Princess bride wine/poison scene

[King of Casuals]

Hi, I'm trying to create a situation for my players based off that one scene from the Princess Bride in which Vizzini gets poisoned by Westley...:
http://youtu.be/SL4c9gCRSKY
...but im having trouble with figuring out how it would work. How would I stop the party from ganging up on the BBEG instead of risking poisoning? Should I make the poison completely lethal so their character's life is on the line instead of just the inconvenience of losing some health? How much should I make them actually think about the situation instead of just rolling Sense Motive? If I wanted to make the poisoned goblets a magic item that the party could take, how would they work? Could someone help me out pls?

[BWR]

Hi, I'm trying to create a situation for my players based off that one scene from the Princess Bride in which Vizzini gets poisoned by William...:
http://youtu.be/SL4c9gCRSKY
...but im having trouble with figuring out how it would work. How would I stop the party from ganging up on the BBEG instead of risking poisoning? Should I make the poison completely lethal so their character's life is on the line instead of just the inconvenience of losing some health? How much should I make them actually think about the situation instead of just rolling Sense Motive? If I wanted to make the poisoned goblets a magic item that the party could take, how would they work? Could someone help me out pls?

What system are you using? That has a lot to say how you should do it. 3.5?
Also, how powerful are the PCs compared to 'Vizzini'?

[Leviathan]

I think no matter how you do this mechanically, there's a good chance your PCs will chafe and try to avoid making the choice. After all, it's a 50% chance of death (perhaps less with a fort save, but the point stands). I mean, even in the Princess Bride, William only really agrees to the game because he's had the opportunity to brilliantly plan ahead. So unless you give your PCs some similar ability to anticipate the trick and counteract it, you're essentially saying "buy into this high chance of death for no good reason".

Not sure if that helps, but I guess my point is just that you should be cautious about how you approach such a scenario. Think about whether it will be "cool" from the PCs perspective, or just come off as an arbitrary or harsh attempt to kill their characters without allowing them any outs.

[Kantaki]

Have your players watched or read the princess bride? That might influence their reaction. On the other hand who is dumb enough to fall for this old trick? They would deserve what they get.

And William? Isn’t that guys name Westley? Or is there a difference between book and movie?

[Lord Torath]

Hi, I'm trying to create a situation for my players based off that one scene from the Princess Bride in which Vizzini gets poisoned by William Westley...:
http://youtu.be/SL4c9gCRSKY

Fixed that for you. Edit: Ninja'd

That was a great scene! That said, Westley cheated. He didn't actually say there was only poison in one goblet, but it was implied in the nature of the contest. Will your PCs have a similar chance to "cheat"? (i.e. use their wits to outwit the creator of the challenge?)

Are the PCs going to have clues to figure out where the poison is? Have you already decided where the poison is, and is it possible to guess right? I'd recommend getting two cups, each with a folded-up piece of paper, one of which says "poisoned" and the other which says "not poisoned" and then let the players actually pick a goblet. That way there's no hint of "cheating" on the part of the DM.

There are several possible outcomes to this test:
#1: PCs guess correctly:
#2: PCs guess wrong, but pass their poison save:
#3: PCs "cheat" to guess correctly (augury, detect poison, etc):
#4: PCs cheat by nullifying the poison:
#5: PCs cheat by attacking/rescuing the hostage/something otherwise unexpected by the DM:
#6: PCs decide to come back later:
#7: PCs get caught cheating:
#8: PCs by-pass the challenge with skills/magic
#9: Bad guy gets caught cheating:
#10: Something I haven't manage to imagine

You need to know what happens for each of those outcomes.

[lytokk]

The situation I see, kinda boils down to the game being rigged. I'm assuming 3.5 rules, because thats what I know and its what makes the situation work.

BBEG wizard sitting at a table, with two pitchers. In one pitcher, elixer of harm, and in the other, an elixer that will cure the BBEG. Now, the harm elixer may not kill the PCs, but it also might. And even if it doesn't, it can seriously injure the PC. Twist ending, the Wizard actually just finished the ritual to become a lich and both are elixers of harm.

