Post/Author/DateTime	Post
fierycon 03-25-08, 12:57 PM	Right let me set the scene, one PC (a female lvl6 human ranger) befreinded the king. One gaming session the PC was walking alone with the king in his private garden. The game then went like this... PC: I put my arm around the king, trying to conceal the dagger in my hand. *DM makes appropriate roll* DM: Ok, the king doesnt notice and continues to walk with you. PC: I plunge the dagger into the king's back DM: Ok, the king grunts in pain and then falls silently to the ground. Blood covers both your hand and the dagger, and the king's lifeless eyes stare up at you. Now the point im making is that the DM didn't even ask to roll to hit, or even to damage, and just ruled that the king had died. Im sure that the majority of DMs will now be choking on their D20s at the thought of this but it was actually a very powerfull moment in the game. So many times in films you witness a weakling plunging a dagger into a more powerful character's back, killing them instantly. And this adds a sense of realism, mortallity and power to the film. After all, a dagger in the back can instantly kill even the most powerful fighter. Should DnD be any different? If the DM had asked for initiative rolls and then asked for damage rolls etc, the event would have lost a lot of its impact. I know that this completely unbalances the game- for example why bother taking ranks in Assassin etc. What do people think of this... do you think that it was a rediculous thing for the DM to do? im interested in peoples views. Also, do people think that in some situations adhearence to the rules should be ignored if it would add realism to the game? cheers guys
heffroncm 03-25-08, 01:06 PM	D&D is two games in one: one part tactical wargame, one part storytelling RPG. You don't need rules to tell a story. If the needs of the story supersede the rules, do whatever needs to be done. If player's demand system justification, then tell them you'll come up with something and get back to them in a week's time. The system has so many ridiculous ins and outs that you can make anyone do anything. In this situaiton, it's a simple enough thought that the king, though putting on a good face, barely survive a horrific poisoning earlier that same day. With his Con reduced to 1, even the lvl 6 Rogue's 3d6 Sneak Attack was enough to kill the King. He was caught unaware of the impending attack (rolls for that were made) giving the rogue a Surprise round action. Without his gear, flatfooted, he has a 10ac, which the lvl 6 rogue will most likely hit 90% of the time.
LeeAlucard 03-25-08, 01:12 PM	I think that it doesn't sound like a big issue; if the DM feels for any reason that no roll is required, then no roll is required. A DM might decide that a 10th-level Barbarian doesn't need to make an attack roll to utterly ruin a 1st-level Commoner's day with his greataxe. And yes, in this case, the whole "I knife the king in the back" thing would be less cinematic if rolling to hit was required, but I would nonetheless roll damage, just to see if he survives it or not. Darn it, Ninja'ed! By the way, it's a ranger, not a rogue.
tyrandor 03-25-08, 01:13 PM	Seems like good storytelling to me.
Ecalsneerg 03-25-08, 01:17 PM	See, I was expecting a 'rocks fall, everyone dies' style complaint, not a dramtic moment.
Khazzan 03-25-08, 01:25 PM	And maybe the DM also felt it was enough to qualify for a coup-de-grace, and didn't bother with the rolling of the dice. I think heffroncm said it well: "If the needs of the story supersede the rules, do whatever needs to be done."
BobSutan 03-25-08, 01:25 PM	Seems like good storytelling to me. Agreed. He was a king, maybe 10 ac in royal garb, and maybe 4 hit points. Consider it taking 10 on the attack. Sooner or later you'd kill him, so it may as well be in a dramatic narrative.
RPJesus 03-25-08, 01:31 PM	Yeah, she already had a knife conealed in her hand with her arm around him. Unless the king actually had 10 ranks in "I is knows kung-fu" or something, it couldn't have been that hard to stick a dagger through his heart (or proportionally useful organ)
tyrandor 03-25-08, 01:32 PM	Or he could have been a level 15 Fighter with protection spell up the wazoo. The point is, the DM wanted the king to die (or the very least, wasn't opposed with the idea and wants to see where the players are going to go with it)... so he could have turned this into a mighty battle for the age... or he go for a rather powerful storytelling moment. Good call, imo. Sounds like the kind of DM I like to have.
Wheldrake 03-25-08, 01:47 PM	Sounds like a good opportunity for a "coup de grace": the victim is unsuspecting, and allows the assailant perfect access for it. As a Dm I'd have no problem with such a situation. Hit points and initiative scores just don't cover every action. Bravo! --- Wheldrake
danielinthewolvesden 03-25-08, 01:49 PM	What were the rest of the players doing at that time? :confused: It's a team game.
Josheva 03-25-08, 01:52 PM	If the players enjoyed it and it furthered the story then the DM did his job. If the king's survival was essential to the story then the DM should have had him put up more of a fight. It sounds like he did the right thing.
themocaw 03-25-08, 01:54 PM	What were the rest of the players doing at that time? :confused: It's a team game. Trusting the ranger who, up until that point, had basically seemed to be the king's bestest buddy? O.o
iserith 03-25-08, 02:31 PM	If my players come up with a reasonable, interesting plan that enhances the game and is within what I would consider within their character's abilities, I don't roll dice - I just describe it as having happened and discuss the results. I always make sure to thank the player later for being creative, if such a compliment is warranted. Also, unless the king is known to be a former barbarian warlord, you can't assume that he was anything more than a low-level aristocrat in terms of statistics. If that is the case, there's very little reason to roll out an uneven combat such as this. When my players come across creatures much lower than their APL and want to dispatch them, I just tell them they did it to save time.
mvincent 03-25-08, 02:50 PM	the DM didn't even ask to roll to hit, or even to damage, and just ruled that the king had died.That seems reasonable in this case. Being alone in a garden with your trusted best friend (who has their arm around you and an unseen dagger handy) might reasonably viewed by a DM as effectively 'helpless' (at least for an NPC), and thus a valid target for a coup de grace. But even if not: it's ok to shorten combat when the results are certain, or to handle scenes narratively. This is actually nice for the rest of the players (since they don't have to sit through a combat that they're not in).
sblaxman 03-25-08, 02:58 PM	Yeah, no d20s rolling in this DMs head.... Like all ready said... if in that situation, and I wanted the king alive, I'd make you roll. If I a) don't care b) think it's cleaver c) wanted you to kill him d) just thought of a fun side quest from his death, then I'll just let it go. king had 4 hp, you got a suprise attack, and I'd count it as a coup de grac.
Dragonsblood 03-25-08, 03:37 PM	As a DM I would've ruled that differently. Kings in DnD's magical worlds shouldn't be that easy to kill. Even in real life a single knife wound isn't always immediately fatal. From a storytelling point of view, look at the classic case: Didn't Caesar take several stabs to go down? I wouldn't require an attack roll or initiative roll because of the circumstances, but there should definitely be a damage roll. If she has levels in rogue or assassin or other class that specializes in sneak attack type damage, I would include that. It would not be a coup de grace because the king isn't helpless. He would flitch away from the blade as a natural reaction once he felt it, causing the wound to be less severe. After that, combat would ensue as normal, with the king fleeing to his guards. If I were a player in this campaign I would have a hard time swallowing this bit of "storytelling," but I probably wouldn't make any comment. In what movies does a weakling instantly kill a powerful character? This scene just seems really contrived to me...
Dragonsblood 03-25-08, 03:39 PM	Yeah, no d20s rolling in this DMs head.... Like all ready said... if in that situation, and I wanted the king alive, I'd make you roll. If I a) don't care b) think it's cleaver c) wanted you to kill him d) just thought of a fun side quest from his death, then I'll just let it go. king had 4 hp, you got a suprise attack, and I'd count it as a coup de grac. No way in hell should a king have 4 hp at full health! What a lame campaign if this is true!
heffroncm 03-25-08, 03:41 PM	Who says the King is at all powerful? As many have said earlier, political important is not the same as class levels. Personal ability on the battlefield is the realm of knights and guards, not neccisarily the ruler. And to Dragonsblood, who says the king has 4hp at full health?! He was in a position that a single stab with a dagger could end his life. Have you never had a powerful character in similar circumstances?
TazendrasGhost 03-25-08, 03:47 PM	No way in hell should a king have 4 hp at full health! What a lame campaign if this is true! I think you are confusing physical power with political power. Not all kings need to be powerful warriors, they just need the support of other powerful people or organizations in the kingdom. An elderly or sickly king can still be quite powerful, not in what he can do himself, but what he can command others to do. I think its fine that the DM didn't roll any dice too BTW.
BobSutan 03-25-08, 03:49 PM	As a DM I would've ruled that differently. Kings in DnD's magical worlds shouldn't be that easy to kill. Even in real life a single knife wound isn't always immediately fatal. From a storytelling point of view, look at the classic case: Didn't Caesar take several stabs to go down? I wouldn't require an attack roll or initiative roll because of the circumstances, but there should definitely be a damage roll. If she has levels in rogue or assassin or other class that specializes in sneak attack type damage, I would include that. It would not be a coup de grace because the king isn't helpless. He would flitch away from the blade as a natural reaction once he felt it, causing the wound to be less severe. After that, combat would ensue as normal, with the king fleeing to his guards. If I were a player in this campaign I would have a hard time swallowing this bit of "storytelling," but I probably wouldn't make any comment. In what movies does a weakling instantly kill a powerful character? This scene just seems really contrived to me... Ok. Fine. Given the circumstances treat him as helpless. Your minimum crit damage + sneak attack kills him. Same end result only instead of making it a narrative and done with flair you just turned it into a mechanical bland "encounter".
Dragonsblood 03-25-08, 03:53 PM	Who says the King is at all powerful? As many have said earlier, political important is not the same as class levels. Personal ability on the battlefield is the realm of knights and guards, not neccisarily the ruler. And to Dragonsblood, who says the king has 4hp at full health?! He was in a position that a single stab with a dagger could end his life. Have you never had a powerful character in similar circumstances? If a king didn't have combat experience he would be multiple levels in aristocrat or maybe expert. NPC classes are there for a reason. Characters gain levels with experience from overcoming challenges, not from just killing things. Surely the political maneuvering required to be king would grant enough experience to gain levels. So yes, class levels and being politically important are the same thing in DnD's system. He was in a position that a single stab with a dagger could end his life. The skill necessary to do this is represented by the sneak attack ability or similar. A ranger is out of her scope. Read what I quoted...
Dragonsblood 03-25-08, 03:57 PM	Ok. Fine. Given the circumstances treat him as helpless. Your minimum crit damage + sneak attack kills him. Same end result only instead of making it a narrative and done with flair you just turned it into a mechanical bland "encounter". Rangers don't get sneak attack dice, and the king did not qualify as helpless. Rolling dice does not make it "bland." If you're really this jaded, maybe you should stop playing DnD and just read novels. What you call "narrative" and "flair" I call "railroading" and "contrived." Not only that, but I think it's much more dramatic for the king to go fleeing to his guards for help where ALL of the PCs can lend their aid in a climactic battle.
iserith 03-25-08, 04:08 PM	In one of my campaigns, a player wrote a great backstory about the government betraying his people (whisper gnomes). He set about getting revenge on agents of that government by acquiring gunpowder and smuggling it into the government offices under the guise of a halfling caterer. He spent time acquiring the gunpowder, practicing his disguise and establishing his new persona as a bonafide person, and executed his entire plan of revenge without so much as a single roll of the dice. Should I have made him roll all this out? I could have. I could have involved him sneaking around (Move Silently), stealing supplies to make gunpowder (Craft (alchemy)), practicing his disguise (Disguise, Bluff), etc. only to have his hard, very creative work undone by a bad roll. But it was more expedient and more satisfying to the player (and to the group as a whole) for them to have affected the game world in a real way. What's my point? The point is that the event of blowing up the tower - while an amazing accomplishment by a very grateful player - was not as important as the events that followed, which is what led to more stirring moments in the campaign. If the DM in question in this thread now tells a harrowing story about the PCs after they have assassinated a sitting regent and puts them through rigorous adventures for the next ten levels, I think the DM will have done his job in justifying the loss of a single NPC whose hit points are not really up for debate.
heffroncm 03-25-08, 04:09 PM	Dragonsblood, at what point did anyone say the king had 4hp at full health? A Small City, easily the capital of a city-state with a King, will have an Aristocrat of at maximum 10th level. With a purely average CON, said NPC will have 44 hp. He will also have no reasonable chance of defeating an armed 6th level ranger while unarmed. The only thing fighting it out would accomplish would be to alert the guards while dragging the combat out to unreasonable and boring lengths. If the DM and player want the satisfaction of playing it out through proper system mastery, then it would be a 4 round struggle of grapple, pin, stab stab. The king wouldn't be calling for anyone, the ranger would kill him with no threat barring freak die rolls, and the story would be poorer for it.
BW0222 03-25-08, 04:15 PM	IMO, that is poor DMing and it creates a lot of problems. First, if you reversed it (someone just walks up to a PC and kills them with one dagger swing) the players wouldn't accept it. They would suddenly demand that the rules need to be applied as written. Second, it adds a sense of unrealism and sillyness to the game. It isn't so easy to stap someone to death unless you are a professional or plan it really well. Few folks in the US are single stabbed to death, dying instantly. Third, the game has rules to cover this. You get a surprise round and possibly initiative and your opponent is flat-footed. That is it. It isn't terribly effective. Otherwise, get them when they are sleeping (coup-de-grace), use poison, etc. Allowing someone to just kill someone without rolling, just trains players not to even spend the effort coming up with simple plans which could get the same result. You end up rewarding players for stupid plans. Why not just give him a potion of sleep and then coup-de-grace him? Same result, follows the rules, and is more realistic and believable. Forth, kings aren't completely stupid or feable. Even with a few levels of aristocrat, you can't kill one with some reasonable plan. They likely has some defenses, some magical items, and some guards. Yes, someone getting close could kill one. However, if just a single dagger hit was likely to kill a king then anyone's familiar could assassinate him and he should be taking reasonable precautions -- clothing with DR, regeneration rings, contingency spells to t-port them to a shrine, daily divinations, zone of truths or detect evils on new comers, etc. The only reason to ignore a rule is lazyness. Almost any outcome (if needed for story telling) could be scripting within the rules given a bit of thought. The rules in D&D represent the reality of the D&D universe. It takes several hits from a dagger to kill even a commoner -- baring being a rogue or assassin. Everyone knows this. Thus, they don't try hacking kings to death with a dagger. This is not unrealistic -- no one has managed to hack a president to death with a dagger walking in the White House lawn. The chance of success is just too small. One needs a better method.
Josheva 03-25-08, 04:23 PM	Directed at BW0222: You bring up many good points and I agree with many of them. Remember, however, that the goal of the game is the enjoyment of the players. If this character has spent an incredible amount of time befriending the king and becoming trusted by him, it would likely ruin her game if she couldn't take advantage of the perfect situation she had worked so hard for. You would not be wrong to request a roll, but it also is not wrong to allow the drama of the moment to supercede the mechanical rules. Were I DM of that game I would request a roll, but manipulate the situation, no matter the result, that she would succeed in her task. A low roll would mean that the king cries out before dying, thereby summoning the guards. A critical failure would have her deal the king a mortal injury which causes him to die slowly over the course of a week or so.
iserith 03-25-08, 04:24 PM	IMO, that is poor DMing and it creates a lot of problems. First, if you reversed it (someone just walks up to a PC and kills them with one dagger swing) the players wouldn't accept it. They would suddenly demand that the rules need to be applied as written. Second, it adds a sense of unrealism and sillyness to the game. It isn't so easy to stap someone to death unless you are a professional or plan it really well. Few folks in the US are single stabbed to death, dying instantly. Third, the game has rules to cover this. You get a surprise round and possibly initiative and your opponent is flat-footed. That is it. It isn't terribly effective. Otherwise, get them when they are sleeping (coup-de-grace), use poison, etc. Allowing someone to just kill someone without rolling, just trains players not to even spend the effort coming up with simple plans which could get the same result. You end up rewarding players for stupid plans. Why not just give him a potion of sleep and then coup-de-grace him? Same result, follows the rules, and is more realistic and believable. Forth, kings aren't completely stupid or feable. Even with a few levels of aristocrat, you can't kill one with some reasonable plan. They likely has some defenses, some magical items, and some guards. Yes, someone getting close could kill one. However, if just a single dagger hit was likely to kill a king then anyone's familiar could assassinate him and he should be taking reasonable precautions -- clothing with DR, regeneration rings, contingency spells to t-port them to a shrine, daily divinations, zone of truths or detect evils on new comers, etc. The only reason to ignore a rule is lazyness. Almost any outcome (if needed for story telling) could be scripting within the rules given a bit of thought. The rules in D&D represent the reality of the D&D universe. It takes several hits from a dagger to kill even a commoner -- baring being a rogue or assassin. Everyone knows this. Thus, they don't try hacking kings to death with a dagger. This is not unrealistic -- no one has managed to hack a president to death with a dagger walking in the White House lawn. The chance of success is just too small. One needs a better method. Would it have been better if it took two or three rounds to kill him instead of one? Would that make you feel better about it? If so, why? What's the difference? Would it be better if the PCs were rounded up and executed, thus ending the campaign and possibly the players' interest? Or would it be better to tell a good story and see where it goes? Is it possible the ranger in question was tapped by the DM outside of the game to kill the king as part of a plot twist? It's a mistake to think this turn of events, while odd, is some sort of problem and not an opportunity for good storytelling.
Dragonsblood 03-25-08, 04:25 PM	Honestly heffroncm... Yeah, no d20s rolling in this DMs head.... Like all ready said... if in that situation, and I wanted the king alive, I'd make you roll. If I a) don't care b) think it's cleaver c) wanted you to kill him d) just thought of a fun side quest from his death, then I'll just let it go. king had 4 hp, you got a suprise attack, and I'd count it as a coup de grac. I even made it a separate reply with his name and post quoted... If the DM and player want the satisfaction of playing it out through proper system mastery, then it would be a 4 round struggle of grapple, pin, stab stab. The king wouldn't be calling for anyone, the ranger would kill him with no threat barring freak die rolls, and the story would be poorer for it. You make it sound so easy. We don't know how strong (as in the strength stat) the king or ranger is; so we don't know how easy a grapple would be. We don't know how desperate the king is for his life. We don't know how close the guards are. Do the guards have ears? The ranger would not be able to kill this king so easily if this situation had an ounce of verisimilitude. iserith, I would feel cheated as a player if all I had to do was describe my actions with no chance of failure. Why limit the campaign to include dice rolling for the next 10 levels and not for the current event? Or should that not have any dice rolling either? Why bother even calling it DnD if there is no dice rolling? Maybe you should just gather together for collective storytelling and throw out your books and dice if they're such a hindrance. I'll keep rolling my D20s thank you very much.
Dragonsblood 03-25-08, 04:32 PM	Would it have been better if it took two or three rounds to kill him instead of one? Would that make you feel better about it? If so, why? What's the difference? Would it be better if the PCs were rounded up and executed, thus ending the campaign and possibly the players' interest? Or would it be better to tell a good story and see where it goes? Is it possible the ranger in question was tapped by the DM outside of the game to kill the king as part of a plot twist? It's a mistake to think this turn of events, while odd, is some sort of problem and not an opportunity for good storytelling. I think it would be very fun to avoid capture and execution. Good storytelling is meaningless without a chance of failure. DnD isn't a novel!
Dragonsblood 03-25-08, 04:33 PM	The only reason to ignore a rule is lazyness. Almost any outcome (if needed for story telling) could be scripting within the rules given a bit of thought. Agreed 100%
heffroncm 03-25-08, 04:35 PM	Yes. The king had 4hp. Does that mean he was at full health? NO! As you just said, you can't know the situation the king was in. An in-rules reason can be invented if one is neccessary. I've already provide one (nasty poison attempt earlier in the day reducing the King to 1 CON, leaving him with 6 to 10HP). There are others. It seems ever so much more elegant to simply put the action into place than having to justify everything you as a DM do. I to agree that anything can be scripted within the rules. I just think it's silly to have someone do all that extra work if it isn't going to effect the outcome or make it a better experience for the players in question.
Dragonsblood 03-25-08, 04:37 PM	How convenient :rolleyes:
heffroncm 03-25-08, 04:41 PM	How convenient :rolleyes: How is it any worse or better than the idea that the King must definitely be at full health, on his guard, ready to defend himself if provoke, wearing magically crafted robes and jewelry, with arcane wardings in place in case all of this does go awry? All of that would seem an awfully convenient way for the DM to ensure the King was spared. It is entirely possible that the kingdom in question does not have the kind of funds neccessary to provide for on-retainer spellcasters to provide these protections. It seems you are arguing the situation is implausible and should not have happened. To me, it seems quite a reasonable situation that did not recquire breaking narative for any more die rolls than were already used to set the scene. That is to say, the befriending of the king, the hiding of the dagger, the confluence of events that led up to the ranger being alone with the king in the king's garden. All of this likely involved a number of die rolls and social encounters, with the climax being delivered in narative instead of a tactical battle.
iserith 03-25-08, 04:41 PM	iserith, I would feel cheated as a player if all I had to do was describe my actions with no chance of failure. Why limit the campaign to include dice rolling for the next 10 levels and not for the current event? Or should that not have any dice rolling either? Why bother even calling it DnD if there is no dice rolling? Maybe you should just gather together for collective storytelling and throw out your books and dice if they're such a hindrance. I'll keep rolling my D20s thank you very much. Where is it written that you can't do both collective storytelling and dice-rolling if it serves the needs and desires of your gaming group? It's not a competitive game and as such, it does not have to be all or nothing. We're not talking about Monopoly here where dice are absolutely necessary else the game couldn't proceed. I would further suggest that there is a chance of failure. Unless I'm mistaken, the campaign doesn't end with the PC's assassination of the king. Something tells me there's going to plenty of chances for a success and failure in future adventures, assuming the DM keeps the pressure on the PC for his or her action.
