Annoying or Genius?

[Talakeal]

So last night my game ran more or less without a problem*, until the final battle. They were attacking the laboratory of an evil priest, and during the final battle I mentioned that the laboratory included the skeleton of a very large and very long dead dragon. The party wizard decided to animate it, giving the PCs an incredibly powerful minion. Of course, the cleric, who was much more powerful than the wizard, simply took control of the undead dragon. As a result the fight turned into a three hour long brawl that nearly resulted in a TPK, making everyone end the session extremely tired and cranky.

I can't tell, was the wizard animating the dragon being annoying and trying to "cheat" the situation, or merely trying to play smart? Any ideas?




*Actually, there was one other situation that I should ask about. The party fought a band of savage raiders, and killed all of them but two, included amongst the dead was the clan's spiritual leader. They tracked the two back to their village, and the party scout watched the two relate the tale. One decided to stay at the village to protect the women, while the other led the men who were too young or too old to participate in the battle to go and reclaim the body of their spiritual leader for proper burial.

The players decided to ambush this group. I told the party that I wasn't going to roll it out, if they wanted to kill a single wounded warrior and a bunch of children and old men they could do it without any rolls. The party was extremely mad, claiming that the enemy should have surrendered rather than fighting if they were so outmatched. I explained that they were both terrified of the PCs and infuriated at the (seemingly unprovoked) murder of their spiritual leader and their sons / brothers / fathers. Besides if they surrender they are putting their wives and daughters in danger.

The party got pissed at me for making them out to be the villains by having the "enemies" fight back instead of surrendering to their mercy. What should I have done here?

[jindra34]

For the first: Mostly likely the player thought they had a super smart cunning plan. After all adding a nasty minion to the fight will always swing it to its controllers favor (there being the flaw they missed).
The second? I wouldn't have done anything different. If the players were grumpy about being the bad guys, well maybe they should have thought through the ramifications more. Or tried to talk.

[BWR]

In the first case: I don't really understand the question? Are you annoyed that the wizard did it? Was the player trying to ruin your game? If you set out the situation, how can it be cheating for players and PCs to act on it?

In the second case: I think you need to get new players. If they see a group of obviously harmless people, then decide to ambush them, kill them and then blame you for not stopping them they need to get their heads out of their arses. Seriously.
Even if you failed to tell them in advance that these are not a threat, the moment you told them they could kill everyone without a roll, they should have understood the situation. Right now it sounds like they want to play play complete jerks but don't want to admit that they are jerks, both IC and OOC.

You know what you could do: send them over here to read all the responses to your posts, because it seems like every week or so you come up with a new horror story about these folks. If they can't understand what's wrong with them after all this, you are probably better off getting a new group or letting someone else run a game where there isn't a fundemental disconnect between players and DM.

[Talakeal]

In the first case: I don't really understand the question? Are you annoyed that the wizard did it? Was the player trying to ruin your game? If you set out the situation, how can it be cheating for players and PCs to act on it?
.

Not "cheating" no. I am trying to figure out if using something that was obviously supposed to be simple "window dressing" for a scene to gain a huge tactical advantage is simply genius tactics that think outside the box, or trying to break the game by introducing elements that the GM didn't account for.


As for the second case, that would only make the problem worse. The "bad" players in my group don't care about being evil, it is the "good" players who actually care about their in character consequences and see the game as a virtual world rather than a mechanism to power up their characters.

[tensai_oni]

Is this DnD? Everything from your description makes it sound like it's DnD so I will post assuming that's the case.

Controlling Undead works only if you have at least twice the hit dice of the undead in question. It's hardly something that breaks the encounter. I think the cleric acted smart by utilizing tools at his disposal. Assuming you didn't break any rules regarding either creating or controlling undead (another important assumption), it was a fair thing to do.

The non-combatant encounter could have been solved in so many other ways than just make everyone surrender or slaughter them. The players realize they could just retreat, seeing the other party is not going to give up to them, right? Or that they could find non-lethally, trying to disarm or subdue the opponents rather than killing them. Why did they want to attack a group of non-combatants in the first place? But regardless of their motivations, if they failed to realize these options, it was your duty as the game master to nudge them towards them. Make them aware of their existence.

But overall it sounds like your players feel entitled to have easy victories all the time and throw tantrums each time a complication occurs.

