well, tonight it tpk

[scurv]

My group is upset at me because they choose to venture in to a one way tour though a cursed castle. And now that they are in the kings secret way out that they have no rogue and to many traps and they can not turn around.
Its going to be a long whinny night tonight but they knew i drew this dungon up months ago and they opted not to include a rogue in their mix. knowing full well my policy's on changing the world for accommodation of player decisions. ( I don't )

But at least the player who got tired of rerolling rogues for the group is happy at the situation. And Yes i know the rogue debate is as tired as the palidin debate. But players who habitually rob the dead body of their rogue has no room to complain about rogues swiping a few gems from time to time.

[Gnomish Wanderer]

You should change up your world.

You're writing a story. If the players are in a lose/lose scenario, give them a way out. Make them lose something, like get a hole in the wall they can squeeze out of but will have to leave half their gear behind or something. Don't screw them because 'it was already written that way'.

[Dumbledore lives]

Depending on the traps they shouldn't need a rogue. I mean there might be a few zap traps but if the traps are noticeable and getting around them is the difficult thing they should be fine. For a party with no rogues or hell even a party with rogues that is what I would suggest.

[navar100]

If it's the king's secret way out, why is it full of traps? No one else is supposed to know it's there. If the king wanted to trap the way out anyway, then surely he would know how to bypass them. The party should be able to find out too.

A criticism of late is a module where the only way a 2nd level party can continue on is to cast Dispel Magic on a door. If the world ignores the party, then the world wins. It is impossible and unfair to demand the players account for every possible scenario of everything. It is not for you to decide they must have a certain class or feat or skill or spell or else they cannot play because the adventure stops them from continuing on without that thing. That is not to say a party without a rogue must mean a world without traps. What it does mean is you should not have a trap that ends the game because the players can't solve it. Solve it could mean suffer the trap, take damage, and move on. Even if a party does have rogue a trap should be logical. Traps aren't just there for the rogue to do something. Traps exist to protect something or for a delaying tactic. Traps can also be bypassed because the owner may want to get past it himself to return to the protected place for some reason. Only for those occasions where the owner specifically never wants to return would a trap be a finality.

[scurv]

I told them up front what the results of their decision would be, And if they choose not to have a rogue, then they had best avoid those situations that require a rogue.
I do not put marshmallow pillows under them when they jump off of cliffs
I don't put scrolls of resurrection in the next chest just because someone died.
And i will not change an already written dungeon just because they wanted to change the group dynamic.

And yes, It is for me to decide, I am the DM in that story. I am up front with my terms. Most things are open for debate but when the word is said that this is the way it is, And the players rush it anyway. Then it is on the players to out think the traps. I'm not saying it can not be done. But I do not see this group doing it.

<edit>
As for context, It is a passage way hid near the old dead jerkwad kings personal chamber, It is not going to have baby traps. The level 7 trapmonky would of handled them with little incident that would be drastic. Now the best the party can hope for is to use as many protections as they can, and maybe someone MIGHT remember to use those boots of levitation. , although there is a surprise or three planed for that.

[Slipperychicken]

Maybe they can hire an NPC Rogue. Or they find one in the dungeon who can help.

Why can't they turn around?
Why is the escape passage full of extremely deadly traps? Isn't the King supposed to be able to get through there safely, quickly, and at a moment's notice?

[scurv]

Players kicked me out of the room for plotting

As for why they can not turn around, Apparently kill it with fire is not always a good solution. So long story short they set fire to much of the wooden structures that helps one move about in a castle, You know like floors. It also alerted a few of their friends in the area who have blades to dull on the party in question.

But the dynamics of an escape rout is it needs to permit the escapee to move with relative freedom, While impeding all others. That as well and good, but a peaceful walkway to an evil kings personal chambers MIGHT not be a good idea for the kings well-being in the long term

So basic dynamics is this, Aera's of magic darkness, Many turns and such to hide one as they move though, And the passage tends to be 10 foot wide, Divided into a choice of one of 5 two foot routs one can take at each segment to pick the safe way though. remember It does the king no good if his assassins have a back door to his personal chamber.

