have any sort of object or area associated with it. I am assuming its either Doom 3 or the 2016 remake?

Doom, Doom 2, and all the various WADs made copious use of literal monster closets, with monsters hidden in small rooms behind hidden doors that are activated by picking up* an item, throwing a switch, or crossing a particular section in a room or hall. It's pretty much the central pacing mechanic in the game (at least for most maps). They are pretty obvious (sometimes even on the minimap, at least after they are triggered) to players who thoroughly explore the map to find all the secrets, because you'll see all those tiny empty alcoves that weren't there earlier before you triggered the "closet" to open.

(*Well, technically crossing a linedef [a "line definition", that is, a "line" between two vertices, used to "define" a map sector or an action to be triggered] under the item, so speedrunning or repeat players can sometimes avoid the 'spawn' if they pick the item up from a specific direction.)

Some maps even have hidden monster-only one-way teleporters (basically a teleporting linedef without the tele pad) connected to inaccessible monster zoos (so, not just a closet, but a gigantic hidden room filled with monsters). This is used to set up teleporting ambushes (player walks in, wakes up monsters via a sound tunnel or lowers a hidden door in the zoo, triggering the whole horde to bumrush the one-way teleporter), made most infamous in E1M9: Military Base (where most players will encounter it for the first time).

[NichG]

I guess my problem with this is I don't see why learning through experience is fundamentally a bad thing.

In a story, "show don't tell" would be the rule of the day, it is far more interesting to see someone attempt to cut off the hydra's head and have two grow in its place than to have an oracle standing in town telling Hercules this fact beforehand.

As long as you factor the "surprise" into the difficulty of the encounter, and it doesn't have irreparable consequences, I am not quite sure why it is such a bad thing.

For example, when I had the monster that spawned two more when killed, I assumed the players would discover this through experience, and so I budgeted the encounter for three of them; the initial one and then the two that would be spawned when the players killed it the first time because they didn't know any better.

In the case of a 'gotcha', there's an element of it that crosses some wires. Generally in a game with strategic and tactical elements and a moderate level of difficulty (enough that failure is likely if you don't pay attention, say), there's a premise that if you do well it's because of your own smart play and if you do poorly it's because of mistakes you made or deficiencies in your own play. That is to say, the message set by a game that what happens to you is your fault.

A 'gotcha' is a game design element that creates a failure that is not actually the player's fault, because there was no mechanism in alignment with the normal expectations of play in the rest of the game for them to anticipate the gotcha. So it says 'you failed/suffered a setback (something is your fault)' while simultaneously having that thing actually not be the player's fault. That can at best feel bad (the player thinks 'what did I do wrong?' when the real answer is 'nothing, you were supposed to have a setback there'), and at worst come off as actively malicious ('wait, I know that I wasn't at fault, why is the GM trying to make me think that I was?').

Now, I'd argue that a campaign centerred entirely around hunting 'gotcha' monsters of the week actually could be fine, if the players were given freedom as to how to approach the encounter (sufficient time and space for scouting, investigating previous attacks, etc, before actually having the fight). In that case the expectation of normal play would be established that if you go into an encounter without e.g. sending a sacrificial team of minions first or scouting out the monster or whatever, that actually is a strategic mistake and you should expect to die. But that very much means a hyper-cautious, non-heroic style of gameplay - if you hear someone being attacked when you enter town, you don't rush to their defense, you take to the rooftops and watch the attack through a telescope - you can't save this one, but their death can teach you what you need in order to save the next. But that sounds like the opposite of what you want to encourage.

[OldTrees1]

I guess my problem with this is I don't see why learning through experience is fundamentally a bad thing.

In a story, "show don't tell" would be the rule of the day, it is far more interesting to see someone attempt to cut off the hydra's head and have two grow in its place than to have an oracle standing in town telling Hercules this fact beforehand.

As long as you factor the "surprise" into the difficulty of the encounter, and it doesn't have irreparable consequences, I am not quite sure why it is such a bad thing.

For example, when I had the monster that spawned two more when killed, I assumed the players would discover this through experience, and so I budgeted the encounter for three of them; the initial one and then the two that would be spawned when the players killed it the first time because they didn't know any better.

Talakeal here are a couple lessons:

1) "Learn through experience" is not what you are doing. Gotchas undermine the entire premise of experience. If vampires were undead in the past, they might not be in the future because Gotchas use past experience as a vulnerability with which to subvert expectations. Eventually the only "learning through experience" that happens is learning you can't learn through experience under that DM.

If you want the players to "Learn through experience", avoid gotchas. Show if you can, or tell if you can't, but don't keep silent unless you want them to abandon experience as a source of learning.

2) Passive readers and active characters interact with a story differently. A passive reader will make a prediction, and then can check when the event happens. An active character will make a prediction, and that will inform them about how to avoid the bad fork. If the character only gets information after their decision, then you never showed nor told.

If you stay silent until after the cut off the head of a monster, you did not show the monster regrows it heads. It is already too late. You failed to even attempt to show or tell.