Otherwise, I cannot think of a way of forcing this situation onto the players, they'd have to come up with it themselves.

[Eisenheim]

You probably shouldn't try to set up such a specific scenario for your players. It's gonna take a bunch of railroad to get them there and it probably won't go over well.

If what you want is the delightful feel of that scene, I would say that you should
A. be running an already relatively comedic game.
B. set up a situation where the players have to confront and defeat the enemy without resorting to violence.

[Honest Tiefling]

Might I ask what your exact goals are? Are you attempting to recreating the scene? Then what aspects, such as the challenge, or the witty dialog? Are you trying to make a fun non-combat challenge? Then what are the classes, levels are the PCs and what is their typical behavior?

One thing I can suggest is don't do it...Yet. Some groups don't like it when characters die, you see, and in these cases when I DM for such people, I try to have some ways prepared to make a KO a huge setback without actual death. Hold onto this idea until your PCs are captured or in jail. Their captor (who might be the BBEG or just a whimsical prison warden working for the BBEG or other group) likes to entertain themselves by presenting this challenge to people. Thing is, the captor cheats just like Westley. The trick is, the players must either be lucky, cheat themselves or render their form of cheating useless. They might even be forced to play it against another prisoner.

[Flickerdart]

Forcing the PCs to participate is key. Vizzini had a hostage. Similar situations that come to mind (both from JoJo: Stardust Crusaders) also had a coercive element:

Spoiler

Show

Darby the Gambler tricks one of the protagonists into wagering his soul on a rigged contest, and the protagonist agreed because he didn't take it seriously. He used the character's soul as a hostage in order to force the others to keep playing games with him instead of simply attacking him.

Darby the Player does a similar thing - he anchors a magic hand to one of the characters' arms and threatens to crush it (thus weakening the character shortly before facing the final boss) unless the protagonists refrain from attacking him and agree to wager their souls on a game.

[Segev]

The tricky part to me, that makes it hard for me to take such bets seriously, is why the sides EVER agree to it. Why did Vizzini agree when he had a hostage and could demand otherwise?

The best answer I've seen is this line of reason: If we fight, both of us get hurt, and even if I win, I'm diminished in power/capability/comfort. If we play this lethal game, the winner comes out totally unharmed.

So you want to present a situation where coming out unharmed in return for the risk of demise is worth it over the chances the party thinks they have of winning the potential fight and how hurt they'll get.

Vizzini's hostage was a situation wherein neither gets what they want if they go to blows: Vizzini can't fight so would die, but he'd definitely take out the hostage first. The game was a compromise they could agree on as a means of resolving it that couldn't be renigged on and would at least give the winner everything he wanted.

So you need to set it up so that there's something that would be wrecked by straight-up fighting such that even if they win, they lose. That makes the alternative worthwhile. For it to be believable, there has to be a reason why the villain isn't just fighting them anyway: he needs something out of it (whether because he knows he can't beat the heroes, or because he, too, would lose his objective in the collateral damage).

[Flickerdart]

Why did Vizzini agree when he had a hostage and could demand otherwise?

That seems pretty straightforward in this particular instance - Vizzini is cowardly and doesn't want to push his luck, but simultaneously prideful and could never resist a battle of wits.

[TheCountAlucard]

And William? Isn’t that guys name Westley?

If you were trying to avoid spoilers, you'd call him the Dread Pirate Roberts.

[Sith_Happens]

How would I stop the party from ganging up on the BBEG instead of risking poisoning?

You don't. The only reason Wesley didn't just stab Vizzini was because of his overbearing sense of honor and fair play, while the only reason Vizzini didn't just hold a knife to Buttercup's throat and slowly back away was because of his pride and arrogance.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

You don't. The only reason Wesley didn't just stab Vizzini was because of his overbearing sense of honor and fair play, while the only reason Vizzini didn't just hold a knife to Buttercup's throat and slowly back away was because of his pride and arrogance.