[ArcturusV]

Well, this is the sort of situation Monks (Or Paladins) were made for. "Okay, you have good saves, and in the case of the Paladin a decent armor class... just run down the corridor and hope you don't die. After you trip all the traps we'll follow."

[scurv]

Right now i think their best strat is to put all the protections they can on beefcakes (Minotaur) and let him run down the center to soak it with his hp pool. After using the tried and true methods of finding traps like boulder tossing, walking sticks and bowling, Don't laugh but they can very well find trip wires and trap doors. and give the pc's a chance at damage avoidance.

[nedz]

Well: Nothing is written, until you've run it.

They'll just have to take it in turns to trigger the traps — they do have a healer don't they ? And they can deal with poison ? I guess you will soon find out

[Rhynn]

You should change up your world.

You're writing a story.

Disagreement. DM's don't have to write a story, and, indeed, writing a story (with a plot) causes problems at some point when the PCs wreck it. You should write a situation (AKA a scenario) and let the PCs wreck that.


The party should have hired an NPC rogue to deal with traps if they didn't have one. (Assuming they knew they'd be likely to face traps. If they didn't, you need to work on letting them learn about where they're heading.) If your group don't ever hire NPCs to help them and round out their capabilities, you need to work on encouraging them to.

[Baalthazaq]

I'm not sure you're getting what is being suggested.

You are saying TPK.

People are suggesting two things:
1: It should be plausible for the players to succeed.
This is not the same as impossible for the players to fail (AKA Marshmallow Pillows).

2: As the writer of the story, you should not require a specific make-up of party to succeed, and that that is a mistake you've made, not a mistake the party has made.
As a result, they're suggesting compensating for that mistake is justified.

Another way of looking at this is that they're suffering because of a meta-decision (I want to play a paladin), not an in-character decision (my paladin moons the king).

They've given legitimate world-building tips for why it shouldn't be a TPK situation (If the king needs to get out quickly, it shouldn't be impossible for a party to get out carefully. Being able to avoid/see/disable some of the traps coming from the king's side may be both more realistic, and more fun for your players).

Everyone already knows rule 0.
That you are the DM means your word is final in your world.
That does not mean all your decisions are good decisions in the real world, just final decisions. All the more reason to be careful with them.

Luckily for you, you have this cool rule called rule 0. It allows you to change, even things that you yourself have written down in order to make the game more fun... which many of us are, I think, assuming is your aim, and the reason for this post.

Or... are you just telling us you plan to kill a party?

[scurv]

As they debate tactics and bring out secret stashes with me exiled again.

This group has a long history ( nearly 4 years over many dm's ) Of letting rogues hang out to dry and putting them in situations they should not be in. And shortly after looting their corpse and making said player make a new one. Now when said player, Who knew full well my stance on the topic Decided he was going to play a fighter because that is how the group treats their rogues, He knew what would happen and actually was quite passionate on the subject to a party with out a rogue.

And I dislike the concept of playing a rogue npc in my own campaign, it is to close do DMPC for my tastes...and quite frankly I doubt the guilds or any non suicidal rogues will deal with them based on said party being a death trap for that profession.

No one else took it on them self to make a rogue, And said party willingly went in to a place that I told them two weeks ago they would need a rogue to navigate.

So it is not me killing the party They choose to go down a path being forewarned what the results could be, If I put out the marshmallow pillows for them when they are being daft, I cheapen every other victory they earn. They want the loot and the glory, they need to earn it.

[Kane0]

Seems like rogues have the short end of the stick in your group. Not wanting to take up the short stick is understandable, but arent you just following the groups precedent on this one? Be sure you are not punishing a lack of rogue, that would force the players to choose being one where it seems nobody wants to be one. It is your world and your game, but the players are there to have fun and both you and they must be having fun. If someone is forced to play a character they dont want to they wot have fun, and as a dm you should be avoiding that.