[prufock]

1. You provided the PCs with a hammer and expected them not to drive a few nails. Using the tools available is not cheating the system. If he was able to do it, there's no reason to think that he wouldn't.

2. If they wanted a different outcome they could deal nonlethal damage, make intimidation/bluff/diplomacy checks to make the enemy surrender, or disable them by other means. You took that choice away from them, by the sound of it. They had a right to be upset.

[Emmerask]

2. If they wanted a different outcome they could deal nonlethal damage, make intimidation/bluff/diplomacy checks to make the enemy surrender, or disable them by other means. You took that choice away from them, by the sound of it. They had a right to be upset.

Hm, as i understood it the players wanted to attack the group, he said they would not need to play out the battle they could just win it.
At that point the players could have made alternative suggestions like intimidating them or dealing nonlethal dmg.

They did not so I would also assume that what they wanted is to slaughter some helpless stuff for the sake of ... something.

Also I hope the party is all chaotic evil... else they should be ^^

[Raine_Sage]

1. If you mention specifically that there's a large dead dragon sitting nearby, and one of your players can create undead, then why wouldn't you expect them to raise the dragon. Lack of foresight aside I probably would have assumed you'd done that on purpose had I been in your player's place. "Oh cool a dead dragon? Clearly the DM is giving me a chance to do something awesome here thanks DM."

2. That one I can relate to since something similar happened in one of my games actually just yesterday (I was in the players place). I would ask, did you make very clear that there was the option to just not attack them? A player's default assumption is that if there are enemies on the board the only way out is with the end of the sword.

Our DM put us up against a group of vaguely sleepy yetis while we were trying to steal something from an ice temple. There were eight of them and they were huge and the party panicked and shot first on our surprise round which of course pissed off the yetis. It wasn't until half of them were dead and the rest run off that we learned the yetis were actually quite peaceful and all we would have had to do was run out of the room really fast before they had a chance to recognize us as thieves.

However since there weren't any clues about this before the encounter started we were a little annoyed with the DM for not outlining our options clearer. Your situation is very different of course since you did make it clear (I'm assuming) that this band wasn't any threat to your party, but I guess just make sure to make clear when nonviolence is the better option. And what specific kind of nonviolence is warranted (retreat vs diplomacy vs stealth etc.)

[Kane0]

I can't tell, was the wizard animating the dragon being annoying and trying to "cheat" the situation, or merely trying to play smart? Any ideas?

Nah, no cheating or unfairness there. The wizard saw a tool and tried to use it. The BBEG saw a chance to use a tool as his own so he did. Both used their abilities appropriately.

The party got pissed at me for making them out to be the villains by having the "enemies" fight back instead of surrendering to their mercy. What should I have done here?

They were the bad guys.
They defended themselves appropriately from an encounter than let the survivors escape, all well and good. But then they tracked them down and learned that some of the more helpless ones were going back to the scene to recover a body, so they decided to intervene?
Why? They had their victory, and wanted to rub it into what was left of these people? They didn't loot the body before tracking the survivors? They wanted a violent outcome regardless? Sorry man, there was enough chances for them to stop and say "Wait, isn't this kind of a d*** move?"

And as some have said already, you do seem to have a new horrible story about these people every couple of weeks, whats keeping you with them?

[angry_bear]

They didn't do anything wrong with animating the dragon. If the wizard has animate dead as a spell, then it's honestly no different than saying that there's a pair of really nice swords hanging above the fireplace. If the party is able to, then they'll try and use anything at their disposal.

The second situation isn't as straightforward, but you said that the first group they fought were raiders? Tracking them back to their camp isn't a bad thing, and did you say clearly that the group going to retrieve the dead weren't a threat? It could have just been a miss-communication between you and the party is all...

[Kazemi]

Not "cheating" no. I am trying to figure out if using something that was obviously supposed to be simple "window dressing" for a scene to gain a huge tactical advantage is simply genius tactics that think outside the box, or trying to break the game by introducing elements that the GM didn't account for.

This seems like a genius tactical maneuver. As far as I'm concerned, using things that the GM has provided cannot be cheating the situation. There's no such thing as a "window dressing" in metagame (I mean, the BBEG seemed to have considered it such, but that's in character). You, as the GM, have provided them with a skeletal dragon. Anything you give them is open for use, so it's something that you can't complain about when they Animate it. Likewise, you only learn the lesson to beware of Evil Clerics and "Command Undead" once.