Lukas_the_Dead 03-25-08, 04:43 PM	Here is an important thing to remember, "The DM is ALWAYS right." He is free to ignore rules, to change rules, to make them up. This is why I've have never understood how a DM could ever get backed into a corner by a rules-lawyer. The DM shrugs, and says, "That makes no sense in this condition" and the story goes on. I personally have the two minute rule. If they have a problem, a player gets two minutes to explain why something makes sense. After that time is up, we move on. I'm going to guess that to many this sounds harsh, but it has worked well for (and many times in favor of) the players. (After all, they can also get two minutes to argue why a rule shouldn't apply or should be different) I've only lost one person to it. . .and I have to say, no one was sad he left. I imagine there are some people who play D&D like a boardgame. However, not everyone does, to many it is an aid in storytelling. In the case of storytelling, the DM is always right, but a good DM is also fair. In this case, people (even powerful people) died from a single blow. I've never understood people who saw the rules as a holy text rather then a guide. They are far from perfect, and it's the DM's job to (using them as a guide) make judgments when they don't fit.
Dunsel 03-25-08, 04:43 PM	[QUOTE=Dragonsblood;15430965]Didn't Caesar take several stabs to go down? QUOTE] Caesar was a general. The stabbers were senators.
themocaw 03-25-08, 05:10 PM	Caesar was a general. The stabbers were senators. Also, the way the story goes, Caesar actually managed to fight off his assassins for a while until he saw his best friend Brutus coming at him with a knife, at which point he despairingly cried out his famous last words, ("Et tu, Brute? Then fall, Caesar,") and gave up strugging and let the assassins stab him to death. Anyway, I'm not sure why everyone is arguing that the king shouldn't have been assassinated with a single knife blow: that's like arguing that JFK should have had more hit points because a 20th level Politician should have enough hit dice to take at least one Sneak Attack from a 5th level Psycho. Or something like that. The only time I'd be leery about the DM breaking the rules is when it harms the players: this sounds like a situation where the only player involved (the ranger) got a free pass for the sake of story. In any case, I digress.
Krusk 03-25-08, 05:16 PM	Maybe the DM ruled that the attack deals more minimum damage than the king has HP. It is a 6th level ranger, maybe the dagger is +2, and the king is a low level commoner. Probably quite old, so add in venerable which gives a big con penalty, maybe a venerable elven king. Con score of 8 is not unreasonable. 3hp from level 1. Then roll next level, and a get a 1, min hp gained is 1, so the level 2 king has 4 hp. Dagger is dealing 1d4+2+str mod. lets say +3. 1d4+5 damage, this king could even be level 4 for all we know, and just has some really bad rolls. Not hard to believe that he has 3 or 4 hp. Often times if the minimum damage my players can do will auto kill the enemy, or at least drop them to less than -2, I won't ask for a damage roll unless they specifically want one.
Lukas_the_Dead 03-25-08, 05:18 PM	First, if you reversed it (someone just walks up to a PC and kills them with one dagger swing) the players wouldn't accept it. They would suddenly demand that the rules need to be applied as written. As you pointed out, NPCs aren't PCs. Second, it adds a sense of unrealism and sillyness to the game. It isn't so easy to stap someone to death unless you are a professional or plan it really well. Few folks in the US are single stabbed to death, dying instantly. However, this happens all the time in stories. The PC is often a professional with a blade. Third, the game has rules to cover this. You get a surprise round and possibly initiative and your opponent is flat-footed. That is it. It isn't terribly effective. Otherwise, . . . Yes, but why waste all that time? Forth, kings aren't completely stupid or feable. All Kings? That's a very large generalization you are making there. I'm willing to bet you money that there having been many kings (real and fictional) that where old, stupid, feeble, or all of the above. Even with a few levels of aristocrat, you can't kill one with some reasonable plan. They likely has some defenses, some magical items, and some guards. Sounded like he had a great plan, befriend him. So, for having that great plan, he got an easy kill. Yes, someone getting close could kill one. However, if just a single dagger hit was likely to kill a king then anyone's familiar could assassinate him and he should be taking reasonable precautions -- clothing with DR, regeneration rings, contingency spells to t-port them to a shrine, daily divinations, zone of truths or detect evils on new comers, etc. ZZZzzzz, Rules-lawyering is boring. The only reason to ignore a rule is lazyness. Almost any outcome (if needed for story telling) could be scripting within the rules given a bit of thought. You're right, I can let them roll a few dice so they can pretend like it matters, or I can just reward them with a result for some great roleplaying (Which I find far from being lazy since I would have to spend all that time interacting. However, I guess some people have a great time digging through rulebooks rather then roleplaying.) The rules in D&D represent the reality of the D&D universe. It takes several hits from a dagger to kill even a commoner -- baring being a rogue or assassin. Everyone knows this. Thus, they don't try hacking kings to death with a dagger. This is not unrealistic -- no one has managed to hack a president to death with a dagger walking in the White House lawn. The chance of success is just too small. One needs a better method. Oh, Holy Books, tell use how reality is! Let us ignore our common sense and lead us to the land of the munchkin! As for you feeling it isn't possible, A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_III_of_France) few (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ioan_Iacob_Heraclid) examples. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_of_Montferrat) Didn't Caesar take several stabs to go down? Caesar was a general. The stabbers were senators. They all did it so that they could claim that no one would know really who took Caesar's life, I expect he was well dead before the last knife went in.
sblaxman 03-25-08, 05:26 PM	Ok, the '4 Hp: thing I just pulled out of my hat. In my campaigns, a king might just as well be a 1st level npc... he inherited his role, doesn't mean he ever gained any XP in the leveling sense (he may have a lot of experience as a ruler). He might have a high CHA and int and put his skill points into diplomacy... nothing says he needs to be more than level 1 to be a king. Like someone said, don't mistake political and physical power. Now, like I said, that's how I run my npcs... I don't know how the OP runs his (or his DM runs them to be accurate) so don't put the 4 HP thing on the OP, it was a number I just came up w/ thinking what an average 1st level npc would have health wise.
Josheva 03-25-08, 05:27 PM	....and the king is a low level commoner. Utterly ridiculous in my opinion. Firstly, a king should be an aristocrat. Secondly, a king experiences way more than an average person so would be mid to high level. Not to say that there aren't exceptions though.
sblaxman 03-25-08, 06:04 PM	Utterly ridiculous in my opinion. Firstly, a king should be an aristocrat. Secondly, a king experiences way more than an average person so would be mid to high level. Not to say that there aren't exceptions though. Well, we could get into a whole "experience" /= XP argument there. You could rule in your games that say, negotiating a treaty might give him some quest XP, but just doing your job does not make you gain levels. Would making a trade deal for weapons for your army grant more XP than negotiating how much a trader will buy your corn for? Does harvesting a field give less XP than meeting with local nobles over dinner? You can play your games where leaders are high level, others can play them where they are low level. Both can work fine.
RPJesus 03-25-08, 06:05 PM	I assume she had her arm around his shoulder. Hence, dagger to the throat, and see how much yelling the king does then. In any case what the king might have been is irrelevant because the DM knew exactly what he was, and knew that a dagger to various squishy spots would kill him automatically through modifiers alone. If the king did have a few dozen ranks in "I is knows kung-fu" the DM wouldn't have let him go down so easy.
Man in the Funny Hat 03-25-08, 06:18 PM	The rules were not put there to get in the way of a good game of D&D. Don't let them. Ever.
BW0222 03-25-08, 06:28 PM	iserith Would it have been better if it took two or three rounds to kill him instead of one? Would that make you feel better about it? If so, why? What's the difference? Yes. Because one might result in the king pulling out say an elemental gem and using it, yelling for guards, running away, etc. Maybe the PC would stop him and get away, maybe not? The outcome would certainly be different even if the PC succeeded. It would realistically represent roleplaying a poorly laid out assassination attempt. Would it be better if the PCs were rounded up and executed, thus ending the campaign and possibly the players' interest? Or would it be better to tell a good story and see where it goes? I don't give in to blackmail. I won't allow ending the campaign to be a shield against potentially stupid actions. It is not possible for a ranger to just declare that she killed the king (within the rules). It isn't too likely even following the rules. The player (and the PC) should know this. There are a hundred other ways for the ranger to have (within the rules) killed the king given that level of trust. I'm not going to reward the player for selecting the way which is less likely to work. I'd just roleplay it out -- using the rules. Maybe the king dies before getting an action, maybe he escapes, maybe he has some big magical item, or maybe he just calls out. I have sympathy for bad luck, my mistakes (say an encounter way too hard), and I'll shield players from these types of mistakes -- and some bad calls, especially on new players. If something is rather impossible by the rules and hence within the game, I'll often let the player know this if he character would. However, I have my limit in not roleplaying out the effects of dumb decisions and I certainly don't allow blackmail exceptions. Exactly how stupid does a player have to be in your game to get killed or in trouble? His mission wouldn't work well in real life, it certainly doesn't have much chance of success by the rules, and it isn't hard to come up with easy ways to kill the king within the rules which are far more likely to succeed -- get him sleeping? It's a mistake to think this turn of events, while odd, is some sort of problem and not an opportunity for good storytelling. Roleplaying failure, near failure, bad luck, etc. is part of the game also. The story is what the PCs do, not what they want to do. If a player walks into a dungeon alone with a dagger, the story isn't that the PC slays six ogres with his dagger... the story is whatever happens -- likely bad, but it needs to be rolled out within the rules, maybe the loony escapes, maybe he bluffs the ogres, maybe the capture and ransom him? You don't reward players for bad plans and you can only save them from stupidity a set number of times before the game becomes farce. The story isn't that the PC killed the king and got away. The story is that the ranger befriended the king got him alone, pulled out a dagger, and ... I don't know what happens. I don't know if the PC succeeds, if she kills the king but is caught, if she escapes but doesn't have time to destroy the body, etc. However, I'm not going to immediately exclude all those possibility just because someone has 'pre-written' the outcome of the encounter. Certainly, not the character. And you aren't doing the players any favors either. There is no sense of accomplishment for good ideas, planning, characters, roleplaying, etc. if stupid play gets you the same result.
RPJesus 03-25-08, 06:41 PM	Yes. Because one might result in the king pulling out say an elemental gem and using it, yelling for guards, running away, etc. But he wasn't going to. The DM knew this. If a player wants to swat a fly, I'm not going to have them actually initiate combat on the off chance that they roll a one or the fly is actually a red dragon in disguise, because, as the DM one is omniscient within their world (well, barring player zanyness but the point holds).
Krusk 03-25-08, 06:50 PM	Utterly ridiculous in my opinion. Firstly, a king should be an aristocrat. Secondly, a king experiences way more than an average person so would be mid to high level. Not to say that there aren't exceptions though. Thats fine, in my games if there were a king I'd probably put him at about level 6, tops. What exactly does a king do? he sits in a chair, and makes final descisions. Which he has help doing, the advisors, who I would put at level 14+ wizards and bards do all the real work then they simplify things to him. I guess I can't see running a game in which the king is anything other than a figurehead anyway. (most of my games governments are run by oligarchies in some manner, except the one democracy which ironically is the CE/CN country)
iserith 03-25-08, 07:02 PM	BW0222, I think our view of the game is too different to agree on this. It would seem you place more emphasis on the rules than the story, at least in this case. At the very least, you feel the rules and the story should be exactly balanced, which is not always possible during a game, especially if it was done on the fly. But we don't know that. We also don't know if this was part of the DM's plan all along and that he or she worked this event out ahead of time with the player. We don't know what happened after the king was assassinated. What we do know is the original poster stated clearly that it was a very powerful moment in the campaign. And in this case, a powerful moment in the campaign was realized by ignoring the unimportant minutiae of the rules in favor of the story. As long as this development leads to fun, I just can't see a problem with the DM's ruling in this regard.
Gentlemanic 03-25-08, 07:28 PM	Alright. This is clearly a situation where I would consult my players. Kind of like this: Me - Alright guys, so you have set up this plot to kill the king. You are now at the final step of the plan. Would you like to fight this out cinematicly, or should we assume this goes according to plan? PLAYERS - Well.. Since we are all hidden in the courtyard, and the bard is distracting the guards.. LET'S KICK THIS ROYAL ASS! Me - Fine. Roll initiative for the surprise round... Or like this: Me - See above.* PLAYERS - Huh? Well, we just want him dead, obviously. Fighter - Yeah.. How about my sword at the BS, is it ready? Wiz - Meanwhile I'm filing Mister Fluffy's nails.. Druid - I aid Merlin.
LoneStranger 03-25-08, 07:28 PM	I have to agree with the people on this thread that think this event was handled well. Really who cares about the level of the King or how many hit points he had, to me it sounds like this was something quite a while in the making by the character spending the time to be good friends with the King to get to this point. Plus I also saw that some of the rules were still used in the moment (the sleight of hand roll for the knife) but the GM realized that a good story is important. I've only ran a couple of games myself and there have been sometimes where I haven't followed the rules exactly to the letter but the players didn't seem to mind too horribly much. They understood I was trying to be fair and also advance the story along making it something worthwhile for everyone. To the OP I say good job and if you have any other situations like that let us know, there are people here who would love to hear them I'm sure.
tyrandor 03-25-08, 07:31 PM	And you aren't doing the players any favors either. There is no sense of accomplishment for good ideas, planning, characters, roleplaying, etc. if stupid play gets you the same result. Must be why he described the scene as powerful, right? Definitly sound like they didn't get a sense of accomplishment. You're making a lot of assumption here BW... about pretty much everything. There's no saying the next scene of the game wasn't the Ranger getting swamred by guards and thrown in jail. You keep saying this was a 'sloppy' Assassination attempt, and aside from the 'He has to much hp to die from one hit' there's really no reason as to why it's actually sloppy. He earned the guy's trust. Got him alone. And killed him. On paper at least, it looks good. You speak of realism... well, in 'reality' people can and do get killed by a single dagger stab. Hell, people can die from falling and hitting their head on a table on the way down.
RPJesus 03-25-08, 07:53 PM	"I attack the king" "Roll for attack" "1" "It hits, roll for damage." "1" "The king dies" Wasn't that more exciting than some boring narrative? :D
nightwyrm 03-25-08, 08:15 PM	If I was a DM, I would be wary of allowing too many "cutscene deaths" where PCs get to kill NPCs without a fight or even rolling a dice. Depending on the group, the potential for abuse is too great. Allow it a few times and pretty soon you'll have players telling you, "I invis, silence myself and then sneak up and cut the bad guy's throat. He's dead right?" Even if abuse like that doesn't happen, I still believe that dice (at least damage if one wish to forgo to hit) should be rolled to maintain the illusion of the possibility of failure. Even when the DM privately decided that the NPC is killed automatically for the story, it's the DM's job to give the players a fake sense of suspense by making them roll damage.
PenderGrass 03-25-08, 08:30 PM	Honestly, this is textbook rail-roading. But, if it works for you to rail-road your games, then more power to you. :dragon: *****
tyrandor 03-25-08, 08:37 PM	What? Railroading? How? The DM didn't force the player to kill the king or do anything. All he did was let the player's action succeed. "I look for a store to sell the loot we found" "You find a store." "OMG!!!11!! WE'RE RAILROADED AGAIN!" /boggle.
StSteven 03-25-08, 08:44 PM	This is not railroading in any way shape or form. Railroading is when you don't give the player's a choice. The player chose to kill the king, and the king is dead. If you think that this is railroading, I bet you play in tournaments. That is really the only way I can think that this mentality arises. The rules are not the god of the game. They are there to facilitate the role playing. If you don't believe me, go read the introductions to the core rule books. All editions. The game was designed by people who thought that the DM was the omnipotent arbiter of everything good in the game. DM's have been encouraged to throw the rules out the window in the interest of the story/role-play/game since the very first incarnation of the rules. If you are hemmed in by the rules, then you are told to change them. You have been told to change anything you feel will make your game better from the get go. Coming up with this "railroad...railroad" mentality is munchkin, at best. If you allow the rules to interfere with your game, you are being railroaded by people you have never met who never intended for their rules to be used like that. Wake up and read the fine print.
nightwyrm 03-25-08, 08:45 PM	Regarding railroading, is there a difference between the following two scenarios: 1. PC: I stab him. DM: He's still alive. PC: I stab him again. DM: Still alive. PC: WTF, I did 999 damage!! DM: He's got plot immortality. He can't die!! Muhahahaa 2. PC: I stab him. DM: He's dead, Jim. PC: I stab him some more. DM: Ok....
PenderGrass 03-25-08, 09:00 PM	What? Railroading? How? The DM didn't force the player to kill the king or do anything. All he did was let the player's action succeed. The DM removed possibility from the game and instead implemented what he wanted to happen. I think everyone here can agree that there was a possibility that the assassination attempt could have failed, right? Instead of allowing that possibility to exist, the DM removed it and forced his own will onto the situation. In other words, no matter what, the DM made sure - with his absolute power of being the DM - that the assassination would succeed. As someone already stated, if the situation were reversed, and the DM arbitrarily allowed for a single dagger thrust to kill one of his player's PC, you can be sure as the sun rising in the morning that there would be a "My DM Is A Jerk" thread on the boards. As I said, though, some gamers like having a DM that rail-roads. Me? I think a DM that can adapt and build a great game from situations that surprise even him is far more skilled at being a DM than a DM that succumbs to the easy path of rail-roading a situation to match what he feels is a "better story." From a player perspective, a DM that rail-roads is one that you had better hope will always agree with you what makes a good "story" - because that is how you are playing the game: As a character in his story. So, you can strive to be a skilled DM or a DM that is skilled in forcing your stories onto the game/players. :dragon: *****
RPJesus 03-25-08, 09:01 PM	Yes, although its something of a bad comparison. Railroading would be if after the incident the player was imediately arrested by the 60 elementals and guards who just happened to be passing by at the moment. I think everyone here can agree that there was a possibility that the assassination attempt could have failed, right? No. I for one find it far more annoying when I spend 6 hours of real time setting something up so I can succeed on 19/20 results only to have everything go awry when I roll a 1. Granted the chance is what makes the game fun, but there are some exceptions.
PenderGrass 03-25-08, 09:07 PM	This is not railroading in any way shape or form. Indeed it is rail-roading in the most basic and straightforward forms there is: The removal of possibility. Railroading is when you don't give the player's a choice. The player chose to kill the king, and the king is dead. So, you think a player that chooses to have his PC open a door and the DM decides that the trap (say a poison dart trap from the DMG) on the door should automatically do damage with no saves isn't rail-roading? Rail-roading has nothing to do with player choice. It has to do with the DM removing anything and everything other than his own will from the game. The only thing at work in the OPs scenario was the DMs will - he demanded that the attack succeed and it did. Also, by the way, I have seen RRing in many tournaments and if you haven't than you obviously haven't been to very many conventions. :dragon: *****
PenderGrass 03-25-08, 09:09 PM	Regarding railroading, is there a difference between the following two scenarios: 1. PC: I stab him. DM: He's still alive. PC: I stab him again. DM: Still alive. PC: WTF, I did 999 damage!! DM: He's got plot immortality. He can't die!! Muhahahaa 2. PC: I stab him. DM: He's dead, Jim. PC: I stab him some more. DM: Ok.... Seeing as the DM implemented his will and only his will alone in either situation, there is no difference: What the DM wanted, the DM got. :dragon: *****
nightwyrm 03-25-08, 09:12 PM	Seeing as the DM implemented his will and only his will alone in either situation, there is no difference: What the DM wanted, the DM got. :dragon: ***** Yes..that was the point I was trying to make....
Lincoln Hills 03-25-08, 09:12 PM	...So, you can strive to be a skilled DM or a DM that is skilled in forcing your stories onto the game/players... I strongly disagree. The rules you find in the "Combat" chapter of the PHB are designed for epic melee in open, face-to-face encounters. They aren't meant to cover other forms of violence, such as assassination. (For example, many traps that "attack" you are set up with saving throws, and even those that use attack rolls are not required to follow all the rules of combat, such as rolling for initiative or occupying a space.) Just because a DM can translate a treacherous assassination attempt into game statistics doesn't mean he has to. If the DM is more interested in the question, "What happens if the King is out of the way? Are the PCs clever enough to hide their involvement?" rather than, "Shouldn't this be resolved through standard combat rules?", then it's his prerogative to skip the boring bit and get to the part that actually interests the PCs.
LeeAlucard 03-25-08, 09:19 PM	The DM removed possibility from the game and instead implemented what he wanted to happen. I dunno, man, sounds more like the DM removed possibility from the game and instead implemented exactly what the player was trying to accomplish. I doubt that the DM would've had the king die if the PC hadn't tried to kill the king.