Talakeal, you don't seem to want them to learn from experience. You want them to learn from failure. You chose to subvert expectations, and then avoid showing or telling information related to those changes. Then, when the players try to act based upon what they learned from experience, "GOTCHA" the players guessed wrong so that you can force them to learn through this forced failure. (This can be considered related to railroading)

Or at least, this is the Talakeal you present to us. This is the Talakeal represented by your stubborn "I don't see [concept the forum has communicated ad nauseum]" or how you treated your players when "They ALL think it was too difficult but of course I know it was just right".

Sure your players are major parts of the problems. But the more we listen, the more we hear your own faults. Do you have the wisdom to grow or will you become set in those faults. Please be a better GM to your next group of players. Treat communication as a 2-way street with responsibility on both sides. Learn to describe better so that you can Show/Tell rather than Gotcha. And accept the feedback the players find the courage to share with you, especially if it clashes with your prior estimates.

[MeimuHakurei]

During said climax, the villain moves to attack the mage, and one of the other players interrupts with an attack of opportunity that they use to trip him and, being unable to reach the mage, attacks the barbarian instead. The barbarian's player tells me that since I already declared his intent to attack the mage, he can't now change his action and thus his turn is wasted. I say that isn't a rule in this game, or indeed any modern RPG I can think of, but he tells me that I do that to them all the time, and that he is just being fair. This legitimately baffles me as I don't think I have ever done anything like that, and the only thing I can think of is that this is some sort of passive aggressive revenge for the haunting incident a few months back.

I knew all along the players were gaslighting you.

[AdAstra]

I think here, your performance as a DM is pretty much irrelevant to what you should do here. If this is what your players are actually saying, you should not DM for them anymore. This is genuinely a toxic situation. Even if your players' criticisms were accurate, that doesn't remotely justify this degree of vitriol and entitlement to your time. So basically, now's the best possible time to bite the bullet and get out of that mess like people have been saying since I don't even know when. I sincerely doubt you will find anything more of value down this road.

[Pelle]

So, in the end, rather than feeling a sense of satisfaction in actually completing a two year campaign, I just feel frustrated and depressed. I told my players that I couldn't do it any more and would not be GMing for them in the foreseeable future, and they, no surprise, were pissed off at me and, despite me having asked Brian to take over DMing for me months ago, flat out stated that he wouldn't do it and its either I continue to GM for the group or they disband.


Have you warned them repeatedly that you planned to step down? And did you tell them why (their behaviour), and called them out when they were doing things that made you not have fun? It sounds like you haven't really given them chances to improve their behaviour to make you enjoy yourself more.

I assume you can't resist, and will continue to GM for them sooner or later... If so, how about trying to run one-shots, and not commit to running a full campaign until you are all on the same page, with feedback given by all?

[Kardwill]

So, in the end, rather than feeling a sense of satisfaction in actually completing a two year campaign, I just feel frustrated and depressed. I told my players that I couldn't do it any more and would not be GMing for them in the foreseeable future, and they, no surprise, were pissed off at me and, despite me having asked Brian to take over DMing for me months ago, flat out stated that he wouldn't do it and its either I continue to GM for the group or they disband.


So let them disband. I know you've heard it multiple times already.
Seriously, I'm not at your table. Maybe I would enjoy playing with you, or maybe you're a terrible GM. But even if the later is true, then the sane course of action for your players would be either to bite the bullet or to drop your game. They can't whine about your game all night long, and then bully you so that you'll GM the next one! That's toxic.
I know you said you need RPGs as a creative outlet, but right now, you're in an abusive relationship. Find another group. Try playing online in some play-by-post or on roll20. Anything.

And if you absolutely, for some unfathomable reason, don't want to drop your current players, do a long GMing break, with maybe some boardgames? A fun, short one-shot of a different game when you feel like it? NOT another campaign. I think long term engagements will only generate frustration on both sides of the GM screen.


To end on a positive line, it sounds like they finally bought some consumable. I remember you ranting about them never using those a few month ago. ^^

[Segev]

I find it interesting and revealing that they did nothing but gripe about you and your DMing, then got mad at you for deciding not to DM for them for the foreseeable future. I'm curious what their spoken justifications for being mad at you were, since nobody has a right to demand anybody else play in, let alone run, a game for them. On what basis do they claim a right to be angry?

[Talakeal]

On the subject of "Gotcha" monsters, which of the following would you guys say fall under that category:

1: Monsters which are immune to their kind's normal weakness (e.g. frost salamnders, greater werewolves, dhampirs, wartrolls)
2: Monsters which ambush people doing otherwise smart behavior (ear worms, lock lurkers, mimics)
3: Monsters which grow stronger if you attack them in the wrong way (hydras, ochre jellies, flesh golems, shambling mounds)
4: Monsters which screw you over for attacking them (Rust monsters, balors)
5: Monsters which can only be killed with a gimmick (Nilbogs, Rakshasash)
6: Monsters which have a special ability which isn't apparent (most monsters actually, especially demons)
7: Non standard monsters such as home brew, or those with non-standard feats, class levels, or templates



I find it interesting and revealing that they did nothing but gripe about you and your DMing, then got mad at you for deciding not to DM for them for the foreseeable future. I'm curious what their spoken justifications for being mad at you were, since nobody has a right to demand anybody else play in, let alone run, a game for them. On what basis do they claim a right to be angry?