(Also, this reminds me so much of Crystal Cantrips )

*Actually, there was one other situation that I should ask about. The party fought a band of savage raiders, and killed all of them but two, included amongst the dead was the clan's spiritual leader. They tracked the two back to their village, and the party scout watched the two relate the tale. One decided to stay at the village to protect the women, while the other led the men who were too young or too old to participate in the battle to go and reclaim the body of their spiritual leader for proper burial.

The players decided to ambush this group. I told the party that I wasn't going to roll it out, if they wanted to kill a single wounded warrior and a bunch of children and old men they could do it without any rolls. The party was extremely mad, claiming that the enemy should have surrendered rather than fighting if they were so outmatched. I explained that they were both terrified of the PCs and infuriated at the (seemingly unprovoked) murder of their spiritual leader and their sons / brothers / fathers. Besides if they surrender they are putting their wives and daughters in danger.

The party got pissed at me for making them out to be the villains by having the "enemies" fight back instead of surrendering to their mercy. What should I have done here?

It sounds like this was poorly handled. As PCs, if you get cornered by something that obviously outpowers you, do you suicide into them? Only if you think you can at least cripple them. If they just killed your tribe's warriors and felt fit enough to come after the main village, you are NOT fit to fight. Your best bet to protect the village, then, is to negotiate.

I'd have run it through by rounds, starting with a Spot Check to see if the villagers notice first. Either before or after the ambush round, the NPCs would've immediately backed off and called for a parley. Their goal is not just to save the women. Their goal is to preserve the village. The injured guard would be furious, but held back by the village elder. The children would have been terrified, but putting up a strong front. Etc.

If I interpreted your original statement correctly, it's the difference between
This

Spoiler

Show

PCs: "OK, we ambush them!"
DM: "Alright, I'm not going to roll it out. If you wanted to kill a single wounded warrior and a bunch of children and old men you can do it without any rolls."

And This

Spoiler

Show

PCs: "OK, we ambush them!"
DM: "Alright, you get a surprise round."
*several attacks later*
DM: "OK, their turn. The hunched old man quickly calls out, organizing the older villagers in front of the children, dropping into Defensive Fighting. He calls out 'Stop! We ask for parley so we may negotiate!' The injured warrior begins to draw his sword, but the old man holds his hand back, preventing him from drawing it."
PCs: "Wait, why aren't they fighting us?"
DM: "Are you asking them? It's your round."
etc.

This encounter could have been solved through ways other than the ambush, but what's important is that it was the player's choice, so you've got to roll with it in an interesting manner. This is where you think on your feet and come up with something that would give them the chance to parley. Perhaps a small onyx mine nearby? Or something else that helps match one of your player's goals and gives the tribe the chance to request the PCs remain to protect them while they recover from the fight (obviously the more rough part of the world) as well as giving them actual incentive to stay (needing to stay to reopen the mine and harvest some). This also turns a random encounter into a base of operations, depending on how many resources there are.
(I'm stuck on Crystal Cantrips, OK?)

[The Glyphstone]

And as some have said already, you do seem to have a new horrible story about these people every couple of weeks, whats keeping you with them?

I suspect Stockholm Syndrome, myself.

[Winds]

Per the first part...I can't guess as to the wizard's particular motives, but I agree it is kind of an obvious thing to do if you can swing it. For your cleric, wresting control if possible is also kind of obvious. Against a mad scientist, that would have been a great tactical move. Against someone that (I assume) they knew was a divine caster? Not so much, really. Still, everyone made use of resources as best they could. I'd be annoyed at TPKing because of it, but I'd laugh it off sooner or later.

I feel like I should note something about keeping undead, though: both from what I've read here and my own thoughts on bookkeeping, any player that plans on using an Animate Dead spell should probably have a basic set of statted minions, rather than fuss with just animating the first thing they see. (Even if having a skeldragon minion would be cool.)



Per the second part...yeah, the party attacked a group of clearly defenseless noncoms/children, with one walking wounded combatant, whom they knew was only recovering a body for last rites? Evil. Pointless, puppy-punting evil, at that. I don't think I've ever played a game where the party would think that was worth doing, much less go through with it. And their reaction? You ambushed them, you morons. They will think their lives are in danger and react accordingly.