PenderGrass 03-25-08, 09:24 PM	I strongly disagree. That is your right. But it doesn't remove the fact that a DM that refuses to abide by the chances that everyone else abides by isn't forcing his ideas of what should or shouldn't happen on his game and group. It really is that simple. The rules you find in the "Combat" chapter of the PHB are designed for epic melee in open, face-to-face encounters. They aren't meant to cover other forms of violence, such as assassination. Don't tell that to the Assassin prestige class. Just because a DM can translate a treacherous assassination attempt into game statistics doesn't mean he has to. Nor does a DM have to allow your PCs to gain a level when they reach a set amount of XP. In fact, there is nothing in D&D that a DM has to abide by. But there are things that a DM should abide by if he wants to be a skilled DM and not just DM that is skilled in doing whatever he wants. If the DM is more interested in the question, "What happens if the King is out of the way? Are the PCs clever enough to hide their involvement?" rather than, "Shouldn't this be resolved through standard combat rules?", then it's his prerogative to skip the boring bit and get to the part that actually interests the PCs. 1. A DM (or player) that finds combat "boring" should really consider a different hobby 2. Again, a DM can use his prerogative to resolve any situation without any help from the rules - whether he should or not is another matter (and in this case I would say he overstepped the rules in a very poor way) 3. If the DM is really that interested in how this or that should happen, he should just get a laptop and write the novel the way he wants :dragon: *****
Josheva 03-25-08, 09:26 PM	I think that you have broadened your definition of railroading a little too much Pendergrass. Consider: Player: I poke the elf in the ribs. DM: The elf does not take kindly to your action. Is that railroading? The DM did not roll for the elf's reaction, personality, or ability to notice the poke. He forced his will into the game. No matter what, the elf is not taking kindly to the poke. Consider: Player: I eat the chicken. DM: It tastes delicious. Now the DM is intruding on the character's beliefs. He is forcing his will into the mind of the character and assimilating him into being a mindless copy of himself. The player may as well leave the campaign seeing how the DM has taken utter control of everything. See what I mean? There are times when rolls are not necessary, and there are times when they are. As long as the players are enjoying the campaign the DM is doing nothing wrong. There are no rules that can be applied to every situation.
nightwyrm 03-25-08, 09:27 PM	I dunno, man, sounds more like the DM removed possibility from the game and instead implemented exactly what the player was trying to accomplish. It may just be that in this case the DM's and the PC's interest was perfectly aligned. Even if it was not so, is it such a good thing that DM completely removed the possibility that the PC's plan might not be carried out perfectly? If the damage roll turned out that the King didn't die in the first attack, he might have cried out, messing up the PC's perfect assassination plot even if he end up dying anyways. While calling this situation railroading might be a bit over-the-top, I'm still of the opinion that matters of life and death, which are so important and central in D&D, should not be left completely up to the DM's fiat without a single random factor coming into play.
RPJesus 03-25-08, 11:09 PM	I'll grant you that, but keep in mind, as far as we know, this was an isolated incident.
heffroncm 03-25-08, 11:20 PM	might be a bit over-the-top, I'm still of the opinion that matters of life and death, which are so important and central in D&D, should not be left completely up to the DM's fiat without a single random factor coming into play. Random factors did come into play. In the specific encounter, Sleight of Hand vs. Spot / Search of the king and his guards. In past encounters, social rolls to make the king friendly enough to get invited to his private garden. Perhaps a Bluff or Diplomacy check to loosen the king up enough to be so physically intimate. The king was killed by skills. Dice were involved. Just not combat dice. Does that make it invalid?
1red13 03-25-08, 11:23 PM	I think the underlying issue to some is that if the dm is giving the pcs the kill. Sure if the king was in a frail state and felt safe in the pcs presence it was pretty much a gimme. Almost but not quite a gimme. I think it just as likely for it to be sloppy dming as it being a case of smooth storytelling. Really it would have taken all of a few rolls and it would have been done.
nightwyrm 03-25-08, 11:23 PM	I'll grant you that, but keep in mind, as far as we know, this was an isolated incident. As an isolated incident, I'd agree with you that it's not a big deal. Everyone had fun and the DM got his plot moving in the direction he wanted. But the line between "unique incident" and "Hey, remember that time I auto killed the King by stabbing him while shaking his hand. Let's use that again." can be a rather fine one.
nightwyrm 03-25-08, 11:30 PM	Random factors did come into play. In the specific encounter, Sleight of Hand vs. Spot / Search of the king and his guards. In past encounters, social rolls to make the king friendly enough to get invited to his private garden. Perhaps a Bluff or Diplomacy check to loosen the king up enough to be so physically intimate. The king was killed by skills. Dice were involved. Just not combat dice. Does that make it invalid? Let's change the situation a bit. The master thief rolled 20s on his silent movement and hide check and creeped up behind the oblivious guard. He then slit the guard's throat, auto-killing him. Would you allow that to happen without a single to hit or damage roll?
tyrandor 03-26-08, 12:07 AM	If the guard is deemed to be an 'extra', then yes. There's countless movie where the good guy creeps behind nameless/faceless guard and just snap his neck. It takes 5 seconds out of the movie. Can you imagine all those action movie turning into 5 hours affair if every single dispatched extra turned into his own fight scene? You'd be bored out of your mind halfway through it. There is such a thing as waving away dice rolls in order to make a better game/story. If use to the better judgment of an experienced DM, there should be no problem. "But the players will want to use it again." - why? Who do you play with? I'm sorry to say, but you make it sound like you're playing D&D against your DM/player rather then together. Me and my group are much more interested in having a good game, with a good story, then with trying to screw the DM or game over...
Malek2991 03-26-08, 12:16 AM	1. A DM (or player) that finds combat "boring" should really consider a different hobby 2. Again, a DM can use his prerogative to resolve any situation without any help from the rules - whether he should or not is another matter (and in this case I would say he overstepped the rules in a very poor way) 3. If the DM is really that interested in how this or that should happen, he should just get a laptop and write the novel the way he wants :dragon: ***** 1) There is a MAJOR difference between combat against an opponent that stands a chance of hurting the PC's and an opponent that doesn't stand a chance. Resolving attacks against outclassed opponents is largely boring and skipping it doesn't hurt. 2) how did he overstep the rules in a very poor way? He simply skipped combat details of an outclassed, suprised king. Furthermore if the dm treated the king as helpless, a coup de grace woud deal a minumum of 2 + str + magic enhancements automatically (coup de grace are auto-hit with melee weapons). Average damage would be 4 + above modifiers. It is possible that the rangers minimum damage was enough to drop him to negative hp at least. Thus legally by the rules there would be no rolls needed (after the ones that were already rolled). 3) A DM's job is to be interested on how things should happen. Lastly, the DM simply had what both he (presmably) and the ranger wanted to happen, happen. That means everyone was enjoying the game, requiring no change to the DM's ruling.
pedro2112 03-26-08, 12:54 AM	The DM removed possibility from the game and instead implemented what he wanted to happen. I think everyone here can agree that there was a possibility that the assassination attempt could have failed, right? Instead of allowing that possibility to exist, the DM removed it and forced his own will onto the situation. In other words, no matter what, the DM made sure - with his absolute power of being the DM - that the assassination would succeed. As someone already stated, if the situation were reversed, and the DM arbitrarily allowed for a single dagger thrust to kill one of his player's PC, you can be sure as the sun rising in the morning that there would be a "My DM Is A Jerk" thread on the boards. As I said, though, some gamers like having a DM that rail-roads. Me? I think a DM that can adapt and build a great game from situations that surprise even him is far more skilled at being a DM than a DM that succumbs to the easy path of rail-roading a situation to match what he feels is a "better story." From a player perspective, a DM that rail-roads is one that you had better hope will always agree with you what makes a good "story" - because that is how you are playing the game: As a character in his story. So, you can strive to be a skilled DM or a DM that is skilled in forcing your stories onto the game/players. :dragon: ***** Post of the week.
nightwyrm 03-26-08, 01:33 AM	Internal consistency is an important part of maintaining suspension of disbelief. And a big part of that is applying the same rules to everyone (PC and NPC) at all times. When your sneaking thief can auto kill somebody sometime (some lv 1 mook) but have to roll to hit and damage some other time (some lv 10 ftr), even in the same types of situation (thief rolls 20 on hide and move), it breaks that consistency. Not to mention that "mook-ness" is relative. To a CR 20 dragon, the party of lv 3 idiot PCs that stupidly stumbled into his lair are a bunch of mooks. Should the dragon be allowed to kill off all the lv 3s without rolling a die. Furthermore, allowing the auto kill of mooks but not "real" enemies immediately gives information to the players about the power level of their enemies that their characters shouldn't have. The strength of monsters and NPCs should be learned by the character during combat, not "Hey, the DM is bringing out the battlemap, these guys MUST be worth our while fighting. Casters, don't hold back." I think the bottom line is the difference between the DM giving them the kill while letting the players know it and the DM giving them the kill but having the PCs go through the motion of rolling to maintaining the illusion that the PCs could potentially fail. The second is skillful DMing, the first is breaking verisimilitude.
PenderGrass 03-26-08, 02:14 AM	I think that you have broadened your definition of railroading a little too much Pendergrass. I don't. If anything, I have simplified the definition of rail-roading so everyone can understand it. Consider: Player: I poke the elf in the ribs. DM: The elf does not take kindly to your action. Is that railroading? The DM did not roll for the elf's reaction, personality, or ability to notice the poke. He forced his will into the game. No matter what, the elf is not taking kindly to the poke. Not sure what you are pointing at exactly. Is the auto-poke rail-roading? Not really and yes. The success of a "poke" could be determined by a touch attack roll, I would imagine - so, by allowing the poke to automatically hit, I could see where it is rail-roading (since there should be a chance the poke missed). Either way, a "poke" is not a combat maneuver and it is up to each DM to determine how to resolve it in a fair, believable and consistent manner. Consistency being a major factor here. Now, if you are asking if the DM ruling that the elf was irked by the poke is rail-roading. No. It isn't. The DM is role-playing the elf (so long as it is an NPC elf, which it seems to be). He has decided poke this elf and he becomes irked. It is a role-playing decision. Maybe the DM has in his NPC notes that the elf is fearful of germs from contact with others and therefore it has irked the elf by someone poking him. Role-playing the elf is not rail-roading and to suggest it is - of that was your intention - is just really not thinking on your part. Consider: Player: I eat the chicken. DM: It tastes delicious. Now the DM is intruding on the character's beliefs. He is forcing his will into the mind of the character and assimilating him into being a mindless copy of himself. The player may as well leave the campaign seeing how the DM has taken utter control of everything. This could very well be. But not really, as the player could react to the DM and tell him his character doesn't like chicken. If the DM insists that this chicken is still delicious (without having any reason other than he wants the character to like the taste of the chicken), then, yes - you might have a problem DM. Remember, the game is a group activity and sometimes the players may need to remind the DM that their character doesn't like chicken. Whether your DM listens or not, is the key factor to any chicken eating. See what I mean? There are times when rolls are not necessary, and there are times when they are. I never said there aren't times when rolls aren't needed. Since the taste of chicken may vary, the DM may rule the character likes chicken - but the player may reverse that decision. A skilled DM will allow a character to decide if he likes chicken or not on his own. Alternatively, the DM may have everyone roll randomly whether they like chicken or not. All of that is outside the scope of the RAW and it therefore rests on the group and DM to find the best solution to whether chicken tastes good or not. The unfortunate thing for your post is that it relates not one bit to the topic at hand - whether the DM that decides to drop rules on how to kill something in the game is rail-roading or not. The answer is that the DM the OP gave as an example is rail-roading. He has dropped the rules in favor of implementing his own idea of how combat should be. He has made the decision and nothing can change it. That DM has made it clear - if he decides you should be killed without using any of the generally accepted rules at the typical gaming table - then you better be prepared to see some heads roll. It really is that simple. As long as the players are enjoying the campaign the DM is doing nothing wrong. There are no rules that can be applied to every situation. But there are rules that can be applied to killing someone. In fact, I would say that the rules about killing someone in D&D are some of the most specific and precise rules in the game. To ignore them in an instance such as the one given by the OP is pure DM rail-road choo-choo. :dragon: *****
MergedLoki 03-26-08, 02:46 AM	I agree w/some of the above posters. rolls aren't ALWAYS required if it's part of the storyline. now I could be wrong here, but i vaugely recall a section in PHB (this could be 2E PHB or 3E dont remember which). that said something about a 10th level fighter still having to worry about commoners, b/c if he doesn't have any armor and they stab his back, well a knife in the back is a knife in the back. don't know if i'm makinga ny sense, if not im sorry lol. long story short my point is i've allowed instant kills b4 (both npc and pc related), if it made sense in the story line and the target wasn't in comabt/aware of the danger etc.
PenderGrass 03-26-08, 02:48 AM	1) There is a MAJOR difference between combat against an opponent that stands a chance of hurting the PC's and an opponent that doesn't stand a chance. Resolving attacks against outclassed opponents is largely boring and skipping it doesn't hurt. You have the right to think that. But you are wrong. In the OP incident there are many things that could happen if the assassination attempt is flubbed. A skilled DM knows this. This means that the character is in an intense situation, by allowing the dice to decide the fate of the outcome is most assuredly a major turning point to the game. Does the DM know how it will turn out? Does the player? No one knows until the dice are thrown. But wait - here comes the train. Now we just skip the "boring" parts - who said killing a king is really that exciting? Who said assassination should be tense and filled with suspense? DM Malek2991 - "Nah. I don't want to delay the game by having you roll dice for 10 seconds. Let's just skip it all because I say so." Great. You just wasted a perfect opportunity to build suspense and a thrilling event in the game. Not to mention the rail-roading you just did. 2) how did he overstep the rules in a very poor way? He simply skipped combat details.... Ding-Ding-Ding. Oh yeah, I forgot, combat to you is boring. :rolleyes: 3) A DM's job is to be interested on how things should happen. Maybe in the land where combat is boring and assassination of kings only brings yawns to the game. Lastly, the DM simply had what both he (presmably) and the ranger wanted to happen, happen. That means everyone was enjoying the game, requiring no change to the DM's ruling. As I said before, some people like to have DMs that are going to rail-road events for them. Personally, I don't see that as a skilled DM. I see it as a lazy DM that likes to tell stories instead of running a game of D&D. Skilled DMs are more than mere story-tellers. They are themselves beyond such inane things as traditional stories. The game they run may be filled with tales of danger and excitement - but those are generated from game itself, not because the DM made it happen that way. And that makes the tales all the more valuable to those that "lived" them. Skilled DMs are more than just someone that lays down the law on how things "should be." No. Skilled DMs allow things to happen as they will happen. Sure that dagger should kill the feeble King, but will it? A skilled DM allows that question to be answered by the rules everyone agreed to when they sat at the table. Skilled DMs are able to make assassinations exciting and fraught with danger. Not something that should be skipped. More importantly a skilled DM creates and shares that excitement with his group - "let's see if you do kill the King now that you have him alone, roll for it." :dragon: *****
FlamingZombie 03-26-08, 02:50 AM	I think most of this discussion boils down to your idea of what a good and bad DM is. Some like theirs following the rules and playing by the books. Others prefer theirs to be story tellers, bending rolls to keep the mood. I personally have always seen the DMs true purpose, there reason for playing, is the enjoyment of themselves and there players. This entails a lot of things, dependent mainly on the players themselves. I believe it’s your duty, as DM, to cater to the characters. There wants and needs, and preferred modes of play. With my regulars they prefer the story aspects to the adherence of every rule and clause in the books. So every once and awhile the books a pushed aside for the general enjoyment of the group. They will face down a bad-guy several levels higher and he escapes, leaving the pcs on there last threads of life and a new clue. Sometimes the enemies decide to stay and fight, rather then run and alert the entire complex. I have always believed that, as a good pirate once said, they are more of a guideline then actual rules. Guidelines for the fun and enjoyment of the whole group. I also belive that every DM has there own ways of playing a game. Those that "suck", that dont know a d20 from a d4 lose there players rather quickly. They are the ones that need to bone up on the rules and regulations. However there are a lot of ways of being a bad DM and nitpicking every rule is a problem in itself for some groups. I truly belive to each his own and if the players keep coming back every week you must be doing somthing right. I also say for all the players out there. Talk to your DMs. If you have a problem with there gaming style, please, bring it up with them.
MergedLoki 03-26-08, 03:03 AM	the whole rigamarole above (mostly by pendergrass it seems, sorry if im singleing you out but seems you've posted about 5 times about this railroading thing). ok say the DM had the player roll or whatever, make it a coup de grace. helpless defender etc. (and dont try to say the king wasn't helpless, an unaware defeder, w/no chance to DEFEND himself is helpless) also. a king doesn't have to have a class. a king is a king (depending on your campaign) standardly by birth, therefore it's easy to just assume, the king is a lvl 1 npc nobody. so he has what?... 4 - 6 hp.. he's dead even if you roll for dmg n all that. doesn't say anywhere that a king has to be a level 20fighter/wizard/all powerful demigod of the nation, just to be in charge. also, it seemed to work for the DM/PC and what hte DM had planned for the campaign, the DM (had he not wanted the king to die) oculd easily have said 'the knife slide into the kings back and grates against bone as the king twists away from a lethal blow and shouts for the guards'... done, king alive, pc probably put to death for attempted regicide. :P how's that fun for anyone? and yes.. as stated above by other people rolls aren't needed for anything. you (pendergrass) have definently expanded the defintion of railroading to basically include i dunno... almost everything that isn't calculated by random dice rolls? and just b/c it's 3am and i feel like being a little bit of a jerk, you state above that 'i've seen RRing at lotsof tournaments, if you haven't I guess you haven't been to that many conventions' I've NEVER been a convention, nor do I have any plans to go... who gives a rats ass if someone has been to a convention or not? that doesn't make the 'all mighty' convention goers better DM's or better RPers or whatever. it makes them people who happen to have the time and money and live in a close enough proximity to go to these conventions. and i'm done.. sorry for the rant lol.
IceFractal 03-26-08, 03:09 AM	I think everyone here can agree that there was a possibility that the assassination attempt could have failed, right? Not necessarily. We don't really have the details, but let's say we're talking about a Ranger with 16 Str and a +1 dagger. And due to the circumstances, the attack is ruled as a CdG. That means no chance of missing, and it does 10 damage minimum. Now let's say the King has average health (Con 10), and is old (Con 7). He's an Expert/Aristocrat. With average rolls, he could easily be 6th level and still have less than 10 HP. If you go by Justin Alexander's view of levels (which this DM very well might), then a 6th level person is more exceptional than anyone alive today. Certainly worthy of being a king. So the assassination involves no attack roll (CdG hits automatically), and does enough damage to knock the king unconcious even if he makes his Fortitude save, which is unlikely in itself. A second CdG will finish him off, without the guards being alerted. So in the worst case scenario, playing by the rules means it takes 6 more seconds (and the same amount of noise) to kill the king. There is no advantage to be gained by playing it out. Now sure, the king could actually be a 20th level Barbarian with 17 amulets of death-prevention, and an invisible dragon guarding him. So we need someone who knows what the king's stats are ... oh wait, that would be the DM - the person who made the call in question. In summary, the DM made the right call here, and it is in no sense of the word "railroading".