And if anyone can truthfully tell me about a party that all have an overbearing sense of honor and fair play, I will make like Paddy Ashdown.

[Marlowe]

The Princess Bride is all about people who live their personal notions of Good Form and How I Do Things (let's not call it honour) right to the bitter end. Even when they might gain an advantage by stepping out of Form. This even applies to Count Rugen.

The only character it doesn't apply to is Humperdinck, who is unable to live up to his Form and is dismissed as the lowest of the low because of it.

[Kantaki]

If you were trying to avoid spoilers, you'd call him the Dread Pirate Roberts.

Meh, I figured most people who reply to a princess bride question would know the identity of the Man in black already.

[Marlowe]

Easy. The Man in Black is a mysterious figure that manifests from out of a ring of fire. When he comes around, people find themselves oddly driven to beat big kettle drums. It's rumoured he shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die. He hurt himself today, just to prove that he still feels. Whatever you do, don't call him a girls name.

[comicshorse]

The Princess Bride is all about people who live their personal notions of Good Form and How I Do Things (let's not call it honour) right to the bitter end. Even when they might gain an advantage by stepping out of Form. This even applies to Count Rugen.

The only character it doesn't apply to is Humperdinck, who is unable to live up to his Form and is dismissed as the lowest of the low because of it.

Totally and unless you have P.C.s this honour bound you need a damn good reason for them not to attack. And yes what follows is a immense blag
So we steal an idea from 'Red Dwarf', the Justice field

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_(Red_Dwarf)

Vizzini knows of this ancient temple to a forgotten god of Justice and drags Buttercup inside. The priests are gone but the divine magic of the justice field still exists ensuring any attack in the temple rebounds on the attacker. However voluntarily drinking from a cup that may be poisoned isn't an attack.
Vizzini has called in back-up so the P.C.s can't just wait him out and he is sure of his intelligence and so is positive he will win. The stage is set

[Icewraith]

The simplest way in D&D is to make Viccini a rogue. Buttercup is bound, sneak attackable, low level, and Viccini has a readied action. You need a fairly lawful party to agree to some sort of contest of wits in lieu of combat, since Viccini knows he can't beat the party but can certainly kill his hostage before the party can take him out.

[TheIronGolem]

OP, please remember that in the movie, the whole game was Westley's idea. It was not a problem presented to him in order to solve, it was the solution that he, the protagonist, came up with in order to solve the problem of Buttercup being held hostage.

Putting your PC's in this situation doesn't make them into Westley, it makes them into Vizzini. And since there's a near-100% chance that your players have seen this movie, they're going to know better than to accept that role.

[CantigThimble]

The best way I can see to do it is to make the game rigged in some way (after all, the one who proposed the contest rigged it in the movie) but give the players a hint or a riddle or something, something they can use to turn the trick about on the villain. What you DON'T want is them to make a coin flip. They will hate you for that, especially if their character dies. Needing to succeed on a sense motive or else make a coin flip is just two coin flips really. Give them something to figure out on their own.

[Knaight]

I just wouldn't do it. Trying to force a particular scene where the PCs react in particular ways is generally a mistake.

[Vitruviansquid]

What makes the scene delightful is that the battle is utterly stupid because choosing randomly has nothing to do with wit, and everything to do with luck, but the conclusion of the battle then shows you it was based on wit all along because you have to do something witty to win it.

To really get the essence of the scene is to make a situation in which the players have to cheat in order to win. This is also something you should try to never do as a GM both because players tend to hate it when you pull that "haha look how smart you're not" stuff, and because everything you give the players is a kind of training. You don't want to train your players to be the paranoid, prepared-for-everything types because that will come back and bite you in the ass when all the stuff you planned to take half a minute ends up taking half an hour due to player paranoia.

[Jay R]

How would I stop the party from ganging up on the BBEG instead of risking poisoning?