I think it was more about no body else being willing to step up to the plate and DM.


To end on a positive line, it sounds like they finally bought some consumable. I remember you ranting about them never using those a few month ago. ^^

Not really, no.

The problem was not that they weren't using consumables, its that they were upset that they were using too many consumables and I was trying to get them to use them smarter and more proactively; for example buy a potion of fire protection before facing the dragon to save 10 potions of healing afterwards.

They didn't use them proactively, they just had so many of them that they were back at 100% after every encounter no matter how careless they were.



Talakeal here are a couple lessons:

1) "Learn through experience" is not what you are doing. Gotchas undermine the entire premise of experience. If vampires were undead in the past, they might not be in the future because Gotchas use past experience as a vulnerability with which to subvert expectations. Eventually the only "learning through experience" that happens is learning you can't learn through experience under that DM.

If you want the players to "Learn through experience", avoid gotchas. Show if you can, or tell if you can't, but don't keep silent unless you want them to abandon experience as a source of learning.

2) Passive readers and active characters interact with a story differently. A passive reader will make a prediction, and then can check when the event happens. An active character will make a prediction, and that will inform them about how to avoid the bad fork. If the character only gets information after their decision, then you never showed nor told.

If you stay silent until after the cut off the head of a monster, you did not show the monster regrows it heads. It is already too late. You failed to even attempt to show or tell.

Talakeal, you don't seem to want them to learn from experience. You want them to learn from failure. You chose to subvert expectations, and then avoid showing or telling information related to those changes. Then, when the players try to act based upon what they learned from experience, "GOTCHA" the players guessed wrong so that you can force them to learn through this forced failure. (This can be considered related to railroading)

Or at least, this is the Talakeal you present to us. This is the Talakeal represented by your stubborn "I don't see [concept the forum has communicated ad nauseum]" or how you treated your players when "They ALL think it was too difficult but of course I know it was just right".

Sure your players are major parts of the problems. But the more we listen, the more we hear your own faults. Do you have the wisdom to grow or will you become set in those faults. Please be a better GM to your next group of players. Treat communication as a 2-way street with responsibility on both sides. Learn to describe better so that you can Show/Tell rather than Gotcha. And accept the feedback the players find the courage to share with you, especially if it clashes with your prior estimates.

Did any of this ever actually happen in my game though?

For example, the giant with the gust of wind ability drove off the PCs, they regrouped, came back, and killed him. When faced with the vestige that spawns two more when killed, the party fell back, learned what he did, and then chose to come back and do a smash and grab with the treasure rather than trying to kill him. In both cases they saw something in action, suffered a mild setback, learned from it, and then proceeded to finish the task.

When I say show, I suppose mean learn by doing, while you consider showing to be watching someone else do it?

Fundamentally, there is no mechanical difference between cutting off the monsters head, seeing that it regrows two heads if not burned, and then cutting off the two heads and burning them VS. simply fighting a three headed hydra which obviously telegraphs the fact that the stumps need to be burned after decapitation. The only difference is the perception of the events, I see the first as more dramatic and immersive, while my players see it as a surprise screw-job.


You seem to have edited out the part about balance and difficulty that I meant to respond to (or I am just being blind and not seeing it), but to elaborate; perfect difficulty is subjective. When I say it is perfectly balanced, I mean that it follows the CR guide lines so that in a white room each adventure uses up ~80% of the parties resources, which is the balance point that most editions of D&D are built around. Across every campaign I have ever run, the players success rate at completing adventures is in the mid to high 90%s.

I actually talked to my players about what difficulty they think is fair, and they basically said that they think the game is fair as is. When I asked why someone bitches every encounter*, they said that it was simply human nature to complain when things don't go their way.


*note that it isn't everyone bitching all the time, and they rarely agree on cause for bitching, but at least one person bitches about one thing every encounter, be it combat, social, or exploration based and whether or not they actually struggle or have a trivially easy time about it. Bob, for example, complains that it is unfair for his character to take any damage at all.



A 'gotcha' is a game design element that creates a failure that is not actually the player's fault, because there was no mechanism in alignment with the normal expectations of play in the rest of the game for them to anticipate the gotcha. So it says 'you failed/suffered a setback (something is your fault)' while simultaneously having that thing actually not be the player's fault. That can at best feel bad (the player thinks 'what did I do wrong?' when the real answer is 'nothing, you were supposed to have a setback there'), and at worst come off as actively malicious ('wait, I know that I wasn't at fault, why is the GM trying to make me think that I was?').

That makes a lot of sense. But at the same time makes it a lot harder to solve as it is a perceptual problem rather than something more tangible.


Doom, Doom 2, and all the various WADs made copious use of literal monster closets, with monsters hidden in small rooms behind hidden doors that are activated by picking up* an item, throwing a switch, or crossing a particular section in a room or hall. It's pretty much the central pacing mechanic in the game (at least for most maps). They are pretty obvious (sometimes even on the minimap, at least after they are triggered) to players who thoroughly explore the map to find all the secrets, because you'll see all those tiny empty alcoves that weren't there earlier before you triggered the "closet" to open.