PenderGrass 03-26-08, 03:39 AM	ok say the DM had the player roll or whatever, make it a coup de grace. helpless defender etc. (and dont try to say the king wasn't helpless, an unaware defeder, w/no chance to DEFEND himself is helpless) also. First, as the OP was put to us here, the king wasn't helpless as per RAW. The only thing that had been determined was that the king didn't see the hidden weapon. Both people were walking and capable. So, by removing those facts to meet your argument is ignoring the OP circumstance. Which means if I want to do the same thing and make the king a balrog that has a sphere of annihilation for a mouth, why shouldn't I? Come on now, stick to the actual scene as given. Two people walking. One has a hidden weapon. The other is a king. The one with the hidden weapon attacks the other. The DM rules that no rolls are needed and the kill is instant and successful. He just skipped a whole combat scene. Not to mention just made a normal prestige classed Assassin worthless (remember them? they still have to roll to assassinate people - and they are trained assassins!). also, it seemed to work for the DM/PC and what hte DM had planned for the campaign, the DM (had he not wanted the king to die) oculd easily have said 'the knife slide into the kings back and grates against bone as the king twists away from a lethal blow and shouts for the guards'... done, king alive, pc probably put to death for attempted regicide. :P how's that fun for anyone? Either outcome - alive or dead - if it is purely at the whim of this DM, sounds like a poor job of DMing to me. and yes.. as stated above by other people rolls aren't needed for anything. you (pendergrass) have definently expanded the defintion of railroading to basically include i dunno... almost everything that isn't calculated by random dice rolls? Not in the least. I have merely stated (and you have failed to comprehend) if the DM sees a combat scene involving PCs and NPCs and decides to not roll the dice - instead he just points at who lives and who dies: Then that is rail-roading. Of course, if every combat is decided in this manner - then it wouldn't be rail-roading. But I would like to see a D&D gaming table that would accept that policy. and just b/c it's 3am and i feel like being a little bit of a jerk, you state above that 'i've seen RRing at lotsof tournaments, if you haven't I guess you haven't been to that many conventions' I've NEVER been a convention, nor do I have any plans to go... who gives a rats ass if someone has been to a convention or not? The comment wasn't directed at you, it was directed at someone that thought they could point at tournaments as being very non-RRing. I merely said the tournaments I have played in and seen contained RRing and that they are not immune to being run as rail-roading adventurers. Since it is 3am and you are being a jerk, I will say you really should not post when you are incapable of making sense or comprehending what others are saying. :dragon: *****
PenderGrass 03-26-08, 03:42 AM	...the attack is ruled as a CdG. It should not be ruled a CDG. The king and ranger were walking. One had a hidden weapon. Neither were helpless. The attack was made. Nowhere in the rules does this meet the requirements of a CDG. Therefore, there should be a roll to hit and therefore there should be a chance to miss. :dragon: *****
MergedLoki 03-26-08, 03:44 AM	Just a quick lil add on thought here. I agree w/the dm ruling n all that. But (as pendergrass seems hell bent on making everything based on die rolls), there could be a flip side. ex: ok the king is dead, say there is someone (a son, close friend etc.) who figures out the ranger killed him and wants revenge, figuring jail time isn't enough and maybe there wont be a convition decides to kill the pc himself. what if the pc is sleeping in an inn or something (so no armor on just someone asleep in their bed) and this guy sneaks in (failed listen rolls for the pc in question or something lets the guy succeed, there pendergrass, there are dice involved :P). now if the pc is lying there HELPLESS b/c he/she is asleep and all. Why oh why wouldn't it be fair to say this npc's dagger slices the pc's throat and kills em? Or would that be railroading as well? (and if it's not explain how cuz you can't have one way = RRing and the other side of the same senario not be RRing)
PenderGrass 03-26-08, 03:49 AM	But (as pendergrass seems hell bent on making everything based on die rolls) Don't put words in my mouth. And now that it is well past 3am and you are well past being a jerk, I should point out that you are also well past being wrong about what I am saying. Go to sleep. Come back tomorrow when you got your brain on right. I promise I won't make you roll to see if your brain does come on or not. :dragon: *****
M-bark 03-26-08, 04:14 AM	What I am sad to see on here, is that a lot of the arguments presented seem to based on something like "a king should be this, a king should be that". The thing is, we don't knowwhat this King was like. He could've been a 3rd-level Fighter, or a 6th-level Aristocrat, or, god forbid, a 17th-level Druid. We don't know how many hit points he had, we don't know his stats, we don't know his equipment, we don't know his abilities. In the best case (i.e. in the case in which it would have been really easy to kill the king), he was a 1st-level commoner or aristocrat, had recently been attacked or poisoned, and he was totally unaware of the intentions of the ranger (which would mean flat-footedness in mechanical terms). I doubt that he would be wearing armour (and otherwise, the ranger would have been smart enough to wait until the king took it off), so that would mean an AC of 10 (as long as he does not have natural armour). On an average roll, do you think he'd get hit? And if he would have merely 1 hp left (in the best case, of course), do you think he would get right down to dieing (-1 to -9 or perhaps even -10, meaning death)? In the worst case, the king would be uber-prepared, highly armoured (+5 full plate), would have magical wards placed on him and his palace, etcetera (why not use a permanent sanctuary?). In this case, the king certainly would survive. Sadly, we don't know what the king is, has, or can do. Or rather, could do. Reasoning that the important NPCs the PCs would come across (including the king) would have about the same level as them, the king would be level 5 or 6, maybe 7. He wouldn't be level 10, and he probably wouldn't have PC class levels. This is the most common thing I've encountered with NPCs, though it could be different in others' games. If the king would be level 5, though, he'd have, what, 35 to 45 hp give or take? Then yes, he probably wouldn't go down in one hit, if you would be rollplaying rather than roleplaying. Tell me again, what kind of game is DnD? Wasn't it a roleplaying game? Isn't roleplaying all about cooperative storytelling? What happens in stories? A lot of things can happen in stories. There are people who can dodge bullets, there are people who can fire lasers from their eyes and there even are also a few people who possess the ability to die after getting stabbed in the back. The people who fall in the last category are called "normal folks". It's possible you've met one of them once. Not in all cases do mechanical combat stuff get into the game. You would need to roll skill checks every time you went out to buy something or asked a question, or perhaps even if you could set a step forward while walking through a muddy field. The game would get slowed down immensely if this would be done. Of course, you're willing to do this in your own games, because it is allowed. Nowhere in the rules does it tell you how you must play, it merely gives you guidelines on what the creators of the game think is the best way to play. In the end, who decides how a game is played? I think he was called a... Dungeon Master?
StSteven 03-26-08, 08:07 AM	The success of a "poke" could be determined by a touch attack roll, I would imagine - so, by allowing the poke to automatically hit, I could see where it is rail-roading (since there should be a chance the poke missed). That has to be the dumbest application of the rules I have ever seen.
Dunsel 03-26-08, 08:55 AM	This issue is sharply dividing the story-teller DMs from the rules-based DMs. I believe the DM did the right thing and I don't understand the player's difficulty with it. Unless, he didn't want the Ranger to murder the king. If this is the case, he should have said something to the ranger or the king before the murder occurred. I also read a post where someone said they should roll for surprise initiative. Now, I'm no rules lawyer but isn't that where the spot check came into play? The DM rules the king did not make his spot check so the king automatically loses initiative. At least that is how I run it. After the surprise round is over, then you roll for initiative. Not everything circumstance should be rolled for. As far as this being rail-roading, I find that to be ridiculous! The PC wanted to kill the king and he succeeded. The fact the player (obviously not the one who killed the king) who is having a problem with this outcome was opposed to the murder, seems to be his real issue. He also appears to have wanted the Ranger to fail in his attempt, possibly resulting in the death of the ranger. The player's motives give him away. Therefore, I vote with the DM.
herrdoktor 03-26-08, 09:08 AM	really, i think it depends on how it was played out. if there was a decently long, tense rp scene between the ranger and the dm, possibly with the other pcs describing how they were hiding or distracting the guards - then it would be pretty cool. if it was, 'i talk to him, then i stab him' 'ok, sure' - then it was just boring. no rolls really had to be made, but regardless the little time spent on that event was, well, poorly spent. personally, if i were another pc (not the ranger), i would likely be very bored by the scene ("so ranger gets a long, potentially awesome scene all to herself? i seem to recall a time when MORE THAN 2 PEOPLE PLAYED THIS GAME.") now with the possibility mentioned above (other pcs getting to do stuff), and the potential combat after the king gets stabbed in the face (pcs now have to escape before guards can catch them), we could have a pretty awesome scene for the whole party (ranger could also spend her rounds stealing important stuff from the corpse while her buddies are smacking guards about)
Lukas_the_Dead 03-26-08, 09:43 AM	Indeed it is rail-roading in the most basic and straightforward forms there is: The removal of possibility. I'd love playing a game with you. I take a step. Roll to see if you trip and fall. I take a step. Roll to see if you trip and fall. I take a step. Roll to see if you trip and fall. I open the door. Roll to see if you fumble the doorknob, then roll a strength check for opening the door, then a Dex check to be sure you don't hit yourself in the face with the door. I go through the door. Roll to see if you trip on the door frame. Etc. At what level of probability can we just move on with something more important then dice rolling for the pure reason of rolling dice? 1/20 chance of failure for everything in life makes sense? 1/100 good enough to ignore? 1/1000?
herrdoktor 03-26-08, 09:55 AM	I'd love playing a game with you. I take a step. Roll to see if you trip and fall. I take a step. Roll to see if you trip and fall. I take a step. Roll to see if you trip and fall. I open the door. Roll to see if you fumble the doorknob, then roll a strength check for opening the door, then a Dex check to be sure you don't hit yourself in the face with the door. I go through the door. Roll to see if you trip on the door frame. Etc. At what level of probability can we just move on with something more important then dice rolling for the pure reason of rolling dice? 1/20 chance of failure for everything in life makes sense? 1/100 good enough to ignore? 1/1000? really, just simplify it: roll to see if you have to roll to see if you have to roll to see if you have to roll to see if you have to roll to see if you have to roll to see if you have to roll to see if you make it into the house
Lukas_the_Dead 03-26-08, 10:05 AM	This issue is sharply dividing the story-teller DMs from the rules-based DMs. Or as I like to call them DMs and "Rule-lawyering sticks in the mud, who can't figure out how to cross a room if it isn't titled with grids."
Nid_Food 03-26-08, 10:18 AM	In one of my campaigns, a player wrote a great backstory about the government betraying his people (whisper gnomes). He set about getting revenge on agents of that government by acquiring gunpowder and smuggling it into the government offices under the guise of a halfling caterer. He spent time acquiring the gunpowder, practicing his disguise and establishing his new persona as a bonafide person, and executed his entire plan of revenge without so much as a single roll of the dice. Should I have made him roll all this out? I could have. I could have involved him sneaking around (Move Silently), stealing supplies to make gunpowder (Craft (alchemy)), practicing his disguise (Disguise, Bluff), etc. only to have his hard, very creative work undone by a bad roll. But it was more expedient and more satisfying to the player (and to the group as a whole) for them to have affected the game world in a real way. What's my point? The point is that the event of blowing up the tower - while an amazing accomplishment by a very grateful player - was not as important as the events that followed, which is what led to more stirring moments in the campaign. If the DM in question in this thread now tells a harrowing story about the PCs after they have assassinated a sitting regent and puts them through rigorous adventures for the next ten levels, I think the DM will have done his job in justifying the loss of a single NPC whose hit points are not really up for debate. What is the point in taking ranks in these skills if there's no need to roll them? That's the whole idea of the game after all. Yes, a bad roll might screw you in a sense, but I know I've seen in a number of movies and novels where chance happens to work against the good guys and foils their plans. A bad die roll is the same thing.
SokenzanMarauder 03-26-08, 10:32 AM	If the players had fun does it matter if rules were ignored? Isn't the purpose of D&D to have fun?
TwistedPuppy 03-26-08, 10:34 AM	I have a tough time seeing this as "railroading." To me, the DM was reasonable in his decision to step things up. Pendergrass, as far as I can tell from the OP, the ranger was alone with the king. None of the other party members were present, and even if they were they don't seem to have made any attempt to prevent or assist. So the combat probably would not have been fun for the other players sitting around the table while the ranger and the king went at it. The DM in this case made a judgment call to speed things up and get the rest of the party involved with the game. I don't have a problem if someone says they personally wouldn't have done it that way. That's fine, since IMX no two DMs run games alike. However, if you demand what you consider perfection from your DM - doing things EXACTLY the way you want them done at all times - then the DM is equally justified in demanding perfection from you as a player. I doubt any of us are going to meet that standard. Play your character and let the DM run the game. If there's a problem, talk to him about it or leave. If you're actively looking for an adversarial relationship with the DM, you don't have any business being in the group.
Nid_Food 03-26-08, 10:34 AM	Thats fine, in my games if there were a king I'd probably put him at about level 6, tops. What exactly does a king do? he sits in a chair, and makes final descisions. Which he has help doing, the advisors, who I would put at level 14+ wizards and bards do all the real work then they simplify things to him. I guess I can't see running a game in which the king is anything other than a figurehead anyway. (most of my games governments are run by oligarchies in some manner, except the one democracy which ironically is the CE/CN country) Being so important, don't you think that someone would think to give the king some kind of defenses besides a robe and his good looks? Be it a mithral chain shirt undetected under his robes, to magic items, to spells. Certainly someone is smart enough, be it the king himself or an advisor, to realize that the leader/figurehead of the country needs to be protected at all times. The way some of you are describing this king makes me think that a couple of cats that may have found their way into this kings private, completely guard-free garden, could scratch the king to death.
Lukas_the_Dead 03-26-08, 10:35 AM	What is the point in taking ranks in these skills if there's no need to roll them? That's the whole idea of the game after all. The "idea of the game" is to have fun. It's valid to say, "I would not find your way of playing fun." Many of the play styles expressed in this thread sound to me like the definition of the phrase "tedious boredom." However, I won't call them "wrong" if the players and DM are having fun. Yes, a bad roll might screw you in a sense, but I know I've seen in a number of movies and novels where chance happens to work against the good guys and foils their plans. A bad die roll is the same thing. Well, in this case, good planning overruled the forces of random happen-stance. Oh well!
iserith 03-26-08, 10:36 AM	What is the point in taking ranks in these skills if there's no need to roll them? We rolled for those skills quite a bit in other scenarios and adventures - just not in this particular case. I can't see anything wrong with that. The campaign was certainly longer than this one event, and the player had plenty of opportunity to succeed or fail in his die rolls during said campaign. In fact, immediately following the explosion, the PC had a harrowing midair fight with a rival assassin as they both fell from the top of a tower in Skyway (Sharn) toward the city below. And for this encounter, we rolled it out. I really just didn't need dice to potentially kill the epic drama of the exploding tower scene by foiling the PCs' well-laid plans. A careful balance of rolling and storytelling is a fine approach to D&D. It needn't be all one way or another - at least in my games.
Lukas_the_Dead 03-26-08, 10:44 AM	If the players had fun does it matter if rules were ignored? Isn't the purpose of D&D to have fun? Now now, you aren't going to come in here with your logical statement and ruin the grand old D&D tradition of nerds yelling at each other over the rules are you?
TwistedPuppy 03-26-08, 10:51 AM	That's the whole idea of the game after all. Yes, a bad roll might screw you in a sense, but I know I've seen in a number of movies and novels where chance happens to work against the good guys and foils their plans. A bad die roll is the same thing. Umm.. that was scripted... I doubt the director or producer had the characters roll dice or flip coins to see what happened. And it's done to advance the story.
SokenzanMarauder 03-26-08, 10:53 AM	Now now, you aren't going to come in here with your logical statement and ruin the grand old D&D tradition of nerds yelling at each other over the rules are you?:D
Positronica 03-26-08, 11:26 AM	It should not be ruled a CDG. The king and ranger were walking. One had a hidden weapon. Neither were helpless. The attack was made. Nowhere in the rules does this meet the requirements of a CDG. Therefore, there should be a roll to hit and therefore there should be a chance to miss. They weren't just walking together. The ranger had her arm around the king, plus the king and the ranger were male and female, respectively. The OP didn't got into specifics, but I'm guessing the ranger's physical contact was meant to be romantic and intimate in nature, which kind of takes up beyond the scope of RAW. I don't think its a stretch at all to say that two strangers shaking hands on a busy street corner is a lot different than two potential lovers interacting amourously in a secluded area. In the situation at hand, the DM could have simply ruled that king was intentionaly making himself helpless in order to signal his receptiveness to the ranger's apparent advances. Or in other words, the king is thinking... "Wow, this hot chick really wants me. I'm going to let her do whatever she wants to me and see where this leads. Giggity!" I think a CdG would be appropriate in this situation, though back during the "befriending" stage of the campaign, I probably would have had the ranger make some bluff or seduction checks to see if the king was actually falling for her false sexual advances.
StSteven 03-26-08, 11:31 AM	Or as I like to call them DMs and "Rule-lawyering sticks in the mud, who can't figure out how to cross a room if it isn't titled with grids." Now that's funny.
Nid_Food 03-26-08, 11:45 AM	The "idea of the game" is to have fun. It's valid to say, "I would not find your way of playing fun." Many of the play styles expressed in this thread sound to me like the definition of the phrase "tedious boredom." However, I won't call them "wrong" if the players and DM are having fun. True, but if everyone is able to "bluff" just by RPing, then what is the point of the bluff skill? Same goes for most of the skills. Well, in this case, good planning overruled the forces of random happen-stance. Oh well! There is no such thing as a perfect plan. In fact, I find as a PC and DM that the possibility of the dice working against the player(s) to really increase the tension in some moments and makes the game that much more fun.
Nid_Food 03-26-08, 11:48 AM	We rolled for those skills quite a bit in other scenarios and adventures - just not in this particular case. I can't see anything wrong with that. The campaign was certainly longer than this one event, and the player had plenty of opportunity to succeed or fail in his die rolls during said campaign. In fact, immediately following the explosion, the PC had a harrowing midair fight with a rival assassin as they both fell from the top of a tower in Skyway (Sharn) toward the city below. And for this encounter, we rolled it out. I really just didn't need dice to potentially kill the epic drama of the exploding tower scene by foiling the PCs' well-laid plans. A careful balance of rolling and storytelling is a fine approach to D&D. It needn't be all one way or another - at least in my games. As a PC, I'd feel cheated if every time I came up with a "well made" plan, that the DM essentially ruled that it couldn't fail. There is always the chance of failure. Sure, it might be a small chance of failure -- like a small exhaust port only 2 meters wide -- but there is still the chance. As others have said, what happens if you let a PC assassinate a king without rolling a die, but when they essentially try to do the same thing over and over again, you force die rolls? There shouldn't be a line to this, either you do it one way or the other.
BW0222 03-26-08, 11:50 AM	iserith, >I think our view of the game is too different to agree on this. Perhaps. >It would seem you place more emphasis on the rules than the story, at >least in this case. You are making a false dichotomy. One does not have to choose between "story" and "rules". First, if one wants a pre-determined outcome, one can get there within the rules. Again, give the king a potion of sleep. Rules make it highly unlikely for him to survive. You don't need to select between rules and story, you merely need to think for a few minutes and come up with a plan within the rules which gives virtually assures that outcome. Second, there is no need to have a pre-determined outcome. That quickly gets into railroading. It was a PCs actions which triggered the event. There is no need to script that the king dies. That should be left to the plan used by the ranger to kill him. Rules provide a guide to the reasonableness of any action. Players should know that stabbing someone to death isn't easy (by the rules). The PC would likewise realize that it isn't likely a great plan. >At the very least, you feel the rules and the story should be exactly >balanced, which is not always possible during a game, especially if it was >done on the fly. It isn't a matter of balance. I see no need to not allow rules to affect roleplaying. I see no reason that players or DMs shouldn't have the opportunity to roleplay a bad result, a good result, etc. I roleplay (as a player and DM) bad outcomes all the time. It makes successes feel more earned. IMO, the best DMs are ones which effectively and honestly roleplay out the results of good and poor plans, intelligent and stupid actions, reasonable attempts and improbable attempts, etc. However, in this case, the rules are not determining the outcome. The actions of the ranger are. The plan would likely not gone well, because the plan was poor. The rules are useful in providing an objective evaluation for the likihood of the plan (taking the king out with one dagger hit) which both the player, DM, and PC should understand before hit. Let's say that the DM ruled the opposite. That the PC missed, the king survived, the guards arrive and immediately kill the PC. No rolling, no rules, no chance for the PC to take any action. Of course the player is going to object. It is not reasonable that the ranger might not escape, talk her way out of it, fake being charmed or something, etc. And how is "reasonableness" objectively decided? Why isn't it reasonable just to rule the PC dead? Because it is possible within the rules that she might not die. To be fair, I'd run through initiative. The rules are merely an objective way of roleplaying out the encounter. It helps reduce subjectivity and the reasonableness of an outcome. I don't see rules as an impediment to storytelling, I see them as a tool. They are a great way of objectively seeing what would happen if... I don't let the results or possible unpredictability of the event scare me. >We don't know what happened after the king was assassinated. Who cares? If the biggest event in the campaign can just be scripted -- where no matter how poor the plan was how improbable given the plan? Why not just have the DM write a book and the players can meet in six months to read what happened? I'd feel cheated as a player. I'd want the chance of roleplaying through the encounter, the randomness, etc. Most of my group would likely feel greatly cheated. Fierycon at least questions the action in his original post. >As long as this development leads to fun, I just can't see a problem with >the DM's ruling in this regard. Fierycon specifically asked for individual opinions. "What do people think of this... do you think that it was a rediculous thing for the DM to do? im interested in peoples views." First, Fierycon wouldn't ask if he didn't somehow think something was wrong with this. Second, I see no need to exclude opinions based on the "fun" arguement. I hope his group have fun, but he is still questioning it. Third, I dislike the assumption that one way is more fun than another. It wouldn't be fun if the ranger had had to pick a better plan, run through initiative, was discovered but got away, got away but the king survived, etc? A good DM should be able to make any of these outcomes fun. Why is scripting fun and following the rules not fun? And if they are both fun, then who is to say that any outcome or method is more fun than others. Again, I see no strong arguement (in this case) not to follow the rules.
Lukas_the_Dead 03-26-08, 11:54 AM	True, but if everyone is able to "bluff" just by RPing, then what is the point of the bluff skill? Same goes for most of the skills. Funny you should say that, since I don't put up with "I just roll my bluff skill" silliness. I adjust peoples bluff rolls based on their roleplay. There is no such thing as a perfect plan. In fact, I find as a PC and DM that the possibility of the dice working against the player(s) to really increase the tension in some moments and makes the game that much more fun. That's a lovely catchphrase you start with, but since "perfect" is subjective, and the person who subjectivity matters is the DM. . . well you see where that is going. As for tension, a well placed request for a dice roll can do that, but there are lots of other ways to do it too. I like a mix of things.
RPJesus 03-26-08, 11:55 AM	Now now, you aren't going to come in here with your logical statement and ruin the grand old D&D tradition of nerds yelling at each other over the rules are you? http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
CenterFyuuj 03-26-08, 11:56 AM	A good DM makes sure his/her players are having fun. Regardless of roleplaying or rollplaying. I've had groups who could care less about dice and yes, it was more like people getting together to tell a story, but we all had fun. Then again I've had groups who want to follow RAW 100% of the time, so everything had its own rolls and we all had fun. What I'm saying is that the rules are meant to be learned and memorized, and then put into play or tossed out depending on the style of play in your game. This DM was right if his campaign is more roleplay centered, he/she was wrong if it was rollplay centered. Which in turn means all of your arguments are correct for your own games. This also means everyone is getting a bit too heated about something that they can't change... like other peoples' minds.