The method shown was having a dagger to the princess's neck., It should work for you, too.

... Westley cheated. He didn't actually say there was only poison in one goblet, but it was implied in the nature of the contest. Will your PCs have a similar chance to "cheat"? (i.e. use their wits to outwit the creator of the challenge?)

He didn't cheat. Using their wits (your phrase) is not cheating in a contest explicitly defined as a battle of wits.

[King of Casuals]

If you were trying to avoid spoilers, you'd call him the Dread Pirate Roberts.

The movie is 30 years old and the book is even older, I just forgot the character's name

[Joe the Rat]

Putting your PC's in this situation doesn't make them into Westley, it makes them into Vizzini. And since there's a near-100% chance that your players have seen this movie, they're going to know better than to accept that role.

See, there's the rub. Unless your players are pristinely unaware (and PB quotes are second only to Holy Grail quotes in my circles), they will see this coming from a mile away. They'll either go Westly (and bring the challenge), Vincini (play the game as a dupe), or Ender Wiggin (Who was going for the eyes long before that upstart Hamster came along).

But coming from the idea that players will know the goblet challenge, what can you do to play with the game?

The key is to have a reason for the players to play - though this usually means one player. This also means an incentive not to try and just kill the other guy. Gatekeepers, hostage takers, cruel villains holding vital information, tricksters of the more-than-mortal sort, a game of subterfuge and poisoning during a pre joust toast, or during the banquet of the High King, that sort of thing. To make it engaging, you want your players in the Vincini mindset - using logic, wits, clues, subterfuge, and luck to get through it. Beware of magic: Being able to detect or neutralize poison sort of kills the challenge.

Once you get that locked in, you need to decide how many goblets are actually poisoned.

• The Princess Bride: In truth, both are poisoned. Your players should suspect this.
  Your cup-bearer has a means to bypass the danger presented by the goblets. It should not be obvious how he or she intends to do that. Attacking the cup-bearer is the obvious third option.
  
• The Court Jester: In truth, one is poisoned. Your players should suspect this.
  This is where it gets more difficult, as the cup-bearer now is taking a risk. Why are they playing fair? Or is the cup-bearer in fact just another player/victim? This is a good one for confusing clues. Maybe conflicting rhyming couplets regarding pellets and poison? If you go with multiple cups, this can become Russian Roulette (one poisoned) or Good, Bad, and Ugly (one safe)
  
• The Shell Game: In truth, neither is poisoned. Your players should suspect this.
  Here the game becomes not one of wit, but one of character. Will you take a cup? Will you take a cup you believe to be poisoned? If the consequences are dire enough, will you take them both (or all) to ensure nobody else gets poisoned? The Third Option (drinking them all) is usually the "right" choice in this scenario.

And a couple variants:

• Knights and Knaves: As the Court Jester, only single player. The cup-bearer merely presents the options, and the player needs to choose the right one to pass. This has the added benefit of allowing for unassailable cup-bearers: magic mouths, animated statues, remarkably well preserved and honorable knights of yore: Anything that can not be forcibly coerced into giving you the secret. You can expand this one into The Grail Room, and hide the "right" cup among many wrong (poisoned) ones. This is more like a puzzle with drinking than a true Sicilian Duel of Wits.
  
• The Red Herring: As the Shell Game, except that the whole drinking of supposedly poisoned wine is to keep the player and possibly party distracted from the real problem, like exits sealing, or a second assassin, or the non-illusory hostage being carted off behind the scenes. Your players should not suspect this, unless they are terribly clever.

[King of Casuals]

OP, please remember that in the movie, the whole game was Westley's idea. It was not a problem presented to him in order to solve, it was the solution that he, the protagonist, came up with in order to solve the problem of Buttercup being held hostage.

Putting your PC's in this situation doesn't make them into Westley, it makes them into Vizzini. And since there's a near-100% chance that your players have seen this movie, they're going to know better than to accept that role.