(*Well, technically crossing a linedef [a "line definition", that is, a "line" between two vertices, used to "define" a map sector or an action to be triggered] under the item, so speedrunning or repeat players can sometimes avoid the 'spawn' if they pick the item up from a specific direction.)

Some maps even have hidden monster-only one-way teleporters (basically a teleporting linedef without the tele pad) connected to inaccessible monster zoos (so, not just a closet, but a gigantic hidden room filled with monsters). This is used to set up teleporting ambushes (player walks in, wakes up monsters via a sound tunnel or lowers a hidden door in the zoo, triggering the whole horde to bumrush the one-way teleporter), made most infamous in E1M9: Military Base (where most players will encounter it for the first time).

That makes a lot more sense. Literal closets, yeah, I remember that.

[zinycor]

So... will you let them disband? Or will you continue to torture yourself by GMing for them?

[Talakeal]

So... will you let them disband? Or will you continue to torture yourself by GMing for them?

Not any time soon, that's for sure.

[zinycor]

Not any time soon, that's for sure.

That's good to know, once you are ready to play again try finding a group that gets along better.

In my honest opinion the real problem at this last table had less to do with any particular thing you could have done and more with players being *******s to you and eachother

[Segev]

So they're mad that you asked somebody else to DM, then? Meh, asking them to do it is fair, as long as you don't demand it of anybody. If they're willing to let the group dissolve, that's their choice. I wouldn't really recommend playing with them anymore, even if somebody else runs a game, though it'd be interesting to see if they're as hostile to the new DM in that case.

[Lord of Shadows]

So, in the end, rather than feeling a sense of satisfaction in actually completing a two year campaign, I just feel frustrated and depressed. I told my players that I couldn't do it any more and would not be GMing for them in the foreseeable future, and they, no surprise, were pissed off at me and, despite me having asked Brian to take over DMing for me months ago, flat out stated that he wouldn't do it and its either I continue to GM for the group or they disband.

My vote is for disbanding...


I find it interesting and revealing that they did nothing but gripe about you and your DMing, then got mad at you for deciding not to DM for them for the foreseeable future. I'm curious what their spoken justifications for being mad at you were, since nobody has a right to demand anybody else play in, let alone run, a game for them. On what basis do they claim a right to be angry?


I think it was more about no body else being willing to step up to the plate and DM.

Kinda makes you wonder if they already knew something about themselves, while you kept coming here for feedback... And anyway, I'm certain no one else wants to DM for "Bob."

You can DM here anytime... well, just as soon as I get the bugs worked out of the teleporter... :smallcool:

[Koo Rehtorb]

May I suggest linking them to this thread?

[Great Dragon]

Bob, for example, complains that it is unfair for his character to take any damage at all.

In which case, Bob's never going to happy. Because even in something like the My Little Pony tRPG (where combat isn't supposed to happen very often, if at all) still have "failure" and "setbacks" (and yes, I'm aware that Bob {etc} most likely won't ever even be anywhere near a MLP - or similar - game. The point was that there's never a "I Always Win" condition)



1: Monsters which are immune to their kind's normal weakness (e.g. frost salamnders, greater werewolves, dhampirs, wartrolls)

2: Monsters which ambush people doing otherwise smart behavior (ear worms, lock lurkers, mimics)

3: Monsters which grow stronger if you attack them in the wrong way (hydras, ochre jellies, flesh golems, shambling mounds)

4: Monsters which screw you over for attacking them (Rust monsters, balors)

5: Monsters which can only be killed with a gimmick (Nilbogs, Rakshasash)

6: Monsters which have a special ability which isn't apparent (most monsters actually, especially demons)

7: Non standard monsters such as home brew, or those with non-standard feats, class levels, or templates

I agree with the post by NichG.

Added comments:
Each of those are basically situational "gotcha", and thanks to E.G.G. are now traditional.

IMO (1) is only really a gotcha if the Frost Salamander that is Resistant/Immune to Fire looks exactly the same as the one that is Vulnerable, and the DM withheld all possible means of getting info of the change (IC) before the encounter. And is more suspicious of (OoC Meta) if everyone in the Group had their PCs stock up on doing Fire damage. I could maybe see the 3x D&D Adult White Dragon getting something to cover their Blatant Weakness, but there should still be some Clues as to that fact. A worn item that is visible and can be either taken away, or broken to get rid of; The Dragon casts a Spell, but that has a Duration (if not Concentration) and can be Counterspelled when cast, or Dispelled if already active.

(2) I refuse to use Ear Worms.
Sleeping people don't really have a way to detect or avoid these things..

Lock Lurks should be noticed with a decent Investigation and Mimics with Perception Rolls.

(3 & 4) most of those monsters are Encountered by enough nPCs that a Nature Skill Roll gives enough information to plan something on the fly.

(5) Both Rust Monsters and especially Balor have lots of In Game/World Lore, and really shouldn't surprise anyone.

(6) Hidden (and especially Secret) powers are a type of Gotcha.

(7) A lot of Homebrew falls into the problem of #6. There's no In-Game/World info on them (like books) or any tales about anyone that Encountered them, and survived.