Lukas_the_Dead 03-26-08, 11:59 AM	Which in turn means all of your arguments are correct for your own games. Wrong, there are winners and losers, and the winner is the one who gets the last post in. Don't you understand how the internets work?!? :D
CenterFyuuj 03-26-08, 12:01 PM	Damn! I totally forgot about that. Okay, the third person to post after this is the winner.
april151978 03-26-08, 12:02 PM	Perfectly fine from a storytelling point of view...
SokenzanMarauder 03-26-08, 12:04 PM	http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png:heehee
SokenzanMarauder 03-26-08, 12:05 PM	*cough* :D
CenterFyuuj 03-26-08, 12:05 PM	Oh look, SokenzanMarauder is the winner! WOO!
SokenzanMarauder 03-26-08, 12:06 PM	Oh look, I'm the winner! WOO!Really now?
nightwyrm 03-26-08, 12:06 PM	Oh look, SokenzanMarauder is the winner! WOO! Nope. Ninja'ed by Soken. :D
CenterFyuuj 03-26-08, 12:07 PM	I edited it, I express my dearest apologies.
SokenzanMarauder 03-26-08, 12:07 PM	*ninja noises* (that is, to say, complete silence)
LeeAlucard 03-26-08, 12:18 PM	*ninja noises* (that is, to say, complete silence) I disagree. Naruto is anything but silent. :D
SokenzanMarauder 03-26-08, 12:21 PM	I disagree. Naruto is anything but silent. :DThat's 'cause the real ninjas use him for a distraction. Naruto is a tool. Nothing more.
Lukas_the_Dead 03-26-08, 12:33 PM	That's 'cause the real ninjas use him for a distraction. Naruto is a tool. Nothing more. No! He's the Real Deal! Believe it! . . . I feel so dirty now, must wash away shame. . .
SokenzanMarauder 03-26-08, 12:36 PM	No! He's the Real Deal! Believe it! . . . I feel so dirty now, must wash away shame. . .*shudders* I'll get the holy water... --- They totally ruined him in the English version of the show. He was nowhere near as bad in the Japanese version (still annoying, but not so painfully annoying as he is now). --- Methinks we should get back on topic.:embarrass
Krusk 03-26-08, 12:41 PM	Being so important, don't you think that someone would think to give the king some kind of defenses besides a robe and his good looks? Be it a mithral chain shirt undetected under his robes, to magic items, to spells. Certainly someone is smart enough, be it the king himself or an advisor, to realize that the leader/figurehead of the country needs to be protected at all times. Yeah he probably does have close to limitless wealth, and his advisors are probably giving him all sorts of advice. "dude you really need to be wearing some sort of armor at all times, maybe this heavy fortified shirt at least. A cloak of displacement or something, seriously. Don't just walk around in your robes" two problems with this. 1- the king actually has to listen, and wear the items. 2- Is he really going to wear these items 24/7 in the presence of his trusted close friend while they go on a walk? Needs to be protected at all times? have you ever read any epic or even fantasy book? Kings are always ditching and running away from their gaurds, going off on hunting trips on their own, and generally putting themselves into risky situations. That is one of the bigger parts of their job. Or in a more modern example, the newest national treasure movie. The president goes out of his way to ditch his secret service men while exploring a crypt. (doesn't work out so hot for him).
themocaw 03-26-08, 01:14 PM	That's 'cause the real ninjas use him for a distraction. Naruto is a tool. Nothing more. One of the things I love about Legend of the Five Rings is the idea that the iconic ninja with his black hood and outfit and fancy tricks is a distraction: he's the guy who runs around and distracts all the guards and increases the ninja mystique while the real ninja who has spent the past six months infiltrating the castle in the guise of a common laundry worker sticks a knife in the daimyo's back while his guards chase around the n00b in the black pajamas. :D
PenderGrass 03-26-08, 01:18 PM	I'd love playing a game with you. I take a step. Roll to see if you trip and fall. I take a step. Roll to see if you trip and fall. I take a step. Roll to see if you trip and fall... Don't be moronic. :dragon: *****
Nid_Food 03-26-08, 01:18 PM	Funny you should say that, since I don't put up with "I just roll my bluff skill" silliness. I adjust peoples bluff rolls based on their roleplay. My group does the opposite. They roll their bluff, and based on the roll, they RP what kind of bluff they used. That's a lovely catchphrase you start with, but since "perfect" is subjective, and the person who subjectivity matters is the DM. . . well you see where that is going. As for tension, a well placed request for a dice roll can do that, but there are lots of other ways to do it too. I like a mix of things. When it comes to playing, I want things to be fair. It stops hurt feelings of all kinds. If PC1 is able to kill a king without touching a die, but PC2 needs to roll to kill off the BBEG in a similar way, PC2 could very well feel slighted. Both cases, a die roll is really needed.
Nid_Food 03-26-08, 01:25 PM	two problems with this. 1- the king actually has to listen, and wear the items. 2- Is he really going to wear these items 24/7 in the presence of his trusted close friend while they go on a walk? If I were a ruler of some type? Heck yeah. Especially in a world of magic where people can teleport, be invisible, shapechange, walk through walls or kill me by just giving me the finger (of death). Just because I'm chilling with my best friend doesn't mean the bad guys are going to call time out. Needs to be protected at all times? have you ever read any epic or even fantasy book? Kings are always ditching and running away from their gaurds, going off on hunting trips on their own, and generally putting themselves into risky situations. That is one of the bigger parts of their job. Or in a more modern example, the newest national treasure movie. The president goes out of his way to ditch his secret service men while exploring a crypt. (doesn't work out so hot for him). Lol
StSteven 03-26-08, 01:34 PM	Don't be moronic. :dragon: ***** You mean like rolling a touch attack to see if you can poke your friend? Really, with the 5% miss chance all the time, you can't have any sort of reality all the time with the RAW. Stand by your friend and try to poke him 100 times (with him standing still). Did you miss 5 times? That is moronic.
Johnathan_Vagabond 03-26-08, 01:36 PM	I agree that while it was a dramatic scene, some form of roll should have been used. I think its perfectly reasonable to assume helpless for a coup d'grace. Sure, the King becomes aware of the blade, after its wrapped around his neck (I don't get the attraction of stabbing someone in the back, unless theres other people in their front). No twisting or turning will help in that event. But the King saves vs massive damage (still takes the weapon damage). The player has botched the assassination, he rushes to finish the job and cover it up. The King can't yell very loud from the pain in his neck, but its not a mortal blow (I would also rule bleeding, -1 to -5 hp/round). He tries to rush off, the PC chases after him, sticks him again and again and again. The king dies. The PC tries desperately to wipe the blood from his clothes and weapons and escape without being questioned. Alternately, the King reaches his guards, bubbling at the throat. They a) kill the king (ooh, the plot thickens) or b) rush the PC, focing him to make a real mess of things, or run away. Now the PCs are branded, assassins, murders, regicides. They must carry this on their backs and hide their faces. They lose favor with many, but gain favor with many as well (certainly theres more than one person that wants the King dead).
PenderGrass 03-26-08, 02:51 PM	You mean like rolling a touch attack to see if you can poke your friend? Really, with the 5% miss chance all the time, you can't have any sort of reality all the time with the RAW. Stand by your friend and try to poke him 100 times (with him standing still). Did you miss 5 times? That is moronic. Who said the elf wanted to be poked? Really, after all, he became irked by being poked - so why would he just stand there and let someone poke him? If you want to be poked, then so be it. If you don't, someone should roll a touch attack to poke you. If you think that isn't right, then run it the way you want - pokes aren't in the RAW so it is the DMs call. But even suggesting that I would make people roll to walk is moronic. Even for people on the internet. :dragon: *****
Lukas_the_Dead 03-26-08, 03:06 PM	But even suggesting that I would make people roll to walk is moronic. Even for people on the internet. You are denying them the probability of something going wrong! You are awful and should burn all your books! You are removing probability from your game because people trip and fall all the time when they are just walking!
PenderGrass 03-26-08, 03:35 PM	You are denying them the probability of something going wrong! You are awful and should burn all your books! You are removing probability from your game because people trip and fall all the time when they are just walking! Killing someone is covered in the generally accepted rules and requires dice-rolling. Thus, denying a rolled outcome for attempt assassination is imposing an outcome that should be rolled for. Typical walking is not given a die roll in the generally accepted rules. Thus, there is no denied die roll for a typical walk action. I know it is hard for you to not toss hyperbole scenarios at me because you have no other recourse to argue logically (or even reasonably), but, sheesh - do you really need to be so inane/moronic/ignorant? :dragon: *****
Lukas_the_Dead 03-26-08, 03:47 PM	I know it is hard for you to not toss hyperbole scenarios at me because you have no other recourse to argue logically (or even reasonably), but, sheesh - do you really need to be so inane/moronic/ignorant? I just want to be sure you have every chance to fill your dice and gird addiction. I'm thinking of you and your needs. However, since you haven't picked up on it yet, I'll stop having fun and be frank. No one cares which rules you can quote, look up, and make fit to the situation. Most of people don't care that you think the rules are so perfect that they don't need modification. Many people think that deviation from the rules is justified for the sake of storytelling and fun. Last, however, I do care how many times you call me a moron or the like. . .not cause it hurts my feelings but because it makes me giggle to know you take the internet and your style of play (and what a yawn-fest that must be) so seriously!
StSteven 03-26-08, 04:32 PM	Who said the elf wanted to be poked? Really, after all, he became irked by being poked - so why would he just stand there and let someone poke him? If you want to be poked, then so be it. If you don't, someone should roll a touch attack to poke you. If you think that isn't right, then run it the way you want - pokes aren't in the RAW so it is the DMs call. But even suggesting that I would make people roll to walk is moronic. Even for people on the internet. :dragon: ***** Ahhh...you see, YOU suggested a touch attack for a poke, not me. Whether or not the elf wanted to be poked is beside the point. He didn't know it was coming, and couldn't defend himself. To suggest that you could miss one poke in 20 (or about half of the unsuspected pokes with an actual touch attack) is ludicrous. What I suggested you do is an experiment to prove to yourself that you really can poke your friend more than 19 pokes in 20, if he wasn't trying to avoid it, which the elf wouldn't be. Kinda like the king not suspecting an knife in the back from his trusted friend. You can't blindly follow the rules in every situation and have a decent approximation of reality. You can't even follow all of the rules and have a satisfying way to determine the outcome of events. It would be just like rolling every turn to walk. If the situation were real (back to the ranger and the king), then the real ranger who gets a knife around the back of an unsuspecting king is going to kill him 999 times out of 1000 at least. I don't care if it's Conan the Barbarian. Dude will die. (OK, Conan may get an attack role and a save, but the king wasn't Conan.) You go ahead and apply the rules the way you want. Forget about the fact that the designer's of the game don't intend for you to do that. Leave reason at the door. But don't throw around that "Railroading" tag on something that doesn't even involve player choices. Next you will be telling us that setting up encounters is railroading. "How dare you draw out a map you conductor you." It's ridiculous. I propose a new law. The PenderGrass Law: Anyone who uses the term "Railroading" in a debate that doesn't involve player choices automatically loses the debate and ends the thread. I think I stole the idea from somewhere...
PenderGrass 03-26-08, 04:55 PM	I just want to be sure you have every chance to fill your dice and gird addiction. I'm thinking of you and your needs. Personally, I don't use the grid rules. I do enjoy rolling dice - if you don't, you should get another hobby. makes me giggle Truly. You make me "giggle" when you ascertain that " [I]think the rules are so perfect that they don't need modification." I never said that. Again, your need to toss out claims and assertions that make no sense, just show me how foolish you truly are. Is this your first time online? :dragon: *****
PenderGrass 03-26-08, 05:14 PM	Ahhh...you see, YOU suggested a touch attack for a poke, not me. Whether or not the elf wanted to be poked is beside the point. He didn't know it was coming, and couldn't defend himself. Ahhh... you see, YOU added whatever you want. If you wish to discuss your ludicrous "poke scenario" - just PM me. If the situation were real.... It isn't real. It is a game. A game with guidelines. The question was asked if the DM should have followed standard accepted practices. I say he should have. You say he should not. Forever the two shall not meet. You go ahead and apply the rules the way you want. Forget about the fact that the designer's of the game don't intend for you to do that. So, on one hand you throw down the say I am a virtual slave to the guidelines, and then you say (erroneously, I might add) that the designers of the game should be followed without question? Which is it? Can you make your own mind up? Or do you need a game designer to tell you how to run your game? Regardless, I have as yet seen one shred of evidence as to why you think the designers of the game would recommend not using standard combat rules to resolve killing someone. I propose a new law. The PenderGrass Law: Any DM that imposes his will onto his game/players without allowing for the standard possibility of failure or success as given in common gaming practices is rail-roading the situation.* *There you go, I fixed it for you. :dragon: *****
StSteven 03-26-08, 05:23 PM	It is a game. A game with guidelines. Exactly...guidelines. Couldn't have said it better myself. So, on one hand you throw down the say I am a virtual slave to the guidelines, and then you say (erroneously, I might add) that the designers of the game should be followed without question? Which is it? Can you make your own mind up? Or do you need a game designer to tell you how to run your game? Being nice and civil here (cough) I will say that you need to reread what I have been posting. Chew over it for a while and I think you will see that you are making no sense here. Regardless, I have as yet seen one shred of evidence as to why you think the designers of the game would recommend not using standard combat rules to resolve killing someone. Uh...the books. The core rule books. All three editions (especially the first though...it hasn't been said that well since). I think I said that already. Alas...this is pointless...your just not going to sell much of that around here I don't think. I said good day.
Johnathan_Vagabond 03-26-08, 05:34 PM	Without giving the King a save roll vs coup de grace, the PCs are open to the assassin at night scenario. Fail Spot (-20 sleep) + Fail Listen (-20 sleep) = Dead Even with someone sitting watch, its hardly fair. Two good rolls, or two botched ones, means a dead PC. Maybe its dramatic, and inspires the rest of the players to hunt the assassin to the ends of the earth. But that PC that died, will not have fun that game.
PenderGrass 03-26-08, 05:42 PM	Exactly...guidelines. Couldn't have said it better myself. Good. We agree on one thing. I am not trying to "sell" anything here. I am merely saying that a DM that doesn't use a prime opportunity to create tension and suspense is missing out (not to mention rail-roading the situation). Everyone seems to be all upset about the basic fact that it is an example of classic DM choo-choo. I already stated that some people like it that way. That is fine. Just make sure you recognize what you are doing. I don't and I think it takes more skill to allow the normal possibilities happen instead of just overriding the system in this scenario. I see you don't agree. That is well and fine, but please don't toss up ideas that I would make people roll to walk in typical environments. That is just stupid and people that think that are being stupid. Again, posting just to cause hug tangents and false accusations are the actions of a internet neophyte - "hey look mom, I made this guy respond to me" - and it is in fact a form of trolling. I suggest that those of you that have done so and admitted to it, stop. Beyond that, I still see nowhere in the books where one of the designers said to skip assassination attempts - in fact, they built a prestige class that gives rules on how to perform assassinations. :dragon: *****
Lukas_the_Dead 03-26-08, 05:51 PM	Everyone seems to be all upset about the basic fact that it is an example of classic DM choo-choo. See, Everyone is just trying to tell you, you have the most messed up view of what railroading is. However, Worry not! Thanks to my new patented 12 step recovery program, you too can learn how not to play D&D like Warhammer! Without giving the King a save roll vs coup de grace, the PCs are open to the assassin at night scenario. You are aware that NPCs aren't PCs and that there is nothing in the rules that says, "All characters, NPC and PC, must be treated exactly the same." Even if there was such a rule, any DMs worth his salt would ignore it completely. Beyond that, I still see nowhere in the books where one of the designers said to skip assassination attempts - in fact, they built a prestige class that gives rules on how to perform assassinations. It's good to know, that thanks to that, you now can allow assassinations in your game. It will allow you to finally let a character waste a few levels so he can be useful once in his game-life! It's good to know that you can finally give that serving girl a few levels of assassin so she can murder the king in his sleep, or in the bath, where-ever! Who knew that you needed to be an assassin to kill an unsuspecting person in the park or push them off a cliff?
PenderGrass 03-26-08, 07:28 PM	See, Everyone is just trying to tell you, you have the most messed up view of what railroading is. Actually it just validates that you (and everyone like you) is incapable of differentiating what true rail-roading is. Hence, all the rail-roading threads that argue about it. However, Worry not! Thanks to my new patented 12 step recovery program, you too can learn how not to play D&D like Warhammer! How typical - I figured you for a WoW player, but now I see you are more familiar with Warhammer. It's good to know, that thanks to that, you now can allow assassinations in your game. Again with the assumptions about my game. I merely stated that the prestige class exists. And that even they have to roll to kill someone. Helpless or otherwise. It will allow you to finally let a character waste a few levels so he can be useful once in his game-life! It's good to know that you can finally give that serving girl a few levels of assassin so she can murder the king in his sleep, or in the bath, where-ever! Who knew that you needed to be an assassin to kill an unsuspecting person in the park or push them off a cliff? Your hyperbole is unending. :dragon: *****
enlightened 03-26-08, 07:32 PM	I've seen rules-lawyers before, but Pendergrass is the first rules-Zealot I've ever come across. "If a rule exists for a situation, not to use it is HERESY!!":rant: :rofl: EDIT: I rolled this post randomly. I wouldn't have wanted to railroad myself into one opinion.
StSteven 03-26-08, 07:33 PM	Don't be moronic. :dragon: ***** But even suggesting that I would make people roll to walk is moronic. Even for people on the internet. :dragon: ***** I know it is hard for you to not toss hyperbole scenarios at me because you have no other recourse to argue logically (or even reasonably), but, sheesh - do you really need to be so inane/moronic/ignorant? :dragon: ***** Again, your need to toss out claims and assertions that make no sense, just show me how foolish you truly are. Is this your first time online? :dragon: ***** Can you make your own mind up? Or do you need a game designer to tell you how to run your game? :dragon: ***** That is well and fine, but please don't toss up ideas that I would make people roll to walk in typical environments. That is just stupid and people that think that are being stupid. Again, posting just to cause hug tangents and false accusations are the actions of a internet neophyte - "hey look mom, I made this guy respond to me" - and it is in fact a form of trolling. I suggest that those of you that have done so and admitted to it, stop. :dragon: ***** Please point out where "others" are being childish and displaying classic "trolling" behavior.
PenderGrass 03-26-08, 07:44 PM	I've seen rules-lawyers before, but Pendergrass is the first rules-Zealot I've ever come across. I merely stated a preference for following the combat rules in a situation where someone is going to be killed by a PC. But, if you need someone to toss rocks at, I gladly accept your stones. :dragon: *****
PenderGrass 03-26-08, 07:51 PM	Please point out where "others" are being childish and displaying classic "trolling" behavior. How convenient that you left out all the posts that prompted those responses. Convenient that you keep getting further and further from the topic at-hand, as well. Do you have anything further to add to the topic? Or a problem with my preference of DM style? Or maybe you would like to discuss how one might walk in my game? All of that is fine and dandy. PM me. If you are unable to accept that a DM that implements a needless overrule of the guidelines is rail-roading, so be it. To me you are rail-roading. To me you are choosing a less-skilled DM approach in favor of being a DM skilled at making his game into a story. Personally, I prefer games that are beyond simple story-telling by a DM. If that upsets you, sorry. :dragon: *****
StSteven 03-26-08, 08:08 PM	It takes no extra skill to apply the combat rules to the OP's situation. No post on this thread was a justification for your comments. You are the only one posting that thinks it was railroading that I can recall. Maybe you are trying to thrust your definition of railroading on everyone else. I have yet to insult your DM'ing style. I simply disagree with your opinion that what the DM in the OP was wrong. I also think that you are alone or very near alone in your definition of railroading. I don't recall insulting you. Just pointing out the absurdity of rolling for everything. The absurdity of the position that there is no line that can be crossed wrt when rolls need to be made. I certainly didn't call you moronic or stupid or idiotic or anything like what you started yelling. I never said that you must be new. I just thought that anyone can read the posts and make up their own minds about that one. Anyway...you may want to think about moving from the glass house, that's all.
LeeAlucard 03-26-08, 08:11 PM	Personally, I prefer games that are beyond simple story-telling by a DM. Y'know, for one who complained about use of hyperbole, you seem quite keen on using it yourself. The DM called for a roll at least once in the original post. The player made decisions about what the ranger was to do. When I try to explain D&D to a friend, you know what two of the first words I use are? "Interactive story-telling." Comparing what happened above to most video game "RPGs" I see, this still has a million times as much versatility and a millionth as much "railroading," yet I bet you have probably played a few video game "RPGs," haven't you? Players should expect at least a little railroading anyway. Without it, there's very little story at all. I think it's time to use... a hyperbole! DM: "The story begins in the fifth month of-" P1: "Wait, wait, wait! Why can't we start a month earlier?" DM: "Uhh, okay. It starts in the fourth month of the year 1282-" P2: "You're totally railroading us. Now you're saying there's not even an option to start a hundred years earlier?" DM: "No, there isn't. You guys weren't even born yet." P3: "That's totally railroading! You're not even giving us the option of when we were born?" DM: "..." (Players sit in silence) DM: "Fine. It starts in the fourth month of the year 1182, in the land of Stisson-" P1: "That's the roundish country, right?" DM: (checks map) "Uh, yeah. Anyway-" P2: "No fair, man! I wanna be in that squiggly country!" P3: "I wanna be on that island, there!" DM: "But then you guys wouldn't be a group." P1: "Oh, so now you're railroading us, saying that we have to be in a group together." DM: "..."