I think you handled the situation about as well as could be expected.

[ThirdEmperor]

On the first situation- I have no clue why there would be anything wrong with how that scenario played out, except maybe that it took three hours. If it's 'cheating' for a player to do something unexpected, or make use of anything you weren't expecting to be relevant, then the game is just a bunch of dice rolls. The ability to do so is what seperates D&D from a video game.

On the second- I could see it being either way? It really depends on how precisely you handwaving the dicerolls and saying the ambushed group died happened. If the PCs were planning on trying to force them to surrender, then you went 'Hey, this isn't gonna be a real fight, so, they all just die' then I think that the players had every right to be mad. If not and they were angry you made them out as the bad guys for killing defenseless innocents, then okay.

[TuggyNE]

Not "cheating" no. I am trying to figure out if using something that was obviously supposed to be simple "window dressing" for a scene to gain a huge tactical advantage is simply genius tactics that think outside the box, or trying to break the game by introducing elements that the GM didn't account for.

There's a difference? PCs can and will come up with wacky plans, it's just how things go. This one wasn't particularly bad even, and was a fairly obvious tactic both in and out of character (well, assuming a rather non-good caster, anyway).

[prufock]

Hm, as i understood it the players wanted to attack the group, he said they would not need to play out the battle they could just win it.
At that point the players could have made alternative suggestions like intimidating them or dealing nonlethal dmg.

They did not so I would also assume that what they wanted is to slaughter some helpless stuff for the sake of ... something.

But they DID make an alternate suggestion - that the villagers surrender. The details here are a bit fuzzy. Did they suggest any sort of plan for forcing surrender? Did they talk about taking any prisoners? None of this is made explicit in the OP.

They could still do this without rolling anything. The DM asks "what do you do" to each of them, they give an action, if it's an attack it auto-succeeds. Rounds go quickly and it gives the players the option to change their actions.

[valadil]

The dragon thing is legit. Your players are paying attention to your descriptions and they're trying to be clever about how they approach your game. That's a good thing. Let them get away with it. If they end a boss fight three hours early, they might go home unsatisfied tonight. But long term that will always be the session where a be of wit and observation trumped a tough encounter. That's what they'll remember and you shouldn't take that away from them.

The players decided to ambush this group. I told the party that I wasn't going to roll it out, if they wanted to kill a single wounded warrior and a bunch of children and old men they could do it without any rolls. The party was extremely mad, claiming that the enemy should have surrendered rather than fighting if they were so outmatched.

IMO the party needs to clarify what they're doing. It's okay that you told them they won't need to roll to fight. But they also could have demanded surrender after the first couple enemies fell easily.

[Totally Guy]

You have conflict in your game. Why not try to resolve some of those conflicts using dice rolls?

The players wanted the mob to surrender and you wanted them to keep fighting. There's a few steps here that'll help.

First thing you need to do is identify that there is a conflict in what you want to happen. You will occasionally see a player directly state what they want to happen. Sometimes they will object to something that you say is happening.

Once that's done you need to ask your players "How will you make the enemies surrender?" "What do you do to make that happen?"

Listen to their answer! Is it appropriate? If not say why not and ask again for other ideas. If so reiterate what you want to happen and say that that's what's at stake.

Set a difficulty and roll some dice. Then if the players succeed then their characters get to do that thing to make their way happen. If not then you get your way.

A game system is quite literally a way of resolving conflicts between people. I think this is the most basic "rules unit" you would have.

There are some special designs that the above thing won't work for, In A Wicked Age being the first to spring to mind but I'd say my method up there is applicable to all the most traditional games.

[holywhippet]

Um, exactly what spell did the wizard use to create the skeletal dragon? If it was animate dead, that spell only lets the caster control up to 4 hit die worth of undead anyway and unless it was a really young dragon it would immediately be over the limit. In that case, even if the cleric didn't take control of it the skeletal dragon would be out of control and attacking randomly.

For the raiders, what alignment are the PCs? Ambushing people, especially children and the elderly leans towards chaotic and/or evil. Remind the players of this when they argue it makes them seem like bad guys.