Well, again I'm glad the game is over, and I hope to hear good news from you in the near future.

[kyoryu]

Monsters are "gotcha" monsters if a Reasonable Player(tm), after encountering the monster, goes "well that was a load of crap."

That's the only definition that matters. Because any other definition can be twisted to create a gotcha monster, while the GM follows the "rules".

Also, in most cases, the issue is not the creature, but the presentation of the creature.

Is a Frost Salamander a gotcha monster? If you find it in a snowy cave, with lots of evidence of cold stuff, and it's colored white, probably not. If you find it in a lava cave and it looks just like a regular salamander? Yeah, that's a gotcha.

Same with the hydra. Is a monster that, when attacked with a particular type of attack, a "gotcha"? Maybe, maybe not. With a hydra, when you attack it with a slashing weapon, it's head is cut off, and two grow in place. There is an immediate cause and effect relationship demonstrated, even if the first "split" couldn't be predicted.

Now, if you have a monster that grows in power if you attack it without saying "wibblewoo", and especially if there's no lore to be found out about it? And if the monster gives no hints about it during the attack? Yeah, that's a gotcha.

Special abilities? Again, as I used with the orc example, it all boils down to how logical the ability is, after the players discover it. If it's nonsensical or hidden behind an obscure clue? Then it's a gotcha, especially if the ability is such that the use of it dramatically changes the encounter. There's like some math here, about the influence of the ability needing to be proportional to the level of telegraphing. (Note I didn't say power - it's not about damage or ability to kill).

Don't be afraid of them figuring out the monster - it should be a challenge even once they "figure it out". Err on the side of more information.

[Talakeal]

Monsters are "gotcha" monsters if a Reasonable Player(tm), after encountering the monster, goes "well that was a load of crap."

Unfortunately that doesn't help me a whole lot as I only game with unreasonable players who think every encounter is a load of crap.


Now, if you have a monster that grows in power if you attack it without saying "wibblewoo", and especially if there's no lore to be found out about it? And if the monster gives no hints about it during the attack? Yeah, that's a gotcha.

How about an identical monster that doesn't have the weakness to wibblewoo; it simply gets stronger each time it is attacked no matter what. Is that also a gotcha?

[King of Nowhere]

That's good to know, once you are ready to play again try finding a group that gets along better.

In my honest opinion the real problem at this last table had less to do with any particular thing you could have done and more with players being *******s to you and eachother


Monsters are "gotcha" monsters if a Reasonable Player(tm), after encountering the monster, goes "well that was a load of crap."

That's the only definition that matters. Because any other definition can be twisted to create a gotcha monster, while the GM follows the "rules".



i always said the problem is trust. A monster having some unpredicted ability, or a smart monster covering up some weakness, those are normal things if you trust that your master is not specifically trying to screw you up. I've done those kind of stuff to my players many times, but they can see that those are just meant to be thougher obstacles (though I did face some whining from a couple of them). the only difference is that there is trust in my group and not in yours.

[Duff]

Gotcha is subjective, partly on the group, partly on how the encounter plays out.
This is not about what a reasonable player/party would expect. This is about *your group*. Partly about how clever they are, partly about how narrow their expectation is.

Take an encounter with a "puzzle" element - eg "This flesh golem needs fire damage to defeat because of the troll bits used to make it." And assume a lowish level party
You mention the town they were in before heading off to this dungeon had a distillery to make oil for lanterns (hopefully they take the hint and stock up
You describe the golem, including using classic troll terms (game/setting/edition appropriate) for the troll bits

If the players don't realise whats going on and it turns out to be a TPK, it was a gotcha.
You apologise and hopefully learn and grow - be less subtle in your hints. Set the difficulty for these lower with this group.
Note - If you tell the players what was going on and they slap their foreheads and laugh at how dumb they were, then that's not a gotcha either

The players realise what's going on after you drop ever more obvious hints. They win after a very tough fight.
Good work! Not a Gotcha. You've adjusted the encounter's difficulty to the player's performance on the day

The players fail to realise (or realise very late) and it's a tough fight. This takes the role of a major fight in the story. Not Gotcha. They could win without solving the puzzle and the narrative reward matches the difficulty of the fight
Problems your players have with non-standard monsters is a different issue

The players realise at about when you guessed they would and it's a regular fight.
All good

The players realise quickly and curb stop the encounter.
All good. The players get rewarded for their cleverness



Edit to add - It doesn't have to be a TPK to be a gotcha. A defeat they had to run away from *might* count. Does your group expect to have to flee the odd encounter? If not, that might count.
One where they spend significant resources and have to flee or loose some things/people/animals could count
One where the defeat means they fail the mission would probably count as well

[OldTrees1]

On the subject of "Gotcha" monsters, which of the following would you guys say fall under that category:

1: Monsters which are immune to their kind's normal weakness (e.g. frost salamnders, greater werewolves, dhampirs, wartrolls)
2: Monsters which ambush people doing otherwise smart behavior (ear worms, lock lurkers, mimics)
3: Monsters which grow stronger if you attack them in the wrong way (hydras, ochre jellies, flesh golems, shambling mounds)
4: Monsters which screw you over for attacking them (Rust monsters, balors)
5: Monsters which can only be killed with a gimmick (Nilbogs, Rakshasash)
6: Monsters which have a special ability which isn't apparent (most monsters actually, especially demons)
7: Non standard monsters such as home brew, or those with non-standard feats, class levels, or templates

1-7 are not conclusive descriptions. You can run any of these or even Goblins as a Gotcha or as not a Gotcha. It all boils down to did they have a reasonable chance or not? People will call it out as a Gotcha when they feel like there was not a reasonable chance. Some of these take more skill to run than others.