PenderGrass 03-26-08, 08:44 PM	It takes no extra skill to apply the combat rules to the OP's situation. In my opinion, it surely does. Telling people how a situation happens - simple. Adapting to a random chance - more difficult. No post on this thread was a justification for your comments. Claiming that I demand rolls to allow PCs to walk (or even support such a position) is moronic. And that is just one such example. You are the only one posting that thinks it was railroading that I can recall. Just because I am the only one, doesn't mean it is any less valid. After all, it is just my preference, opinion and view. Maybe you are trying to thrust your definition of railroading on everyone else. No. I am merely stating what it means to me. If you DM and decide that a PC should be able to kill a king with no roll other than to hide your weapon from his view, you are rail-roading the situation to meet how you view the outcome should happen. I have yet to insult your DM'ing style. I didn't say you insulted my DMing style. I said if you have a problem with my DM style - and you do seem to - that you are welcome to PM me about it if it bothers you that much. I simply disagree with your opinion that what the DM in the OP was wrong. As I disagree with your view that he wasn't. But really, that is what the thread is about isn't it? How do you, me, or anyone else here view how the DM handled the OPs situation. I also think that you are alone or very near alone in your definition of railroading. And that means what? Do you think I should change my view to match yours just because people outnumber me? If I let majority sway how I view such a subjective term as rail-roading - well, let's just say that is less than intelligent. Maybe you allow yourself to be swayed by majority over things that are subjective, I like to keep my own counsel. I don't recall insulting you. Just pointing out the absurdity of rolling for everything. I never said "roll everything." And it is incorrect of you to think I have. In fact, you should apologize for doing so. The absurdity of the position that there is no line that can be crossed wrt when rolls need to be made. I certainly didn't call you moronic or stupid or idiotic or anything like what you started yelling. Not once did I ever call anyone moronic. I may have said they are acting moronic, seem to be acting moronic, making moronic suggestions or just being stupid. But not once did I call anyone here a moron. I never said that you must be new. I just thought that anyone can read the posts and make up their own minds about that one. Anyway...you may want to think about moving from the glass house, that's all. Nah, I like the view. :dragon: *****
Jezsterz 03-26-08, 08:48 PM	There's a pretty simple test you can use whenever you want to see whether something has been railroaded or not. Simply take two events, in this case: 1. The ranger meets the king in his garden 2. The king is killed by the ranger Now for the test part, which is quite simple. If the player could have done anything within those two events within his power to prevent the final event from happening, it was not railroading. Now, if the player at the last second changed his mind, and the king was subsequently killed by a gnoll assassin named Grassy, then things would be different. Now it wouldn't be total railroading, since some of the details were different. Grassy the gnoll assassinated the king, not the ranger, but the fact that the king was doomed regardless of player choice would be railroading. It would also make for an interesting plot twist, and really, with the exception of very, very obvious cases, and perhaps time traveling players, most will never know if they have been slightly railroaded. Even more won't care.
PenderGrass 03-26-08, 08:58 PM	Players should expect at least a little railroading anyway. Without it, there's very little story at all. I don't agree. Stories may come out of the game, but the game should never be a story. Stories are linear, confining and unchanging. "Interactive Story-Telling" is a slight improvement, but it still falls short of what happens in a truly great game. I also don't agree that players should expect to be rail-roaded. The world the DM creates should have rules that both he and his group abide by. If an NPC with a hidden dagger has to roll to kill a PC, then the PC with a hidden dagger should need to roll to kill an NPC. If no roll is needed, then so be it. I would advise that the PC should be wary the next time their PC meets this supposed 'helpless' condition. If the DM is just applying what he wants, whenever he wants, well Player Beware is all I am saying. :dragon: *****
themocaw 03-26-08, 11:31 PM	Now, if the player at the last second changed his mind, and the king was subsequently killed by a gnoll assassin named Grassy, then things would be different. ROFLMAO! XD I just got it. Anyway, my opinion is that the only way this could be railroading is if some other player wanted to take an action to PREVENT the king's death, was in a position to do so, and the DM just argued "No, he's dead, sorry, moving on." In this case, the only people in a position to affect the events (PC and DM) both agreed as to what should happen, the stars were right, no railroading here, move along. Also, Pendergrass: your style of DMing is not my style of DMing. That's the simple truth.
PenderGrass 03-27-08, 01:16 AM	Also, Pendergrass: your style of DMing is not my style of DMing. That's the simple truth. Too bad. :dragon: *****
Etarnon 03-27-08, 01:25 AM	Y'know, for one who complained about use of hyperbole, you seem quite keen on using it yourself... That whole post is to the point and made of win. Kudos to LeeAlucard.
StSteven 03-27-08, 08:53 AM	Edit: I deleted this post because I disagree with the WizO about there being a personal attack in it.
ORC_Tao 03-27-08, 09:36 AM	If this debate is going to continue, it must do so without the personal attacks and derogatory language that seems to be growing increasingly prevalent. I don't have time to go back and edit out all of the childish personal attacks in this thread (it's only a four hour shift, after all ;)), and I don't think it would make a lot of difference even if I did. However, I am going to draw a line in the sand right here with this post. No further personal attacks. No counter-attacks from previous posts. Let it drop and keep on topic or there will be official warnings forthcoming. Please, remember to be respectful in your disagreement. Thank you.
BW0222 03-27-08, 10:43 AM	Folks, I agree with removing the personal attacks and staying on topic. On topic... I have yet to see any counter to why it was necessary not to follow the rules in this case? Assassinating a king is certainly not a trivial event in most campaigns. No reason not to take the encounter through initiative. A one-on-one combat is hardly time consuming. A couple of minutes tops. Combat (or intiative) is a known way to raise stakes and emotions in the game. The player certainly could have come up with a hundred plans which would make the outcome (within the rules) almost assured, so the outcome need not be in any serious doubt. If for some reason the ranger couldn't come up with a more realistic plan, and the DM somehow had to have king killed, then the DM could easily have steered the player using the PCs knowledge or the D&D universe -- i.e. something like "Can I have a wisdom check. (DC 5). Your PC knows that it isn't likely that she would be able to kill a man in one dagger blow... she isn't a trained assassin or rogue. Perhaps if she caught him sleeping, held, or bound, or you used poison it might be more likely to succeed?" You could certainly arrive at the desired outcome within the rules in which case the entire problem would appear to go away. There would be no reason to complain about not following the rules, no reason to suspect 'railroading', the ranger (and party) would have a better sense of accomplishment, and the combat would add some excitement - even if the outcome was almost certain. The DM could still script the death scene if necessary. No loss of dramatic effect -- and in most cases entering initiative tends to heighten it. The ranger could have just slipped a potion of hold person in the king's drink, the DM (secretly) rolled a saving throw, the king ... surprise... fails, the ranger CdG him, and the DM (secretly) rolled a fortitude save and ... surprise... the king dies. All perfectly legitimate within the rules and we wouldn't need to have this discussion. So why not follow the rules in this case?
Lukas_the_Dead 03-27-08, 11:08 AM	So why not follow the rules in this case? Because, you would never get the dramatic scene the player was going for (and the DM approved of). Why railroad them into every combat being a grid/inch based hack-and-slash fest when you can provide them with an interesting and engaging environment where through careful planning they can avoid the repetitive dice rolling and create scenes of drama. I'd reactive my WoW account if I wanted to grind combat, I'd play Warhammer if I wanted to roll dice all day, I'd Play a JRPG like Final Fantasy if I wanted all conflicts to warp down into a step-by-step stand-and-swing battle. I play D&D to roleplay, not boardgame. Setup right, the king could be ruled helpless, or common sense would say, "Hey, even the mightiest person would die from that," or a world of other things.
TwistedPuppy 03-27-08, 11:09 AM	BW0222, while you are correct in pointing out there is no real reason not to use the mechanics of the rules in this case, we don't have enough information on the king to know whether or not going through the mechanics would have made any difference. The OP gave us the bare bones of the situation and hasn't posted any additional information. If you assume the king was a powerful character, yes, the rules would be a better way to handle this. But the OP gave very limited information in his original post. The king may have been the equivalent of a 1st level aristocrat, just ascended to the throne after the sudden death of his father, a teenager smitten by the attentions of a pretty girl and telling his guards to leave them alone for "quality time." Maybe he was such a complete jerk the his guards would let him get killed. We don't know what transpired up to the point where the assassination took place. Maybe one of the options you pointed out was used and the OP didn't know about it. Perhaps the DM knew what was coming, and either the king's HP were less than the coup de grace minimum or he rolled a fort save that failed. Bear in mind that just because the OP was not privvy to mechanics in use, it does not mean they were ignored. If nothing else, it comes down to whether the king was subject to a cdg. To me, in this case it's a judgment call made by the DM and it wasn't unreasonable. I still think the DM's call here was reasonable. I can't say I'd do it that way without a lot more information on the situation, but without that information I'm not going to criticize the DM, either.
Johnathan_Vagabond 03-27-08, 06:50 PM	I probably just enjoy a different game than you, but I think the PCs, especially when I play, are more exciting when they follow the exact same rules as everyone else. Where everything has its own form of inherent risk and some, like murdering the ruler of a nation, have more risk than others. I would never ask to make a roll to walk (unless I was balancing or drunk), but I think the King (who likely won't save against a CdG anyways) deserved a chance to save against the attack. What exactly is boring about being able to fail at something important? Stories are for books, because I can't screw the plot by voluntarily detonating a helm of brilliance and incinerating the opponent with 300d6 fire damage.
Etarnon 03-27-08, 06:58 PM	Eh. Surprise round, king flatfooted, no levels to speak of, I'm not gonna game it out. Or I might, if I feel the need.
PenderGrass 03-27-08, 08:41 PM	Because, you would never get the dramatic scene the player was going for (and the DM approved of). I think the drama of everyone watching the required to-hit roll come to a rest as a.... "Hit? Miss? Egads! The suspense is killing me! I know I'll only miss on a natural 1! Come on - no whammies! No whammies!" - Player That is much more suspenseful than listening to someone tell me whether he feels I did a good enough job to kill the king or not. Why railroad them into every combat being a grid/inch based hack-and-slash fest when you can provide them with an interesting and engaging environment where through careful planning they can avoid the repetitive dice rolling and create scenes of drama. If the King were supposedly so easily killed in the DMs mind, I doubt there would have been much need beyond the single roll. So, in this situation there would not be any repetitive die rolling. Not only that, the die roll creates suspense on both sides of the table - the DM is thinking about if it is a natural 1, what then? The players are thinking the same thing. No one is sure what will happen until that die roll is made. If it isn't a natural 1, then the king is likely doomed. If it is a natural 1, will they be able to keep him from getting an alarm out - the guards were obviously pretty far away - so listen checks would be in order even if the king screamed for help. The die rolls in these situations create suspense and a feeling of tension - not knowing what will happen. If the DM is making all the calls, the game has turned into a matter of who can convince the DM that he should succeed. Essentially the game will have become something other than D&D, maybe more like "Convince The DM You Should Succeed" or whatever? I'd reactive my WoW account if I wanted to grind combat, I'd play Warhammer if I wanted to roll dice all day, I'd Play a JRPG like Final Fantasy if I wanted all conflicts to warp down into a step-by-step stand-and-swing battle. I play D&D to roleplay, not boardgame. Setup right, the king could be ruled helpless, or common sense would say, "Hey, even the mightiest person would die from that," or a world of other things. I am mostly unfamiliar with the exact mechanics of the other games you mention - in an obviously derisive manner - so I will assume that they are somehow "negative" in most aspects compared to D&D. Regardless, I still don't see rolling a single to-hit as "grinding combat." And I seriously doubt you can convince anyone here how a single roll is a "grinding combat." :dragon: *****
Nid_Food 03-28-08, 08:33 AM	Folks, I have yet to see any counter to why it was necessary not to follow the rules in this case? Scenario 1 -- Ranger & King alone in the garden. King fails his spot check, Ranger insta-kills the King. The only roll made was the spot check. Scenario 2 -- PC Ranger and their "best friend" are alone in the woods. PC Ranger fails their spot check. "Best Friend" insta-kills the PC Ranger. Scenario 3 -- PCs are walking somewhere and fail any relevant spot/listen checks. Sniper fires on a PC, insta-killing one. Now, all 3 of these scenarios are basically the same. However, why do I feel that PCs would be quite irked if Scenario 2 or 3 happened to them? However, to play in a fair game, if Scenario 1 works, 2 & 3 should also work. None of these scenarios used an attack roll. The king was flat footed, not helpless, so no coup de gras. The king failed his spot check, so I see no problem with the Ranger getting a surprise round in. After that surprise round, roll Initiative if the King is still standing. That is how it would work in Scenarios 2 & 3 if someone was unknowningly attacking the PCs, that is how it should work when the PC's surprise someone. You could certainly arrive at the desired outcome within the rules in which case the entire problem would appear to go away. There would be no reason to complain about not following the rules, no reason to suspect 'railroading', the ranger (and party) would have a better sense of accomplishment, and the combat would add some excitement - even if the outcome was almost certain. The DM could still script the death scene if necessary. No loss of dramatic effect -- and in most cases entering initiative tends to heighten it. Agreed. This also adds the possible element of failure. There is no full proof plan. Perhaps the Ranger rolls a 1 on their attack roll -- they slipped on the wet grass perhaps.
TwistedPuppy 03-28-08, 09:55 AM	The king was flat footed, not helpless, so no coup de gras. The king failed his spot check, so I see no problem with the Ranger getting a surprise round in. After that surprise round, roll Initiative if the King is still standing. That is how it would work in Scenarios 2 & 3 if someone was unknowningly attacking the PCs, that is how it should work when the PC's surprise someone. Was he? Again, given that there isn't much information in the OP's post, how can you be so sure? I don't think we have all the information of what was going on at the time. Of course, like all of us here the OP was paying rapt attention to the events going on that did not involve his character and noting every detail of play. Unless he wants to chime back in with more info, or maybe invite the DM to explain his side, there isn't a reason to fault the DM for his decision. The DM has the right and responsibility to decide when rolling dice is appropriate. To me, if it could adversely affect the PCs they get to roll, or a roll must be made. I just don't see this as a situation where it was that important. The DM ruled a player had succeeded because of a good plan and good roleplaying. Maybe I would have required a roll to hit, maybe not, but I wasn't there and I don't know the exact details.
Lukas_the_Dead 03-28-08, 10:07 AM	natural 1 . . .natural 1 . . .natural 1 So, why do you feel their is a 5% chance for failure in this situation? Now, all 3 of these scenarios are basically the same. However, why do I feel that PCs would be quite irked if Scenario 2 or 3 happened to them? However, to play in a fair game, if Scenario 1 works, 2 & 3 should also work. None of these scenarios used an attack roll. No they aren't. They aren't even close to being the same. #1 targets an NPC, #2 and #3 target PCs. That is a massive difference. It's like . . . replacing the tasty all-beef filling of a meatpie with lard and air pockets. 1) Why do you think NPCs have to be treated the same as PCs? 2) If they aren't, who (as in what living, breathing, non-fictional person) is being treated unfairly? 3) Why do you think a 5% chance of failure is the correct value for this situation? PCs are always favored over NPCs. PCs are, after all, the main characters of the story.
PenderGrass 03-28-08, 10:25 AM	So, why do you feel their is a 5% chance for failure in this situation? Why do you feel there isn't? Also, a missed attack doesn't automatically = failure in the ultimate goal. If the player is quick to adapt to the situation, who knows what would happen after a missed attack?. :dragon: *****
Lukas_the_Dead 03-28-08, 10:51 AM	Why do you feel there isn't? Because moving one's wrist a few inches is a fairly basic motion, kind of like walking. Your turn, why does everything in life have a 5% chance of failure? Also, a missed attack doesn't automatically = failure in the ultimate goal. Fair Enough, but doesn't have much to do with the current contest of freedom loving roleplayers vs. the dark and evil dicelords, who would chain us all to 20-sided weights and force us to work in the polyhedron mines for all eternity. If the player is quick to adapt to the situation, who knows what would happen after a missed attack?. Again, nothing to do with the conversion, as the "who knows" applies to any outcome. :dragon: ***** http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/7981/dragon2ij0.gif ΩΩΩΩΩ
Nid_Food 03-28-08, 11:16 AM	So, why do you feel their is a 5% chance for failure in this situation? Why do you feel that there is a perfect, air-tight, cannot-fail plan? No they aren't. They aren't even close to being the same. #1 targets an NPC, #2 and #3 target PCs. That is a massive difference. It's like . . . replacing the tasty all-beef filling of a meatpie with lard and air pockets. 1) Why do you think NPCs have to be treated the same as PCs? 2) If they aren't, who (as in what living, breathing, non-fictional person) is being treated unfairly? 3) Why do you think a 5% chance of failure is the correct value for this situation? PCs are always favored over NPCs. PCs are, after all, the main characters of the story. Fireball does 10d6, save for half vrs PCs & NPCs. For a fighter with a BAB of +10 to hit AC 20, they need to roll a 10, regardless if they're a PC or NPC. Every other aspect of D&D that I'm aware of treats PCs and NPCs the same. However, insta-killing is reserved for PCs only? I don't favor the PCs when I DM. Nor do I expect to be favored when I am a PC.
Lukas_the_Dead 03-28-08, 11:30 AM	Why do you feel that there is a perfect, air-tight, cannot-fail plan? Because, at the point where the action of the plan is "move wrist two inches to the right," most of the plan is done and it's a fairly basic body movement. Fireball does 10d6, save for half vrs PCs & NPCs. For a fighter with a BAB of +10 to hit AC 20, they need to roll a 10, regardless if they're a PC or NPC. Every other aspect of D&D that I'm aware of treats PCs and NPCs the same. However, insta-killing is reserved for PCs only? Just can't get off the grid, can you. Not all combat for adventures come with a map that has "Wizards of the Coast" stamped on it. Not every person is standing and ready for combat, not every action fits neatly into the rules. As for insta-killing. . .if a player gets himself on the head's man block (or under the guillotine), and the axe comes down, I'm not going to worry about the rolling no matter what level. Now, I'd not do the "a shadow comes out of the night and kills you" to a player, however I might well do that to an NPC the players are standing near. If the players come back and the King got killed while they where away, am I suppose to roll that combat? I don't favor the PCs when I DM. Nor do I expect to be favored when I am a PC. So, are the NPCs getting equal face time to the PCs? I'm sure the players love it when they get one-shot killed from a backstab (dice-rolled and all) in a situation they could have never foreseen, or killed in their sleep, or all those other nasty things that happen to NPCs. I'm sure they have having a great time!
PenderGrass 03-28-08, 12:17 PM	Because, at the point where the action of the plan is "move wrist two inches to the right," most of the plan is done and it's a fairly basic body movement. I have stabbed someone before, it is never a "fairly basic body movement." :dragon: *****
PenderGrass 03-28-08, 12:19 PM	Your turn, why does everything in life have a 5% chance of failure? When did I say that? I am speaking about a 5% chance of failure in a game, for an attack with a dagger - not "everything in life." I would appreciate it if you could stay on topic. :dragon: *****
Lukas_the_Dead 03-28-08, 12:19 PM	I have stabbed someone before, it is never a "fairly basic body movement." If you are about to go "hardcore internet 'I have killed someone!' tough guy" this thread might as well be locked.
PenderGrass 03-28-08, 12:22 PM	Fair Enough, but doesn't have much to do with the current contest of freedom loving roleplayers vs. the dark and evil dicelords, who would chain us all to 20-sided weights and force us to work in the polyhedron mines for all eternity. Oh come on. Are you really serious? :dragon: *****
PenderGrass 03-28-08, 12:26 PM	If you are about to go "hardcore internet 'I have killed someone!' tough guy" this thread might as well be locked. You're the one that claimed stabbing someone is a "fairly basic body movement." I disagree and the reason why is because I have stabbed someone before. If you feel differently, fine - there are a lot of Hollywood writers that would agree with you. It really isn't that big of a deal. To me (and the people in my group that have a sense of what is possible and what isn't), not allowing the chance for failure removes a huge chunk of believability from our game. :dragon: *****
Lukas_the_Dead 03-28-08, 12:26 PM	Are you really serious? Yes, I am completely serious, I honestly believe you and your evil army of dicelords seek to imprison us happy and freedom loving roleplayer and chain us up to do hard-labor till the end of time. I disagree and the reason why is because I have stabbed someone before. I'm done. I don't deal with people who have issues splitting fantasy and reality. *Goes off to find the ignore button*
StSteven 03-28-08, 12:30 PM	I disagree and the reason why is because I have stabbed someone before. I suppose that you are trained in fighting with two melee weapons at a time and spell casting too. Then I would believe that you have any idea whether or not stabbing someone in the back is a simple motion for a ranger.