[Badgerish]

1st issue:
Seems legit, but this is the equivilent of having a sword or rifle on a wall-plaque. If I didn't what the weapon to be used, I would deactivate it somehow.
For a Dragon Skeleton... replace some of the bones with plaster replicas, so it's incomplete?

Also, if I (as a game-designer) was designing a spell to animate undead monsters, I would make it a 5min+ ritual with a magic circle and black candles and stuff; but in 3rd it is need a standard action. There is still the actions to measure the Black Onyx, place it in the skeleton's skull and then cast the spell. Was it really a suitable in-combat action?

2nd issue:
I'd phrase this as:
"They fight like people with nothing left to lose... because they are indeed people with very little left to lose, but they are simply not in your league. You can defeat them all without taking any damage."
point at whoever would usually start the fight (e.g. a spellcaster/archer or someone in position to charge) "So, what do you do?"

If they want the enemies to surrender, but you don't think they will (due to "fate worse than death" things), get them to explain their actions and roll relevant skill checks. Knocking them out should involve similar checks to make sure no one escapes or is killed.

[TuggyNE]

Um, exactly what spell did the wizard use to create the skeletal dragon? If it was animate dead, that spell only lets the caster control up to 4 hit die worth of undead anyway and unless it was a really young dragon it would immediately be over the limit.

Not that I am at all a fan of necromancy, but that's not what the spell says. It's 4 HD/caster level.

[Totally Guy]

My initial thought about the dragon was that it'd be cool if the person controlling the dragon was under some penalty for doing so. That way the villain would be accepting the burden of the penalty and also freeing the original wizard from it.

But that's quite game specific.

[valadil]

1st issue:
Seems legit, but this is the equivilent of having a sword or rifle on a wall-plaque. If I didn't what the weapon to be used, I would deactivate it somehow.

So I've actually seen the animated trophy thing a few times before. Enough that it should be something characters in the world are aware of and will always take precautions against. Personally I'd just introduce a new spell: Tenser's Trustworthy Taxidermy. The whole point is to prevent things from being animated.

While I don't think it's fair to introduce this spell in response to the players animating the dragon, I do think it's a good idea to put this out in the world early on, before they get clever ideas.

[Mastikator]

[snip]

The party got pissed at me for making them out to be the villains by having the "enemies" fight back instead of surrendering to their mercy. What should I have done here?

The PCs could've just said to the NPCs "surrender and nobody will be hurt". They made them selves into villains.

[mcbobbo]

As a GM, never forget the power of 'are you sure?' Not only does it give you a communication opportunity, but it absolves you of some of the blame.

[Kazemi]

So I've actually seen the animated trophy thing a few times before. Enough that it should be something characters in the world are aware of and will always take precautions against. Personally I'd just introduce a new spell: Tenser's Trustworthy Taxidermy. The whole point is to prevent things from being animated.

While I don't think it's fair to introduce this spell in response to the players animating the dragon, I do think it's a good idea to put this out in the world early on, before they get clever ideas.

I'm not sure why you'd introduce a new spell like that when he was already capable of taking control of it with ease. I assume if he's got that large a skeleton in his closet he can Rebuke it for a few rounds (unlikely that he's able to Command a Large dragon) while he grabs a Scroll of Command Undead. Of course, this also depends on how many minions he has left. If he's currently surrounded by the other PCs, then he's in a ton of trouble and should start executing escape protocols.

Unless I had it written on his character sheet, I would also not retcon having the spell prepared. That's a bit cheap (imo) and you're in his base, so he can just grab a scroll to deal with it. Obviously he has some scrolls in his desk or on the scroll rack.

[valadil]

I'm not sure why you'd introduce a new spell like that when he was already capable of taking control of it with ease.

Unless I had it written on his character sheet, I would also not retcon having the spell prepared. That's a bit cheap (imo) and you're in his base, so he can just grab a scroll to deal with it. Obviously he has some scrolls in his desk or on the scroll rack.

I wasn't suggesting it as a way to counter the PC's cleverness. I was suggesting it as a thing that should exist in a world that has both taxidermy and necromancers. I've seen a million taverns with dragon's heads on the wall. No unnamed barkeeper is dealing with that if it comes to life. I'm suggesting adding the spell to the world for flavor. And once that flavor is there, the PCs might assume that wall mounted dragon corpses were prepared against necromancy shenanigans. (That said, I also like the possibliity of them trying to dispel and then animate it. That's a bit more of a time investment, but it really pays off if the players do it stealthily and unleash the dragon out of combat.)