How many of these could have been predicted or made precautions for from descriptions you made of the area, the creature, the previous month, etc?
How many of these did the player have no way of predicting until after the gotcha punishment?

Basically, how many of these did you choose to script an unearned failure vs how many of them did the players earn their failure?


The problem was not that they weren't using consumables, its that they were upset that they were using too many consumables and I was trying to get them to use them smarter and more proactively; for example buy a potion of fire protection before facing the dragon to save 10 potions of healing afterwards.

They didn't use them proactively, they just had so many of them that they were back at 100% after every encounter no matter how careless they were.

You had preferences for how they should spend their gold and you got mad and punitive. See asking the forum for ways to "correct" the "hoarding" of gold for upgrading the items they liked rather than buying the items you liked. Or see the earlier grievance about a player not buying something they did not value (consumables) despite you valuing preemptive consumables.

Then when you used the advice from the thread, the players reacted as expected. They bought what they valued. Only now that was a lot of consumables because the forum's advice had inflated the value of consumables and deflated the value of investing in their preferred long term items.


Did any of this ever actually happen in my game though?
{Scrubbed}


For example, the giant with the gust of wind ability drove off the PCs, they regrouped, came back, and killed him. When faced with the vestige that spawns two more when killed, the party fell back, learned what he did, and then chose to come back and do a smash and grab with the treasure rather than trying to kill him. In both cases they saw something in action, suffered a mild setback, learned from it, and then proceeded to finish the task.
And you missed the point again. In both of those cases you expected and engineered an unearned failure and wanted the players to learn from it. In order to force those failures you needed to subvert expectation while also depriving the players of any show/tell beforehand. By keeping the players in complete ignorance you could create the failure you wanted them to learn from. This has 2 effects:

1) There was no opportunity to learn from experience prior to the failure.
2) Now they cannot trust prior experiences because you might troll them with those too.

The fact that the party comes back later is irrelevant. You already got to inflict your scripted failure.


When I say show, I suppose mean learn by doing, while you consider showing to be watching someone else do it?
If you mean learn by doing, then you can do that before the failure. Give them a chance to have both the experience and time required to have a chance of success. Otherwise you are merely using a cheap cheat to cause an unearned failure.

Remember that dying Red Dragon? I described numerous Shows (and a couple of Tells) before the last moment of agency for the party. You liked many of those ways. Those are ways to Show. Those are ways for the party to learn from experience. They remember things about red dragons and they observe details that don't add up. They learn from their experience to predict something about this red dragon.

Let's consider a clear blue pool of lava for a moment.
Do I tell the party "it is lava, you will die if you touch it"?
Do I describe the lava so the party can make predictions about it?
Or do I stay silent until they step into the pool. Then when they spring my trollish "Gotcha!" as I announce it is lava and they died?
Show and Tell only exist before the last moment of player agency. Describing it after the fact is just you announcing the gotcha. Sure some gotchas can be survived, but if the GM uses gotchas there is no room for learning.



Fundamentally, there is no mechanical difference between cutting off the monsters head, seeing that it regrows two heads if not burned, and then cutting off the two heads and burning them VS. simply fighting a three headed hydra which obviously telegraphs the fact that the stumps need to be burned after decapitation. The only difference is the perception of the events, I see the first as more dramatic and immersive, while my players see it as a surprise screw-job.

Yes there is a fundamental mechanical difference. How many times did the players fail? How many of those times were unearned?
A 3 headed beast: 0 failures, 0 unearned
Told it was a 1 headed hydra: 0+ failures, 0 unearned
Show a hydra: 0+ failures, 0 unearned
Fight something and "Gotcha, when you cut off its head will be the first time you could have known it was a hydra": 1+ failure, 1 unearned.

The players recognizing the mechanical difference fuels their distrust unless you have earned enough trust to be able to have these scripted failures.


You seem to have edited out the part about balance and difficulty that I meant to respond to (or I am just being blind and not seeing it), but to elaborate; perfect difficulty is subjective. When I say it is perfectly balanced, I mean that it follows the CR guide lines

And guidelines are not always accurate. Sometimes they are precisely and regularly too easy/too hard. Your group deviates from the norm like every other group. ESPECIALLY when you remember your group is not some abstract perfectly normal concept. When the players tell you it was too hard. That is evidence suggesting it was too hard. When you show blatant disregard about their concerns. {Scrubbed} you describe the party having a dissenting opinion you framed it as "Their concerns are whining, I know they are wrong because I know I am right. See how the fight mathematically matches my preference?" with complete silence or derogatory references about their preferences.