PenderGrass 03-28-08, 12:56 PM	I suppose that you are trained in fighting with two melee weapons at a time and spell casting too. Then I would believe that you have any idea whether or not stabbing someone in the back is a simple motion for a ranger. The ranger was using a single weapon at the time - or at least had only hidden a single weapon. Regardless, what I am trained to do has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I disagree that killing someone is ever a "simple" motion. If it were, there would be no reason to have dice rolls in combat. :dragon: *****
Nid_Food 03-28-08, 01:33 PM	Just can't get off the grid, can you. Not all combat for adventures come with a map that has "Wizards of the Coast" stamped on it. Not every person is standing and ready for combat, not every action fits neatly into the rules. As for insta-killing. . .if a player gets himself on the head's man block (or under the guillotine), and the axe comes down, I'm not going to worry about the rolling no matter what level. Now, what if the player fails their spot check and gets that mere 2 inches of movement needed to use the dagger used against them? So, are the NPCs getting equal face time to the PCs? I'm sure the players love it when they get one-shot killed from a backstab (dice-rolled and all) in a situation they could have never foreseen, or killed in their sleep, or all those other nasty things that happen to NPCs. I'm sure they have having a great time! The players know that they aren't getting any special treatment. There are no one-shot kills, unless the dice happen to fall that way. Why should the PC's be above and beyond the rules, able to do things that NPCs cannot? You know, what if someone posted this: "My DM killed me without rolling any dice. My PC was walking in this garden with their friend, and their friend went and stabbed me in the back! My DM said it was realistic since it only required 2 inches of movement to kill my PC!!!!111! Then my DM went and said that this furthered the story, so dice weren't needed!" If someone posted that, people would ream the DM for killing the PC without using dice. I guess I'm lost as to why people want to hand out insta-kill cards to their PCs, but are against using this same treatment against the PCs? Because it'd cause hard feelings? To me as a PC, I'd be annoyed because I was getting this free insta-kill card. PCs and NPCs use the same rules set. To break the rules for one, it's only fair to break them for both.
Johnathan_Vagabond 03-28-08, 02:04 PM	Because, at the point where the action of the plan is "move wrist two inches to the right," most of the plan is done and it's a fairly basic body movement. Anatomically speaking, there aren't a lot of places you could make one stab and immediately kill someone. Sure, a trained assassin might slip it inbetween the King's vertibrae, or a clever thug might slash the kings neck from behind. Most other places take time to kill someone as the bleed out. Time to run Time to make noise Time to scream (providing the lungs and throat are intact) Between 1990 and 1992 there were 120 knife attacks treated by one hospital. 20 of these attacks were fatal, only 8 of them died before reaching the hospital. If 1 out of 15 attacks didn't kill the victim, and only 2 out of five died before reaching the hospital (not immediately, but in transit) then its a good bet that killing someone instantly with a knife takes more than moving the wrist two inches to the right.
StSteven 03-28-08, 02:05 PM	As far as the two weapons thing and the magic use, you totally miss the point. The ranger is trained to use weapons to kill things. He is very skilled at it, as a matter of fact. A real world human who may have stabbed someone in real life has no relation to this mythical hero who kills all the time. You cannot substitute real world experience for fantasy play here. On another point, NPCs are not treated the same by the rules as PCs. A fair fight by the core RAW is 4 PCs to one NPC of the same level. That isn't a fair fight. Wealth by level tables are different for NPCs and PCs. D&D is not a fair game. It is not set up to be a 50-50 chance of the NPCs or PCs winning. The game is skewed to the benefit of PCs in many respects. If you think that the RAW shows otherwise, you are mistaken.
PenderGrass 03-28-08, 02:06 PM	Yes, I am completely serious, I honestly believe you and your evil army of dicelords seek to imprison us happy and freedom loving roleplayer and chain us up to do hard-labor till the end of time. I didn't realize I had an "evil army" - that is cool. :dragon: *****
PenderGrass 03-28-08, 02:18 PM	As far as the two weapons thing and the magic use, you totally miss the point. The ranger is trained to use weapons to kill things. He is very skilled at it, as a matter of fact. If the ranger were so very skilled, why didn't he (or was it a she?) use an ice pick - shoved through the base of the skull and scrambled hard would be the most effective in my humble opinion - much more guaranteed than a dagger. Especially with her weapon hand being able to touch the back of the target and slip right up there. Very effective and silent. A real world human who may have stabbed someone in real life has no relation to this mythical hero who kills all the time. You cannot substitute real world experience for fantasy play here. I never said to do so. In fact, I even said most Hollywood writers would write the scene exactly the way the DM ran it. The point is, this isn't Hollywood. The DM isn't (or should not be) a writer. And this isn't a script. If you want a DM to run a game just like a Hollywood script, that is fine. So long as everyone recognizes what they are doing isn't necessarily as much D&D as it is a Hollywood script. On a side note, if you feel that the base 5% miss chance is too much, then modify it down to 1% miss chance and use percentile dice to resolve it. If 1% is too much, use 1/1000th of a chance and roll a d1000. The point is that there should be a chance of a miss to keep this a game of D&D more than a Hollywood script. :dragon: *****
Reality_Czech 03-28-08, 02:22 PM	<snip>Fair Enough, but doesn't have much to do with the current contest of freedom loving roleplayers vs. the dark and evil dicelords, who would chain us all to 20-sided weights and force us to work in the polyhedron mines for all eternity. <snip> LMAO... mental image... choke... sputter... whew. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Man in the Funny Hat 03-28-08, 02:23 PM	I didn't realize I had an "evil army" - that is cool. :dragon: *****Even better - since you didn't realize you had an Evil Army you must actually be controlling it with your subconscious mind! THAT's cool. Hey! I must have the same thing then because I'm sure I don't know of any Evil Army that I control!
Lukas_the_Dead 03-28-08, 02:26 PM	Now, what if the player fails their spot check and gets that mere 2 inches of movement needed to use the dagger used against them? I'll likely roll damage, might treat it as critical, or cqg. They are more important then an NPC. The players know that they aren't getting any special treatment. There are no one-shot kills, unless the dice happen to fall that way. Why should the PC's be above and beyond the rules, able to do things that NPCs cannot? Because they are in some way linked to the people sitting in front of me. These people having a good time is my chief concern, the rules get tossed when they aren't fun, and NPCs are their to move the plot along and nothing more. I'm not some god who has this overwhelming urge to treat all of my creations fairly. You know, what if someone posted this: "My DM killed me without rolling any dice. My PC was walking in this garden with their friend, and their friend went and stabbed me in the back! My DM said it was realistic since it only required 2 inches of movement to kill my PC!!!!111! Then my DM went and said that this furthered the story, so dice weren't needed!" If someone posted that, people would ream the DM for killing the PC without using dice. How many times. . .NPC =\= PC. . .I don't know how many times I can state that view point before you get that I have no reason, and you haven't give a reason, for treating them the same. I guess I'm lost as to why people want to hand out insta-kill cards to their PCs, but are against using this same treatment against the PCs? Because it'd cause hard feelings? To me as a PC, I'd be annoyed because I was getting this free insta-kill card. PCs and NPCs use the same rules set. To break the rules for one, it's only fair to break them for both. You have an odd idea of fair. However, I don't really care about the feelings of whatever mythical entity you seem to think is behind your NPCs that thereby makes them equivalent to your PCs. LMAO... mental image... choke... sputter... whew. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: *bows* Anyway, I've always been confused by the "Tie everything to the dice" mentality that d20 breeds in some gamers . Maybe it's because the first game I really loved has as a core rule "Be Entertaining" and another was that quoting the rules was a way to get your character killed (You aren't cleared for that information, Citizen). I guess it breed in me a desire not to sit for four hours of "quote the rulebook" and to just get on with it.
Etarnon 03-28-08, 02:30 PM	Except where are the dice in real life? If a sniper has all the experience in the world, match grade ammo, sorted that ammo, cleaned and oiled weapon, short range, and immobile target, Unertl Scope, Weapon sights zoned in for the range he's using, crosswind and ballistics all accounted for, tell me again how he misses the No-Reflex-Zone shot. On even a 1% chance? You can go on about how you stabbed someone, and it wasn't simple. Have you ever stabbed someone in ambush, who was half sleep and punchy because it was 2:45 AM? Someone sleeping? If you're gonna go on about how the dice should reflect reality, give everyone about HP = Con, period, with rules for critical hits, and bleeding. Shots / wounds to the spleen, kidneys, heart, brain, and femoral arteries are /were typically lethal, until the development of modern battlefield medicine, and even then, still are very deadly, because the casualty loses consciousness, and bleeds out before anyone can get to him. If the "Assassin" has total surprise, and the skills/ Training for an aimed / called / placed shot to a specific body part, the target is done, or done in less than a minute. But these rules work both ways, so no PC wants to be on the receiving end of a bad guy with a knife in the dark, unless you use D&D's massive hit dice accumulation by level, luck points, force points or what have you to keep PCs alive and swinging, Exactly a la Hollywood. I'm curious since you brought it up, who did you stab, and what was the motivation for doing so?
PenderGrass 03-28-08, 02:43 PM	I'm curious since you brought it up, who did you stab, and what was the motivation for doing so? Unless you have a similar frame of reference, your understanding would be limited. And if you do have a similar frame of reference, you wouldn't need to ask for details. Suffice it to say, it is not just a simple motion. I cannot imagine it being so for anyone that has an ounce of humanity left in them. As hardcore as the ranger may have been, she would be wary of the surroundings, the movement of her target, the angle of her blade, etc. A single distraction of a bird fluttering from the garden might be enough to cause her target to shift unexpectedly, the blade to enter at a different angle, etc. Again, the point is, there was no real reason for the DM to override the rules in such a way. So, based on the information given, the rules of chance should have remained in play. :dragon: *****
themocaw 03-28-08, 02:50 PM	I can't believe it took me 7 pages to think of this, but: Did no one think of asking the PC if he wants to roll it out? I've done this before: "Hey, you've got like no chance to fail this. You still wanna roll it out?" Because, you know, sometimes the Players like the visceral feeling of rolling the dice out. Other times, they just wanna get on to the next part of the story. Just a thought. I wouldn't do this for every situation, maybe no more than once or twice every chapter.
Lukas_the_Dead 03-28-08, 02:55 PM	Did no one think of asking the PC if he wants to roll it out? I guess my only problem with that is it would break the 4th wall in a dramatic moment (no matter if you are rolling or not) and could spoil the mood. It would depend on who the player was I guess.
BW0222 03-28-08, 07:59 PM	Folks, I asked a simple question, "Why you couldn't follow the rules in this case?" and I get a lot of folks jumping down my throat. If you have a reasonable answer, there is no reason to get angry. Lukas the Dead, You feel that you can't get a dramatic scene by going through initiative? Why not? Can't your DM describe the actions in almost exactly the same terms? I certainly could. As for the rest of your comments (accusing someone of 'railroading', 'hack-and-slash fest', 'repeatative dice rolling', and WOW references) I don't accept slagging people or hyperbole as reasons. TwistedPuppy, "whether or not going through the mechanics would have made any difference." Why is that a reason not to go through the mechanics? Are you saying it is too time consuming, boring, etc? If the outcome is so obvious, then it shouldn't take more than a few seconds (or a minute) to run through combat -- even with ultra-dramatic descriptions. Nid_Food, The question was why not enter initiative in the case the OP brought up. None of your scenerios are following any rules and do not seem to demonstrate any advantage to not entering initiative. So after about fifty posts, these are the best reasons I get on why it isn't possible to follow the rules in this case? Lots of side topics, lots of anger, etc., but again, I see no reason not to. I'm honestly willing to look at the possible issues. Time isn't an issue as the combat would be short and killing a king would appear to be worth a minute or two. The outcome isn't an issue, since the a proper set-up within the rules should ensure the kings death. The DM can certainly describe the dramatic death, so dramatic effect shouldn't be a problem... PC: I slip a potion of sleep in the king's drink. DM: (Secretly rolls a saving throw) The king slowly nods off asleep. PC: I kill him. DM: Please roll for initiative. (DM and PC roll) DM: Ok, using your dagger you coup-de-grac him. That is an auto-hit and a critical hit, please roll for your damage. PC: 9. DM: (Secretly rolls a fortitude save). The king wakes as you drive your dagger in his throat. He tries reaching up and his eyes meet yours. Then he convulses and falls to the ground, lifeless. The same effect. Except one follow the rules and the other just says what happened. I can come up with lots of reasons why going through combat would be useful (including the fact the OP likely would never have posted the question if his DM followed the rules), but I'm still looking for a compelling reason not do.
Tequila_Sunrise 03-28-08, 08:55 PM	I can come up with lots of reasons why going through combat would be useful (including the fact the OP likely would never have posted the question if his DM followed the rules), but I'm still looking for a compelling reason not do. In the end, it's a difference in taste. You obviously like using the rules for each and every combat situation that might arise in the game (or at least more combat situations than those who you are arguing with), while they obviously consider rules to be a needless waste of time and energy in a situation like this. Everyone on this thread can argue until you all have carpel tunnel syndrome, but the fact is that nobody will ever present a "compelling reason" to use or to not use the rules in this case because the whole situation is purely a matter of taste. TS PS Has the OP said anything beyond his first post?
StSteven 03-28-08, 09:18 PM	I asked a simple question, "Why you couldn't follow the rules in this case?" and I get a lot of folks jumping down my throat. If you have a reasonable answer, there is no reason to get angry. No one has said you can't follow the rules here. On the contrary, the rules for rolling out this encounter are quite easy to apply. What is being said is that most of us don't see anything wrong with not rolling out this encounter. I don't know if most of us wouldn't have rolled out the encounter, but it is a matter of taste. Rolling for rollings sake, with the outcome already certain isn't always needed. What's the DC on that balance check to walk up the stairs...doesn't matter. How long will the king bleed...doesn't matter. It's just a judgment call. It's always a judgment call when to apply the rules and when not to. You may not think about it, but when you don't call for a strength check to pick up a saddle or a balance check to walk down the street, you are drawing the line somewhere. You can disagree with whether or not is should have been done, that's fine. The shouting happened over erroneously calling it railroading.
BW0222 03-29-08, 01:58 AM	Tequila_Sunrise, >In the end, it's a difference in taste. You can reduce any discussion down to that (D&D vs. chess, Windows vs. Mac, baseball vs. hockey). We all understand folks have different tastes. However, what is wrong in asking if folks have any valid reasons why they choose to play one way or another? What is wrong with getting folks to objectively look at their taste/style of gameplay and see if there might be actual reasons why another style might be better? Maybe one way is better than another, or at least it might be worth seeing if one might be better than the other. It also gets away from opinion bashing. If you aren't willing to change your opinion/taste (or at least consider it), there isn't any point to any discussion. I remember having a discussion with a friend about whether DMs should read box-text verbatum or paraphrase it. My preference at the time was to always paraphrase it. We could have just said "matter of taste" and let it at that. However, we discused it. I gave my reasons for paraphrasing and he gave his list of verbatum reasons. His list was longer and better than mine. So... over time, I started getting into the habit of reading verbatum whenever possible. In the king slaying case, my "taste" would be to run through this combat. However, I have actual reasons for wanting to do so in this case, but I'm open to changing my mind if folks can give me reasons why meta-gaming the encounter might be better. Lukas brought up the dramatic effect argument (ignoring the rest of his post) -- which I'm not sure running through initiative would be any less dramatic in this case. TwistedPuppy brought up it makes not difference to the outcome -- which appears to be a neutral argument applying either way. I've brought up time -- which appears minimal in this case. I'm open to others. >You obviously like using the rules for each and every combat situation that >might arise in the game (or at least more combat situations than those who >you are arguing with), It isn't a matter of like. There are advantages and disadvantages of doing things by the rules. In this case, I don't see what the advantage to not running it through initiative. My asking for reasons is an honest attempt to see if there are any. >but the fact is that nobody will ever present a "compelling reason" to use or >to not use the rules in this case because the whole situation is purely a >matter of taste. Why? Isn't is possible that someone might come up with compelling reason -- or at least enough reasons to make one better in this specific case? Given a different encounter I would immediately buy say the time or boring argument. So, I'll try the flip side... my reasons why going through initiative (in this case) is worthwhile. 1. Fierycon wouldn't be questioning his DMs ignoring the rules. I consider this conclusive. I see no reason for players to question whether I should have run key events through initiative if I could have run it through initiative without undue time, boredom, etc. 2. Running through initiative gives an illusion of unpredictablity -- even if the DM knows that the king can't survive two hits, the players don't. They don't know if he'll pull out an elemental game, if the guards will show up, etc. Folks are always worried about what ifs... a few rounds of combat usually immediately makes things more exciting. 3. Players often feel cheated when you box-text such key events. Initiative provides a greater sense of control over events than just describing things, even if it goes almost exactly as planned. 4. Since the event depends heavily on how well planned the attack was, the DM looks better if he removes as much subjectivity from the encounter as possible. Fierycon, myself and others seem to question whether there is any real chance that the encounter would actually go as described based on the plan - on dagger hit from a non-rogue. It seems more reasonable the king would survive one hit and then run, scream, etc. By running through initiative, the players objectively see the outcome and the DM isn't held to any subjective criticism. 5. It lets players know that rules can (and should be) be relied upon when deciding whether something they wish to try is reasonable. I.e. the ranger player can tell that dropping someone with a dagger might be difficult -- she can mentally use the rules to reach this determination. 6. It lets players know that poor and good plans will have consequences -- good or bad. It encourages folks to think realistically. 7. It removes the appearance of 'railroading', cheating, unfairness -- even if the DM had planned on the king dying. 8. Players need not be suspicious that bad guys will suddenly ignore the rules against them just because the DM wants to do something to them. 9. It avoids future rules arguements which arise when players start demanding that they can use the same meta-gaming/rules ignoring in future situations. Hence folks on the forum say that the attack on the king is a coup-de-grace leading any player to demand free CdG attempts on any surprise round. 10. It avoids DM favorism/fairness arguments when he/she applies #9 in this case of the ranger, but refuses to allow it when another player wants to do the same thing -- which the DM does not wish to automatically happen. 11. It removes the randomness of combat which often leads to exciting or unpredictable outcomes. For example, the king not dying in the first hit, the ranger spending several rounds grappling and stabbing the the king to death while he screams; the guards come and see the ranger moving around on top of the king in the bushed... appologize... and quickly leave. Ok. That's my reasons for wanting to run this encounter through initiative following the rules. Now, before folks dive into tearing them apart, one first needs a list of reasons on the other side -- to meta-game the event -- since even if all accepted all my reasons as minor or of low importance, there is still no reasons on the other side in which to conclude that it is better to meta-game the event. So... I'm still open to reasons on the other side.
Etarnon 03-29-08, 02:50 AM	If the rules as written do not accurately reflect the nature of combat. The Assassin has a dagger that does d4. The king has let's say 12 hit points. If the king can be stabbed in the kidneys, one slice should be enough to do mortal damage. Yet the assassin, if rolling to hit, can roll a 1. And, supposing he doesn't, can roll a '1' on damage. How many games has anyone reading this thread seen, where a thug with a light crossbow pointed it at someone's forehead or chest and demanded money, said or seen a fellow playin same situation say, "I'm 3rd level. I know he can't kill me in one shot. I draw my sword and attack."? It's not so much that it needs to be metagamed, or DM fiat, but if the rules are such that players accumulate hit points by level, as "Luck, fate, what have you" does this not then mean that PCs will more often than not survive such attacks? Yet NPCs don't with the typical commoner having in the neighborhood of 4 to 6 Hit points. Right there, it skews the system in favor of PCs. And if that's the way it is so be it. someone trying to take down the king can do it in a stroke, then escape with the King's Guard, if they hear anything, chases after the escaping killer, all the while "hitting" which wears down "luck/Hit points." I say the problem is not in using rules or not, it is in using rules to simulate a "Reality situation" that requires "Reality Simulation-based rules", which D&D is most certainly not. It does come down to Use the rules as written, but if not, Decide by DM Fiat, based on the needs of the story to be. If the follow-on adventure is going to require the ranger to be alive, then the DM rules it should happen. If this is a solo campaign, and the Ranger dies killing the king, the game ends right there. Now should such a scenario be run? P{erhaps, if the ranger is willing to risk it. However, I can think of a special case, where this scenario is the past of a known future. But all that is known of the past, is that Aforesaid ranger killed the king. The rest of history says nothing of what happened afterward. So the player says, DM, I want to play out my Ancestor's adventure.... Do you then roll for the "Known to history outcome?" Or do you in fact change the history as written. This calls attention (at least to me) the nature of free will, "random" chance, probability, and alternate timelines, and cause and effect, fate, etc. Not that I want to derail the thread into those realms, but...If it is known to have happened, what then? Is it railroading? How is it railroading if the player requests it? Is it then railroading for the DM to request a roll, when the player in question (in the future) knows the history? What of the character going for the asassination? Is he/she metagaming? oer is the sheer purpose of it to see "What happened next?" If so, why not pick it up at "Your blade is pulled away, and the King falls, bleeding and dying. what do you do next? Except that would violate the precept of "Knifing is so hard to do", that we saw above. so.. roll it out or? This is where it is and should be up to the province of the DM, as in all things. If the players don't like it, they can of course decide that such a style of game is not for them, and exempt themselves from future play.