[Sutremaine]

....something that was obviously supposed to be simple "window dressing" for a scene....

Did you tell the players explicitly they couldn't interact with it? That's how obvious you need to be.

I think it's a bad idea to teach your players that parts of the GM's descriptions are irrelevant, especially if at some point in the future you want them to pay attention to something you're describing.

[Talakeal]

As I said, I am unsure about the first case. I like it when my players think outside the box and come up with tactics more complex than hit the other guy and hope he dies first.

The problem is when I make a carefully crafted encounter and a gigantic dragon is suddenly introduced into the picture the encounter is now all about the dragon, and balance goes out the window. I don't want to have to have all my fights take place in "featureless gray room" for fear of an unexpected element throwing everything out of whack. But yeah, in retrospect, that probably would make for a more memorable evening than "balanced combat #345" so maybe that isn't a bad thing.

In retrospect I probably should have just gone with it and given the PC a powerful but not overwhelming minion to reward the plan and not had the NPC take it. But as it was I just applied the skeletal template to a full grown dragon and let it lose, which was RAW correct but mucked everything up.


As for the taxidermy thing, that actually doesn't really work. Taxidermy is not preserving a whole animal, it is about mounting a skin on a wooden statue, so if you animated one you would just have a helpless bag of skin trying to pull itself off the immobile frame it is affixed to.




For the second point, this group has a long history of not thinking their plans through and getting large numbers of NPCs killed. This really bothers one of the players, to the point where he threatens to quit the game every time it comes up.

I tend to have more complex plots than simple black and white kill the bad guy, and the players have told me they don't want me to break the fourth wall and tell them "the right thing to do" so I am at a loss as to how to handle it. Some examples of plans they have enacted that got a lot of people killed in the past:

-Hearing about a monster ambushing caravans, so hiring a fake caravan to walk back and forth until the monster attacks it, then springing out in ambush.

-A group of bandits are holding a number of children hostage. The players charge in guns blazing.

-A dragon has enslaved a town. The PCs kill the dragon, then leave without telling anyone, not realizing that the townspeople only put up with the dragon because it was protecting them from something worse.

-Attacking a dragon and failing to kill it, calling on a retreat, leaving the dragon to vent its frustration on the local town that sheltered and equipped the PCs on their quest.

-Drafting all the men in a town into an army for an attack on the dark lord's forces, killing most of them in battle. Also not realizing the dark lord's allies would counter attack the town which now lacked any form of defense.

-Being hired to rescue some prisoners from an illithid. Hacking through the illithid's dominated followers only to realize that they were the people they came there to rescue after they were all dead.

-Being hired to put an end to a generational conflict between two species who both claimed the right to a certain town. Resolving it by helping one of the species round up and exterminate every member of the other species in the area.

-Being the leaders of an empire's military which is currently at war with the fey. The players divine the location of the next attack and find it to be a small farming village. They go in and perform a raid on a group of rat hengeyokai which are the only fey they can find in the area, hoping it will cripple their military and scare them into submission, then leave. The truth behind the situation is that the rat folk were neutral and the fey military was trying to convince them that the humans were a threat and that they needed to join together to stop them. Of course, after the raid the rat people are convinced the fey are telling the truth, and ally with them for a joint attack on the nearby farming community now that the PCs are hundreds of miles away patting themselves on the back for a job well done.

There are many more instances, these are just what I can think of off the top of my head. My players simply don't think things through, and almost never actually investigate the situation (usually as simple as asking a question of a local NPC or rolling a gather information test) before attacking / leaving the area.

[Emmerask]

Okay I think I see the problem ^^

Your plots for the current group of players are just too complex.
May I ask how old the players are on avg, because if they are around 16 to maybe 20 then I would first use very simple plots and gradually ramp it up over time so they slowly get comfy with none binary plots.

If they are older player > 30 then well they just dont seem to want complex plots and just want go in kill everything get out dungeon runs.
If this is something you are willing to dm (I certainly would not except for one shots because I would be bored to death) then I would suggest that ie playing dungeon runs no subplots only killing stuff ^^.

If not then sadly the only thing I see is to search for a different group because this will not end well