It would make them value rogues at least..

[Sith_Happens]

This group has a long history ( nearly 4 years over many dm's ) Of letting rogues hang out to dry and putting them in situations they should not be in. And shortly after looting their corpse and making said player make a new one.

A behavior that you strongly encourage by making Trapfinding mandatory for survival.

[Rhynn]

2: As the writer of the story, you should not require a specific make-up of party to succeed, and that that is a mistake you've made, not a mistake the party has made.

Augh. No. The DM does not write the story of the adventure/session. The story is emergent - it is created by the actions of the player characters and the reactions of the NPCs run by the DM. Pre-writing a plot/story is bad news.

Writing situations/circumstances/scenarios/locations and letting the PCs do with them as they will is a tried and true, age-old (as old as RPGs), and perfectly good approach.

Obviously, it needs to be communicated to the players, and some players may not like it, but there is nothing categorically wrong with it, and the presumption that the DM has a responsibility to adapt to the party's weaknesses is not at all true. You can play that way, sure. I wouldn't want to. Finding clever ways to overcome your characters' and party's weaknesses is what role-playing is about, to me.

[Baalthazaq]

Augh. No. The DM does not write the story of the adventure/session. The story is emergent - it is created by the actions of the player characters and the reactions of the NPCs run by the DM. Pre-writing a plot/story is bad news.

Sufficed to say, you've said many sentences on my behalf that I have not.

My entire post can be summed up as:
"People are giving you reasonable suggestions, to make your game more fun for your players. Perhaps consider them."

I'm not addressing a room of people who have never roleplayed. Neither are you. If you say "Dragons are attacking the village. They're asking for help.", that can easily be considered your story. The players flesh out the details with the DM throughout the campaign. I'm not interested in debating minutiae, or what "the word story means to you", or what "a real story is".

The rest of my post is encouraging the DM work more "on the fly" rather than considering some aspects pre-ordained. And this somehow communicated to you that I pre-write everything the party will do?

Some players may not like it, but there is nothing categorically wrong with it.

This sentence describes many many many things. That 'some players may not like it' is already a description of a problem, especially if 'some players' turns out to be a large number.

"Is my decision making the game less fun" is the question, before "is my decision wrong in absolute moral or legal terms". We're talking about re-evaluating an escape route's challenge rating in a game, you're not making Sophie's Choice.

[scurv]

First, I treat my players as adults, And as adults there is results for their actions and in-actions. My npc's and encounters are by and large drawn up before hand. This way there is no claims from this player or that player of favoritism when so and so finds something when they are off on their own (Who tends to pocket it, even if they are of a lawful good alignment)

In our group, we have several people who DM their own campaigns and this is problematic across all of them. The group tends to view all that can pick up a blade as having a d10 hp a nice plus to con bonus and being fully armored knights. And as little as I dislike going in to that dynamic I got 4 years worth of log sheets that show that the rogue of the party, For very valid IC reasons (as it is claimed by the player of a heal bot) will always be the last one that is healed in a tough situation.

So when the other rogue player decided not to draw up anymore rogues. I told the group as a whole. That The onus is on them to make up for that loss of skill in their group. They did not when they had 11 sessions with kids gloves. Three weeks ago they were informed ic and in that oh so special dm to players meta way that said castle was trapped. They could of got back in their awesome wagon (Thanks for the help in drawing that out, we call it the A team scooby wagon now) and went to the next tourist spot down the road, But they choose to go grave robbing from the cursed and haunted castle.

And sith yes a rogues life is its own risky bushiness But death by trap seldom happens to the rogues,


As a side note, one made it out alive and now has the bodies of two pc heal bots (I call them what they are) Two pc fighters, and one wizard. I gave the group a choice that if they wished the traps to be retconed out that it could happen, But the riches in the kings chambers would not of been there with out traps to protect them, They choose lewt.

