Legendary Actions and More of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories

[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 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 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".

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.

Spoiler: Defensive strategy

Show

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.

Spoiler: Offensive Strategy

Show

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".

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

Spoiler: tangent on scry-and-die on the party

Show

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.