Yeah based upon your portrayal, your players are terrible despite having professional game testers among them. {Scrubbed}

I actually talked to my players about what difficulty they think is fair, and they basically said that they think the game is fair as is. When I asked why someone bitches every encounter*, they said that it was simply human nature to complain when things don't go their way.

{Scrubbed}

Last time you went into detail about someone telling you it was too difficult, this was the summary:
Them: I found that too difficult.
You: It was fair.
Them: Look at all these reasons I think it was too difficult.
You: Thank you for proving it was fair.
You gave a TLDR that they thought it was too difficult but they told you it was fair. So I presume this discussion was similar. They stoked up courage to tell you the game was too difficult, and you concluded their words meant it was fair because it meshed with your desired difficulty.

{Scrubbed}

[Talakeal]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrubbed}


Edit: I know I shouldn't ask, but I am really curious about how you think I am being "punitive" over the players hoarding their resources, as I don't think I said anything that could even be misinterpreted in such a manner.

[OldTrees1]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Edit: I know I shouldn't ask, but I am really curious about how you think I am being "punitive" over the players hoarding their resources, as I don't think I said anything that could even be misinterpreted in such a manner.

{Scrubbed}

In other words, I am addressing the arguments / positions you make rather than addressing the new details in a game with an exit strategy where we already have a metric ton of prior details about. We have 100+ pages of Bob being a terrible person, that is not going to change in the next 2.

Edit Punitive:
You saw an economic behaviour you did not like and asked the forum for ways to disincentivize that behavior. You sought advice on how to punish the spending habits you disagreed with in order to incentivise the players to adopt the spending habits you agreed with. You got mixed results via the players now buying consumables (due to you highlighting the increase in effective value) and no longer saving up for the next +1 on their prefered items (due to you highlighting they will not afford it in time). That is how economic decisions are altered, you punish one and reward another in order to change economic behaviour. It is rather normalized in society. The fact it was in reaction to a use of player agency you disagreed with is the only reason I called it punitive rather than the equivalent word disincentivized.

The thread, and prior threads, was already full of most of most important advice ("Don't stay in toxic groups", or "Trust is earned and some playstyles have a higher trust prerequisite"). So the remaining relevant GMing advice is often smaller things. Things like "Did you notice you reacted to a difference of opinion by trying to reverse a decision usually in the scope of player agency? It might have been right, but it is worth noticing the reaction.".

[zinycor]

Seriously, why are you bothering to post then?

I was going to respond to your post part by part, as almost nothing you are saying actually happened in my game, and then I realized that you don't believe what I am saying and are instead constructing your own narrative of events, and at that point we might as well not even be speaking the same language for how little actual communication is going to go on.


Edit: I know I shouldn't ask, but I am really curious about how you think I am being "punitive" over the players hoarding their resources, as I don't think I said anything that could even be misinterpreted in such a manner.
To be fair Talakeal, the way that you have provided information has come into question several times, since you post one thing, then add more info that directly contradicts what you posted initially. When asked about it you said it was in order to get more answers, which doesn't exactly boost your credibility.

In short, I believe you have earned a certain amount of distrust regarding your posts.

[Great Dragon]

@Talakeal
Re: Homebrewed Monsters.
I'd offer (hopefully) constructive criticism, Ideas and Suggestions....

But
Problem: You have stated that you aren't using 5e D&D (or any other Edition) as the foundation for Mechanics or Rules - and I still haven't had time to decipher your Game.

Plus, I fully admit that I'm not an "Expert" with Game Mechanics or exploitation of Rules.
Heck a lot of my "Monster Tweeking" posts have yet to be answered.

In hindsight, I suppose that what Duff posted along with OldTrees1 are along the lines I was wanting to convey.

Heck, Tucker's Kobolds can be viewed as either a Gotcha, or a smart/clever use of terrain and resources.

I'm sure you can easily guess which you're last group would choose.

I'm most likely only going to be checking this thread a couple of times a week, and ask that if you do respond to me, or would like my honest attempts to assist you, please PM me.

[OldTrees1]

Heck, Tucker's Kobolds can be viewed as either a Gotcha, or a smart/clever use of terrain and resources.

As always it can depend.

If kobolds are usually like these adorable dumb fellas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipGCZ8lzfGE) then suddenly having Tucker's Kobolds without warning would tend to be a Gotcha. However Tucker (the GM at the time) used lots of relevant description. The players might still be surprised but they saw how they could have figured it out. As a result it was not a Gotcha when Tucker did it. So the exact same encounter can be or not be a Gotcha. In this case describing the side passages and the greased incline of the main passage was enough description to give them a feasible chance of predicting, which reinforces learning from experience.

[Kane0]

Gotcha rule of thumb:
“Does this break any previously established consistency?”
If so, follow the rule of threes when providing ‘tells’

Note that its not just your own consistency as DM that you have to consider, make sure to also factor in genre-savviness and similar.

[Talakeal]

So, it seems like people are saying that a gotcha monster is anything which is most likely going to be solved through trial and error. Is this right?

If so, I really don't see why it is a bad thing. Real life certainly works like that. Most fiction works like that. Heck, most non RPG-games work like that (and in my experience as a player and listening to APs, most RPGs work like that as well).