But as a thought exercise, How would one DM a group with out melee's or with out priests, who wished to do a dungeon crawl? what accommodation would one make for that?

[Zefren]

If they were warned and knew what they were getting into, then it's not your fault, like you said, let them deal with the consequences of their actions and overconfidence. Players should respect the DM's work and conform to the world he made. Of course you shouldn't be a douchebag DM that just wants to annoy the players by putting them in situations they can't do anything about.
Like someone suggested above, give them a way out to keep the campaign going, but punish them by taking their equipment or something so they have to start over (which in D&D shouldn't take long...). People have to learn that adventuring is serious business

[Gnomish Wanderer]

Disagreement. DM's don't have to write a story, and, indeed, writing a story (with a plot) causes problems at some point when the PCs wreck it. You should write a situation (AKA a scenario) and let the PCs wreck that.


The party should have hired an NPC rogue to deal with traps if they didn't have one. (Assuming they knew they'd be likely to face traps. If they didn't, you need to work on letting them learn about where they're heading.) If your group don't ever hire NPCs to help them and round out their capabilities, you need to work on encouraging them to.

I mean as a group, you're writing a story. Not the DM, the roleplaying group, including the DM who writes the backdrop that the story is happening in. The players give it direction and character. Still, altogether a story comes out of the wetwork. It's the DM's job to make sure the story has challenges that aren't impossible.

[Grod_The_Giant]

But as a thought exercise, How would one DM a group with out melee's or with out priests, who wished to do a dungeon crawl? what accommodation would one make for that?

Without melee... I probably wouldn't change much. Maybe work in more ranged monsters/NPCs, more skirmishers rather than brutes, but I wouldn't work too hard. Unless we're talking an all-squishy party...

Without divine casters... drop more healing wands and scrolls and make sure someone either has the spells on their list or has a good UMD skill.

[scurv]

I never was a fan of mage or cleric by magic item, I mean don't get me wrong, Nothing wrong with potions or the occasional wand. But I rather keep it so the class's are defined, Not that androgynous rogue/wizard muck. Truth be told I am not a fan of bot clerics ether in campaigns I see little difference between how some people use them and a magic wand in practice.

Besides they have one party member who made it though, although they are down 4 points of cha most likely till they get some more professional healing.
Don't get me wrong Normally I let people run with two chars. Its a good thing its a dangerous world out there and bad things tend to happen And I am not fond of letting people sit for a night when everyone else is having fun around them. So I do permit people to run with two chars.

But the campaign style i run is I paint a world and it has challenges to be over come, avoided or passed along. I'll occasionally let the party higher a npc guide, but I have little intention of playing a key class in the party that I am DMing for. Just not how it works when i'm behind the screen. That and considering this partys reputation for what it does to rogues, there would need to be quite a few critical failures in judgement for any guild rogue, Or most freelancers to join that party with the mino that is always hocking their last rogues gear at the pawn shop.

[LibraryOgre]

I don't feel a whole lot of sympathy for a group of players who, when told, "This will be full of deathtraps; Not having a thief is stupid" choose to not include a thief in their number. It's like being told "This adventure will be full of undead. It is the 'Undead Hordes of Castle Vampiresnwights'" then choosing be six thieves and a fighter. It is making poor decisions, then expecting the GM to pull your bacon out of the fire you jumped into.

So, yeah. Let them go through it. Let them try to roleplay and puzzle-solve their way around checks. Let them play some D&D as "subterranean fantasy ****ing Vietnam." Give them the search checks to notice things, but don't hold their hands.

Oh, and if they insist on taking 20 on searches every 5 feet? Keep track of food.

[Baalthazaq]

Party without healbots?
I ran one of those for about a year and a bit.
We had an artificer who could heal himself with repair rolls.
I had the party attacked by a homebrew spider early on in the campaign that did con damage, but also gave fast healing equal to that con damage.