Yeah thats a good point, but Ill try to mix it up enough to not make it immediately recognizable. That justice field idea was good and i'll try to use it.

[King of Casuals]

See, there's the rub. Unless your players are pristinely unaware (and PB quotes are second only to Holy Grail quotes in my circles), they will see this coming from a mile away. They'll either go Westly (and bring the challenge), Vincini (play the game as a dupe), or Ender Wiggin (Who was going for the eyes long before that upstart Hamster came along).

But coming from the idea that players will know the goblet challenge, what can you do to play with the game?

The key is to have a reason for the players to play - though this usually means one player. This also means an incentive not to try and just kill the other guy. Gatekeepers, hostage takers, cruel villains holding vital information, tricksters of the more-than-mortal sort, a game of subterfuge and poisoning during a pre joust toast, or during the banquet of the High King, that sort of thing. To make it engaging, you want your players in the Vincini mindset - using logic, wits, clues, subterfuge, and luck to get through it. Beware of magic: Being able to detect or neutralize poison sort of kills the challenge.

Once you get that locked in, you need to decide how many goblets are actually poisoned.

• The Princess Bride: In truth, both are poisoned. Your players should suspect this.
  Your cup-bearer has a means to bypass the danger presented by the goblets. It should not be obvious how he or she intends to do that. Attacking the cup-bearer is the obvious third option.
  
• The Court Jester: In truth, one is poisoned. Your players should suspect this.
  This is where it gets more difficult, as the cup-bearer now is taking a risk. Why are they playing fair? Or is the cup-bearer in fact just another player/victim? This is a good one for confusing clues. Maybe conflicting rhyming couplets regarding pellets and poison? If you go with multiple cups, this can become Russian Roulette (one poisoned) or Good, Bad, and Ugly (one safe)
  
• The Shell Game: In truth, neither is poisoned. Your players should suspect this.
  Here the game becomes not one of wit, but one of character. Will you take a cup? Will you take a cup you believe to be poisoned? If the consequences are dire enough, will you take them both (or all) to ensure nobody else gets poisoned? The Third Option (drinking them all) is usually the "right" choice in this scenario.

And a couple variants:

• Knights and Knaves: As the Court Jester, only single player. The cup-bearer merely presents the options, and the player needs to choose the right one to pass. This has the added benefit of allowing for unassailable cup-bearers: magic mouths, animated statues, remarkably well preserved and honorable knights of yore: Anything that can not be forcibly coerced into giving you the secret. You can expand this one into The Grail Room, and hide the "right" cup among many wrong (poisoned) ones. This is more like a puzzle with drinking than a true Sicilian Duel of Wits.
  
• The Red Herring: As the Shell Game, except that the whole drinking of supposedly poisoned wine is to keep the player and possibly party distracted from the real problem, like exits sealing, or a second assassin, or the non-illusory hostage being carted off behind the scenes. Your players should not suspect this, unless they are terribly clever.

Thanks a bunch Joe, you just gave me like 5 new ideas for how to set it up

[Freelance GM]

What if you side-stepped some of the mechanical aspects of the challenge, in favor of making your players feel more immersed?

Once the players agree to the Battle of Wits (and figuring that out is an ordeal itself), pull two glasses out from under the table. One is full of wine (assuming you're running this game at home, and your players are 21+), the other is full of grape juice.

Secretly designate wine or grape juice as the "poisoned" one, and let your players decide which one to drink.

If you're playing in a public place, or are under 21, put a crumpled sheet of paper in each glass. One of the crumpled sheets has "Poisoned, roll a FORT save" written on it, the other is blank. Unless it also says "Poisoned."

[Kantaki]

Re Freelance GM’s drinking game: For underage or anti-alcoholic players replace the glass of wine with a second glass of grape juice but put salt into the „poisoned” glass.

An alternate idea to the poisoned wine deal: It is a poisoned glass of wine - the wine is perfectly harmless but at least one glass is covered with a contact poison. That could trick players who try to test the wine on poison.