Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
Being open to accepting the PCs' plans isn't enough. You also have to actually accept one of them. Their plans were:




These were their plans, and you wouldn't accept any of them.



Note that this was originally your plan, and that you had to reach across the table and tell them to go do it.

A is correct. They were helpless, because everything that used their abilities failed. None of your possible endings required the fighter to draw a sword, or the wizard to cast a spell.

B is correct. They spent lots of time spinning their wheels trying things that couldn't work, without any way to know that they were wasting their time.

C is correct. Everything they tried was ruled out, and they were nudged into your plan. They obviously didn't get enough clues that a druid or dragon might help.

If you are going to let them come up with their own plan, something they should come up with should work. If you have a set plan, or set of possible plans, then they should include their abilities, and they should have more clues to it.
I'm confused here, it seems like you are saying that I should accept every plan the players come up with, even when it would make no sense.

All of the plans you quoted either relied on skills the players didnt have or things that were simply too small to have an impact on the situation.

Hypothetically, what would you do if the players in your game decided to slay a red dragon by throwing a stick at it (despite it having hundreds of HP), hitting it with a fireball (despite it being immune to fire), talking it into giving the players it hoard without a fight (despite only having a six charisma and no social skills), or casting power word kill on it despite being only a second level mage?