One character got fast healing 3, in exchange for 3 con.

In a fight this doesn't actually help dramatically. A level 7 character has lost 14 HP, in exchange for gaining 18 HP in healing over the course of an average fight, and this discrepancy only worsens as they level.

The real benefit becomes that they don't need healing downtime, so it speeds up play. Also, they can't use remove poison or restoration on themselves or they lose the healing, (though they regain the con).

Beyond that I made sure to suggest defensive feats when asked for character building advice, and left them to themselves to figure out how to stay alive.

Incidentally, a PC's cohort took the most poison damage and ended up with a con of 3, but a fast healing of something silly like 12, so if he survived the hit, he'd be back on full health within 3 rounds or so, but even a moderate hit could kill him.

[Rhynn]

So, yeah. Let them go through it. Let them try to roleplay and puzzle-solve their way around checks. Let them play some D&D as "subterranean fantasy ****ing Vietnam." Give them the search checks to notice things, but don't hold their hands.

I love the smell of fireballs in the morning. Smelled like... victory.

Seriously, though, that phrase pretty much decribes what I want out of to the Undermountain. (Although, even then, I've scrapped a lot of the traps as being a bit too Gygaxian - many are specifically designed to punish PCs using good dungeon operating procedures...)

But yeah, I agree. To me, preparation is part of the game. If nobody wants to play a rogue, they better hire a trapfinder (or twenty, if you know what I mean). If nobody wants to play a cleric, they better hire one, or buy a lot of healing potions or a wand.

[LibraryOgre]

I love the smell of fireballs in the morning. Smelled like... victory.

Seriously, though, that phrase pretty much decribes what I want out of to the Undermountain. (Although, even then, I've scrapped a lot of the traps as being a bit too Gygaxian - many are specifically designed to punish PCs using good dungeon operating procedures...)

Reading Undermountain always makes you appreciate what an utter bad-ass Durnan must be.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't feel a whole lot of sympathy for a group of players who, when told, "This will be full of deathtraps; Not having a thief is stupid" choose to not include a thief in their number. It's like being told "This adventure will be full of undead. It is the 'Undead Hordes of Castle Vampiresnwights'" then choosing be six thieves and a fighter. It is making poor decisions, then expecting the GM to pull your bacon out of the fire you jumped into.

I, on the other hand, don't have a lot of sympathy for a GM who knew that his group was hard on rogues and that no-one had trapfinding, and then proceeded to go, "here's a giant awesome dungeon full of traps." Sure, they could have gone somewhere else, but it comes across as kind of mean-spirited taunting. "I know none of you like playing this class, but look! Here's something cool you could have done if one of you had bowed to convention!"

In this specific situation? Yeah, the players did cause their own problems. But as a general rule... 'sbad.

[Gavinfoxx]

You have gone through the list of stuff and shown them what options there are to get Trapfinding, so they don't have to play Rogues to get trapfinding, yes?

[scurv]

we play second edition with imports from skills and power and all that. And well...I would like to think that I do not need to spoon feed my group and hold there wee wee when they pee. If they want to research other options They can research other options. There is a perfectly viable class that deals in traps, And I tend to be fairly liberal if someone wants to draw up a custom class.

They are adults, I will treat them like adults,

<edit>
I gave them 11 sessions with no traps, and treasure so stupidly under guarded that it made my brain bleed from the loss of verisimilitude. If they decide that they want to do things the hard way, I can respect that, But on the flip side of respect they also get to take the hits for their decisions.
And they are going though all this drama because of envy of a rogue occasionally finds a dead body in a pit trap when they foul a roll and take half their hp's and helps them self to a few shinnys. I mean seriously How much hand holding does this deserve?

[Grod_The_Giant]

There's a difference between pampering players and recognizing "oh, gee, no-one wants to play a trapfinding class, maybe that's not an aspect of the game that my players enjoy, maybe I shouldn't use it."