I fundamentally don't understand what is wrong with trying something, seeing that it didn't work, and decided to regroup and come back with a different approach, and as a PC that sounds significantly more fun than simply being telegraphed the correct solution ahead of time and playing out the optimal script.


Also note that this is not what actually happened in my game.

The first of the two "gotcha monsters" was only a problem because Bob assumed I was making up powers on the fly to keep him from soloing the fight. The second case one of the players assumed I was actively trying to trick them and ignored the telegraphed solution.

Now, in the first case, telegraphing the power would have removed that specific gripe, but not the funamental mistrust or the fact that they suffered a setback and then had to regroup and overcome it.
In the second, the clues were actively ignored because the players assumed I was trying to trick them, so more clues wouldn't really have helped.



To be fair Talakeal, the way that you have provided information has come into question several times, since you post one thing, then add more info that directly contradicts what you posted initially. When asked about it you said it was in order to get more answers, which doesn't exactly boost your credibility.

In short, I believe you have earned a certain amount of distrust regarding your posts.

I guess so.

But there is a world of difference between having to summarize an eight hour game session in a couple of paragraphs and missing a few details vs actually misrepresenting what was happening or fabricating scenarios whole cloth.


Heck, Tucker's Kobolds can be viewed as either a Gotcha, or a smart/clever use of terrain and resources.

In my opinion Tucker's kobolds borders on outright cheating. For some reason the DM plays the kobolds as more intelligent than much smarter monsters deeper in the dungeon and allows them to take actions that violate the initiative rules of the game. The original story also leaves out most of the details about why the kobolds were so deadly, and why the players didn't simply have a single summoned creature clear out the whole nest for them.


Edit Punitive:
You saw an economic behaviour you did not like and asked the forum for ways to disincentivize that behavior. You sought advice on how to punish the spending habits you disagreed with in order to incentivise the players to adopt the spending habits you agreed with. You got mixed results via the players now buying consumables (due to you highlighting the increase in effective value) and no longer saving up for the next +1 on their prefered items (due to you highlighting they will not afford it in time). That is how economic decisions are altered, you punish one and reward another in order to change economic behaviour. It is rather normalized in society. The fact it was in reaction to a use of player agency you disagreed with is the only reason I called it punitive rather than the equivalent word disincentivized.

Being concerned about a behavior and asking for advice on dealing with it is not the same as being mad / punitive.

In the end though, I really feel like I got played. I was legitimately concerned that the players were going into the climax underpowered but didn't do anything (punitive or otherwise) to correct it aside from talking to them, when it turned out the whole thing was based on meta-gamey strategy to trivialize the last session because the players, unlike the characters, knew their wouldn't be another session.

I still don't understand some of their decisions though, like they killed a legendary displacer beast and its hide could have been used to craft either a suit of enchanted clothing that would give a boost to AC or an enchanted cloak that would give a significant boost to hide. They decided to simply sell it for a pittance, and when I asked why I was told by Bob that "I don't care about my AC because if I am taking a hit I have already failed" and told by everyone that the party didn't have a dedicated rogue and so stealth skills were useless, even though the party routinely makes group stealth checks when trying to sneak by a monster.



Gotcha is subjective, partly on the group, partly on how the encounter plays out.
This is not about what a reasonable player/party would expect. This is about *your group*. Partly about how clever they are, partly about how narrow their expectation is.

Take an encounter with a "puzzle" element - eg "This flesh golem needs fire damage to defeat because of the troll bits used to make it." And assume a lowish level party
You mention the town they were in before heading off to this dungeon had a distillery to make oil for lanterns (hopefully they take the hint and stock up
You describe the golem, including using classic troll terms (game/setting/edition appropriate) for the troll bits

If the players don't realise whats going on and it turns out to be a TPK, it was a gotcha.
You apologise and hopefully learn and grow - be less subtle in your hints. Set the difficulty for these lower with this group.
Note - If you tell the players what was going on and they slap their foreheads and laugh at how dumb they were, then that's not a gotcha either

The players realise what's going on after you drop ever more obvious hints. They win after a very tough fight.
Good work! Not a Gotcha. You've adjusted the encounter's difficulty to the player's performance on the day

The players fail to realise (or realise very late) and it's a tough fight. This takes the role of a major fight in the story. Not Gotcha. They could win without solving the puzzle and the narrative reward matches the difficulty of the fight
Problems your players have with non-standard monsters is a different issue

The players realise at about when you guessed they would and it's a regular fight.
All good

The players realise quickly and curb stop the encounter.
All good. The players get rewarded for their cleverness



Edit to add - It doesn't have to be a TPK to be a gotcha. A defeat they had to run away from *might* count. Does your group expect to have to flee the odd encounter? If not, that might count.
One where they spend significant resources and have to flee or loose some things/people/animals could count
One where the defeat means they fail the mission would probably count as well

I pretty much agree with this. My only question is why its the DMs responsibility to ensure that the players always get the hints; to me that borders on railroading as it trivializes player choice and skill. Its also kind of condescending, as when you get to the point where you are making them play "Blue's Clues the RPG" you might as well just dispense with hints and print out monster stat cards before the fight.