MergedLoki 03-29-08, 04:02 AM	How many times. . .NPC =\= PC. . .I don't know how many times I can state that view point before you get that I have no reason, and you haven't give a reason, for treating them the same. Just to add to your whole 'the npc's don't equal the pc's' I just picked up the Eberron campaign setting (tired of FR for awhile) and it's got that whole 'action points' rule where the pc's, because they are heroes and special and above the norm for the world, get these action points, which basically can help a pc modify rolls to succeed where they would otherwise fail. I don't believe i'm going to use them but who knows? Also says right in this section 'it's not advised to give action points to NPC's as they are not the heroes of the campaign' the campaign is about the pc's adventures, not about the DM's attempts to thwart their efforts. So, as has been stated, id say it was within the DM's right to just say 'ok that kills the king' and let it further the storyline. not that i've ever HAD a pc try to kill a king, but at the most I might of made him roll an attack roll and if that hit have it kill the king.
StSteven 03-29-08, 08:39 AM	Meta-gaming also has nothing to do with it. You are either settling the outcome with common sense or dice. Both are meta-game solutions. Throwing around terms with highly negative connotation, and little direct bearing on the debate isn't helpful. One reason needed to not use the combat rules in this case is that they don't make sense. There isn't a 5% chance of missing. There is very little way that someone with a dagger to the back of the king will not kill him. Another reason is that the outcome was predetermined. The ranger was going to kill the king. There is not control issue with the player (or railroading for that matter) because what the player wanted to happen happened. Again, I have to ask where you draw the line, and why you think that you aren't drawing a line. You do not use the rules to determine the outcome of every situation.
BW0222 03-29-08, 11:55 AM	Etarnon, I can certainly buy that rules are often highly separated from reality and that may be a reason to meta-game some situations. Your example is pretty good. My counter points for that arguement are: First, it doesn't apply in this case. Running the ranger/king combat through initiative does not appear to get into this case. Second, box-texting the combat seems just as likely to get into the same issue. This appears to be the case with the ranger/king combat which seems a pretty 'unreal' outcome to many folks here. Third, it puts the DM in a terrible position of subjectively deciding what is realistic or not, all the arguements it leads to, plus critisisms from the players. Forth, at some point, you have to accept that D&D is an alternate reality governed by different rules. Folks can always just adjust their tactics (using the rules as a guideline) to get more realistic results. The assassins knows (from experience) that a single light crossbow bolt won't kill most seasoned aventurers/soliders/guards. So... he comes up with a better plan. Say having a friend grab (grapple) the PC while holding a shortsword to his throat, putting poison on the quarrel, etc. StSteven, Meta-game is not a negative term. It merely away of describing play in which an event is not explicitly played out through dice rolling or the rules. Someone wants to go buy a pair of boots. You can call it "box-texting" if you like. Any D&D term can have a negative slant. "There isn't a 5% chance of missing. There is very little way that someone with a dagger to the back of the king will not kill him." Says who? Do you have any idea of the survival rates in of knife attacks or how many wounds on average are needed to be fatal? You have no objective evidence that a real world combat would go anything like the single hit auto-hit and kill. I wouldn't waste my time at the game table pulling out FBI reports, hospital statistics, or anatomy dumbies showing the percentage of rib and spinal cord coverage of the heart or lungs as the burden of believeability is on you. (BTW, firearm survival rates for being shot in the head are over 20% and over 9% even when the bullet penetrates your brain. Survival rates are obviously much higher for injuries to the body and certainly much higher for single knife wounds to the body). Choosing to meta-game (box-text if you like) this encounter does not lead to anything like a more realistic outcome than running it through initiative.
Etarnon 03-29-08, 08:06 PM	It puts the DM in a terrible position of subjectively deciding what is realistic or not, all the arguements it leads to, plus critisisms from the players. Seems to me like that pretty much define's a DM's job since Original D&D. Now, following that you have "Have to accept it's an alternate reality..." vs. "FBI real world wound reports." Which was your example? Because I saw both. Again, it comes down to: D&D is not a combat simulation game, not nearly so mauch as something like TFG's Delta Force, or Timeline Inc's Morrow Project, or Rhand Phoenix Command. It seems to me that it's a difference between DM's story as Drama, and let's wait for the die rolls as drama. I think it was referenced before in the thread, do you need die rolls to walk across a street? There is a chance however slim, that a person might stumble, fall, and hit their head on concrete...but who makes a PC roll for that? It's a gaming style, more than which one is correct. I can see it done as Roll it out, or DM describes, whichever the DM desires. I trust a DM to know what he or she is doing with the story. Whatever tools and methods they want to use, I'm all for it, until my suspension of disbelief is blown to shreds. I mean, we're talking phrases in game like "You see a fire breathing dragon swooping over a village." Vs. "Someone ambushes an old guy with a knife, he falls." There's a level of reality in combat and simulation, and then there's "Imagine the events as described, and move on, because that's what happened in-game." I'm suggesting that people should not look under the game engine hood too closely, because otherwise you need to explain how magic works, why do drakes breathe different effects, how does invisibility work, etc. Extended to in other games, Hyperspace, huge mega energy cannons, etc. If the DM says Hey, the Ranger stabs, the king falls, I'm good with it. If the DM says the bandit shoots you point blank, and you're PC is dead, I'm good with it, too. If I'm not, I can find a different DM.
Nid_Food 03-31-08, 08:48 AM	Nid_Food, The question was why not enter initiative in the case the OP brought up. None of your scenerios are following any rules and do not seem to demonstrate any advantage to not entering initiative. You're right, the scenarios I described don't follow any rules, which was basically what you did. The only difference was that 2 of the scenarios were insta-kills against a PC. Each group/DM does things differently. In my group, everyone expects that anything a PC can do, the NPCs can do right back at them, and vice versa. This gives everyone a sense of fair play. Once you open the can of worms that insta-killing can cause, what's to stop your PCs from abusing it, citing that you allowed them to do it once, why not again and again? More information on your scenario would be helpful, at least about the king. Was the king a level 1 wimp, or a level 20 hero? Was the kingdom rich or poor, large or small? All of this would determine just how prepared the king may have been prepared for an assassination, and how successful that attempt was. For instance, if you say the the king was a crusader-type, always on the front lines, so was a level 15 fighter, then I think the insta-kill is way, way out of line -- the man would have survived blows from giants, countless arrows and swords swung at him, and likely many, many near-fatal wounds. If you say the king was ruler of a large and rich country, then it only makes sense that some loyal advisors would constantly keep him protected with the best money can buy. My opinion is that you should have rolled the dice. If the king was a level 1 wimp, then only lady luck would have saved him in this situation. Heck, if you had ruled it a coup de grace (I don't agree with that ruling), then the king would have to either be lucky, or higher level to survive that wound.
Krusk 03-31-08, 11:33 AM	Each group/DM does things differently. In my group, everyone expects that anything a PC can do, the NPCs can do right back at them, and vice versa. This gives everyone a sense of fair play. Once you open the can of worms that insta-killing can cause, what's to stop your PCs from abusing it, citing that you allowed them to do it once, why not again and again? These both go against the primary rule of any dnd game I and most people run. Don't be a tool. NPC's instakilling the PCs in a cinematic event, and PCs asking to have events done in a cinematic manner without die rolling and recieving auto success both fall into this area. If a cinematic event is going to happen, it should be at a DM determined point, only if no one objects, and rare. More information on your scenario would be helpful, at least about the king. Was the king a level 1 wimp, or a level 20 hero? Was the kingdom rich or poor, large or small? All of this would determine just how prepared the king may have been prepared for an assassination, and how successful that attempt was. For instance, if you say the the king was a crusader-type, always on the front lines, so was a level 15 fighter, then I think the insta-kill is way, way out of line -- the man would have survived blows from giants, countless arrows and swords swung at him, and likely many, many near-fatal wounds. All of this information is irrelivant, as the PC's do not need to nor should they know it. If you say the king was ruler of a large and rich country, then it only makes sense that some loyal advisors would constantly keep him protected with the best money can buy. See my post ( http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15439072&postcount=126 ) , while half in jest, about the actuality of Kings following their advisors advice about protection.
tinculin 03-31-08, 12:06 PM	You don't need to be a trained assassin to assasinate someone - your simply more trained at it. I would ask some of the more 'pro rulers' that have posted on this thread, would you make a 16th level melee class duel wielding with 6 attacks per round, roll to kill a lvl 1 commoner with 4hp using a full attack action? If not, when would you stop forcing a roll & narrate the event - what odds must me in a persons favour before you put the dice down? In the above example & With the odds stacked against failure at 64 million to one, thats something as a DM i'd just narrate with my players and not bring out dice rolling. That doesn't however mean i'd let them get away with the consequences of such an act. When you get down to the guts of the topic, it is simply a discussion of where the line is drawn between narration & dice rolls. If that had been me as a DM, i'd of secretly made a roll to simulate a sense motive check vs something like the players bluff +20 (i'd assume the roleplaying beforehand in which the player gained the kings confidence & trust would be an equivalent of taking 20). Assuming the king failed this, i'd make a fortitude save as per the coup de grace guidelines and only if the save would be successful & the king have enough hp to remain conscious would i take it any further (this would depend entirely on if the character was a king like Aragorn or a feeble weak old man). After the event I'd also give the player an alignment hit towards evil. I realise that in the D&D guidelines it might not qualify as a helpless opponent - but there isn't really much in the books to cover acts of betrayal & assuming the roleplaying done has been convincing and well played out, i'd rule it as a coup de grace attempt. Needless to say, betrayal & assassination are both nasty acts, so the player in question would take a hit towards evil.
Nid_Food 03-31-08, 12:30 PM	These both go against the primary rule of any dnd game I and most people run. Don't be a tool. NPC's instakilling the PCs in a cinematic event, and PCs asking to have events done in a cinematic manner without die rolling and recieving auto success both fall into this area. If a cinematic event is going to happen, it should be at a DM determined point, only if no one objects, and rare. You say it should be rare, I say it shouldn't happen at all. If this happened in a game I was playing in, I'd object. See my post ( http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15439072&postcount=126 ) , while half in jest, about the actuality of Kings following their advisors advice about protection. Look a few posts down as I answered you http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15439491&postcount=130 Short answer, is yes, if I was someone as important as a king, then yes, I'd always take precautions with my life.
TwistedPuppy 03-31-08, 01:17 PM	BW0222, the DM has the prerogative to decide when rolling dice is appropriate, and when it isn't. In this case, he/she decided it was a roleplaying situation. I suppose the DM must have felt that the assassination of the king would benefit the game and make it more fun for the players, so he allowed it. As a DM, if a player had a good plan and roleplayed a situation like this, I might make the same decision as the OP's DM. If the player involved asked for a die roll, sure, I'd let them. If a player whose character was not involved in the event complained that mechanics should have been used, I'd reply that I'll be glad to go through the mechanics when his character is involved. The best GM I ever gamed with made decisions like that to advance the storyline and add some drama and tension to the game. It wasn't often, maybe once every two or three sessions, but it always made the game fun. For him roleplay took precedence over mechanics at certain points, and we trusted him to decide when that was. Of course the results of this situation could have been rolled out. But there is a difference between "could have been" and "was required to be." I just don't think that in this case it is much of an issue that it was not. At most, you just go to the DM after the game and point out that you'd like to go through the mechanics the next time something like this comes up and move on.
UAMDB 03-31-08, 03:46 PM	Second, it adds a sense of unrealism and sillyness to the game. It isn't so easy to stap someone to death unless you are a professional or plan it really well. Few folks in the US are single stabbed to death, dying instantly. You never been to my neighborhood. :) It is quite possible to be killed with a single stab. And while not dying "instantly" you will die with in a few secs (a round if you will) and be able to do nothing. There are ways of stabbing people that will prevent them from being able to speak, and they will be dead with in seconds. Is this common knowledge we are talking about? Not really, but it is also not something only a select few know about either. You also speak of it being "unrealism" and "silly" in a fantasy game. It is more realistic that someone dies from being stabbed in the back once, then living through a sword cut, dagger stab, fireball, and then finally dying from a magic missle attack. Which is the way most fights play out. OP: Where you tring to protect the king? Or was it your mission to kill the king? If you had no desire either way, then what is the problem?
PenderGrass 03-31-08, 04:56 PM	BW0222, the DM has the prerogative to decide when rolling dice is appropriate, and when it isn't. In this case, he/she decided it was a roleplaying situation. I suppose the DM must have felt that the assassination of the king would benefit the game and make it more fun for the players, so he allowed it. Pure speculation. Not to say that it isn't hopeful that this was actually the case, but the OP left a situation that is unclear. So, without there being an obvious reason to override the standard rolls used for resolving combat-type situations, the DM should have followed the SOP of the game. That is the default for running any game. Even the DMG says unless you have a reason to not follow the RAW, you should not ignore them. As a DM, if a player had a good plan and roleplayed a situation like this, I might make the same decision as the OP's DM. If the player involved asked for a die roll, sure, I'd let them. If a player whose character was not involved in the event complained that mechanics should have been used, I'd reply that I'll be glad to go through the mechanics when his character is involved. The best GM I ever gamed with made decisions like that to advance the storyline and add some drama and tension to the game. It wasn't often, maybe once every two or three sessions, but it always made the game fun. For him roleplay took precedence over mechanics at certain points, and we trusted him to decide when that was. I don't think it is correct to say one method is role-playing and the other is not role-playing. The role-playing involved can be intensive no matter which way a DM rules it. For instance, the DM could stand up (in-character of the King) and clutch his "wound," crying out in pain and calling for the guards as he crumples to the floor. This isn't dependent upon whether the dice were used to get there or not. A game that would use dice to resolve the situation could easily be more role-play intensive than a non-dice game. Therefore, neither determines how much role-play is involved. Of course the results of this situation could have been rolled out. But there is a difference between "could have been" and "was required to be." I just don't think that in this case it is much of an issue that it was not. At most, you just go to the DM after the game and point out that you'd like to go through the mechanics the next time something like this comes up and move on. Again, with the limited information given by the OP, there is not enough to justify a DM to override the rules. A DM should always have a clear understanding of when and why and how to override any of the rules/guidelines. Since - all conjectures aside - nothing here indicates that reasoning having been taken, it should not have happened. :dragon: *****
Krusk 03-31-08, 05:11 PM	You say it should be rare, I say it shouldn't happen at all. If this happened in a game I was playing in, I'd object. Look a few posts down as I answered you http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15439491&postcount=130 Short answer, is yes, if I was someone as important as a king, then yes, I'd always take precautions with my life. Well if you objected to the situation, in my games we would roll it out. "ok describe what happens" "ok well im going to attempt to slide my blade from my hidden sheath into his back while no one looks." "where on his back?" "somewhere with a vital organ or something?" "ok you slide the blade up, and pierce between his ribs from behind into his heart. He slumps dea..." "HEy wait a min, there was no rolling, we need to roll." "What, really?" "Yes, definatly" "... fine, undo that scenario. roll your dice" "uh, i got a 13 to hit?" "Ok damage?" " ..... 17+4, 21" "Ok you slide the blade up, and pierce between his ribs from behind into his heart. He slumps dead at your feet" " are we going to have to do this everytime there is a virtual auto success on an action, or are we good from now on?" " definatly every time." "really, that seems like a waste"
StSteven 03-31-08, 05:35 PM	Either it can never happen or it can at the DM's discretion. You can't have it both ways. The pure speculation going on is that the DM (who has never given his side of the encounter) didn't have a reason to do it this way. That is just as much pure speculation as to assume that he had a good reason to do it this way. The debate has been about whether or not it can ever be handled this way. Now to say yes under certain conditions after saying no, not ever is quite a change. I think the folks that were saying that it is OK always assumed he had a reason. That is kinda implicit in the argument.
AaronDireBear 03-31-08, 05:36 PM	In what movies does a weakling instantly kill a powerful character? This scene just seems really contrived to me... As I recall the villain in Secret of NIMH was taken down this way, by his dying ex accomplice, only the dagger was thrown.
Etarnon 04-01-08, 12:30 AM	If you say the king was ruler of a large and rich country, then it only makes sense that some loyal advisors would constantly keep him protected with the best money can buy. Yet, many rulers, and rulers to be are often assassinated.
Nid_Food 04-01-08, 07:39 AM	"uh, i got a 13 to hit?" Now, what happens when he rolls a natural 1? You described it as a virtual auto success, when there is the chance of failure. Suddenly a well thought out plan has an error in it, a small mistake that could be RPed as anything -- wet grass, flash of sunlight in the eyes...etc. And really, did the 30 seconds of rolling take that long? Yet, many rulers, and rulers to be are often assassinated. And how many assassinations are stopped? Probably many more than we're aware of, as I wouldn't be surprised if there are many that are thwarted before they are even attempted.
Michaelk 04-01-08, 09:15 AM	Should DnD be any different? Yes.
TwistedPuppy 04-01-08, 09:38 AM	Pure speculation. It's also pure speculation to assume the OP was privy to all of what went on between the assassin and the target, but that hasn't stopped people from assuming that it was as cut and dried as he made it sound. Why is it that those of us who give the DM the benefit of a doubt in this case are speculating, but those who predict him starting to hand out insta-kill cards or killing characters by DM fiat are using given facts and logic? Not to say that it isn't hopeful that this was actually the case, but the OP left a situation that is unclear. ***** Exactly. And he hasn't chimed in with any additional information after eight pages of debate. I'm betting he's laughing as he reads this stuff. My point is that he didn't give us enough information for me to say the DM was wrong to act as he did. And unless the OP gives us more, I think we're doing that DM a disservice to criticize his actions. If the OP comes on and says that the player involved asked for a roll and the DM denied it, yeah, then I'll say the DM made an error in judgment. But if his character was not involved, and the ranger didn't ask for a roll, then as far as I'm concerned the OP doesn't have anything to complain about. Now, what happens when he rolls a natural 1? You described it as a virtual auto success, when there is the chance of failure. Suddenly a well thought out plan has an error in it, a small mistake that could be RPed as anything -- wet grass, flash of sunlight in the eyes...etc. And really, did the 30 seconds of rolling take that long? Let's say it get rolled out... the player does roll a "1".. now the guards react and the ranger is in combat with them. That's going to be a bit more than 30 seconds to resolve. Meanwhile all the other players are still sitting around waiting for their characters to get back into the action. For all we know the other players were starting to put their stuff up and get ready to leave because they were bored out of their minds while the ranger did her thing. (Pendergrass, I admit that is conjecture, and pushing it to an extreme, but no more so than some of those who demand the situation be rolled out are using.) Getting the game moving along and the other players back involved seems like plenty of justification to gloss over the assassination to me.
PenderGrass 04-01-08, 02:05 PM	Why is it that those of us who give the DM the benefit of a doubt in this case are speculating, but those who predict him starting to hand out insta-kill cards or killing characters by DM fiat are using given facts and logic? The simple fact that the situation warranted a question to be composed and posted on this forum is enough to say that the DM ignored the rules at an inappropriate time. In other words, this debate would not exist if it weren't for the incident being called into question in the first place. :dragon: *****
Krusk 04-01-08, 02:47 PM	Now, what happens when he rolls a natural 1? You described it as a virtual auto success, when there is the chance of failure. Suddenly a well thought out plan has an error in it, a small mistake that could be RPed as anything -- wet grass, flash of sunlight in the eyes...etc. And really, did the 30 seconds of rolling take that long? He rolls a one, the situation now goes like so... "ok describe what happens" "ok well im going to attempt to slide my blade from my hidden sheath into his back while no one looks." "where on his back?" "somewhere with a vital organ or something?" "ok you slide the blade up, and pierce between his ribs from behind into his heart. He slumps dea..." "HEy wait a min, there was no rolling, we need to roll." "What, really?" "Yes, definatly" "... fine, undo that scenario. roll your dice" "uh, i got a nat 1..?" "Ok ... you manage to slide your blade into his back, but right before you go for the killing stroke he notices and begins to resist. The attack misses, begin init.?" "Ok I got an 8" "You are first, go" "I stab him. 8 to hit, 14 damage." "Ok you thrust the blade forward, and pierce between his ribs into his heart. He slumps dead at your feet" " are we going to have to do this everytime there is a virtual auto success on an action, or are we good from now on?" " definatly every time." "really, that seems like a waste"
PenderGrass 04-01-08, 05:08 PM	He rolls a one, the situation now goes like so... "ok describe what happens" "ok well im going to attempt to slide my blade from my hidden sheath into his back while no one looks." "where on his back?" "somewhere with a vital organ or something?" "ok you slide the blade up, and pierce between his ribs from behind into his heart. He slumps dea..." "HEy wait a min, there was no rolling, we need to roll." "What, really?" "Yes, definatly" "... fine, undo that scenario. roll your dice" "uh, i got a nat 1..?" "Ok ... you manage to slide your blade into his back, but right before you go for the killing stroke he notices and begins to resist. The attack misses, begin init.?" "Ok I got an 8" "You are first, go" "I stab him. 8 to hit, 14 damage." "Ok you thrust the blade forward, and pierce between his ribs into his heart. He slumps dead at your feet" " are we going to have to do this everytime there is a virtual auto success on an action, or are we good from now on?" " definatly every time." "really, that seems like a waste" PLAYER - "Why didn't you have the King cry out for help? It sure seems like you just wanted him dead regardless of what happened. I detect a DM that is bored with gaming." :dragon: *****
themocaw 04-01-08, 05:30 PM	PLAYER - "Why didn't you have the King cry out for help? It sure seems like you just wanted him dead regardless of what happened. I detect a DM that is bored with gaming." :dragon: ***** DM: "Okay. The king cries out for help before he dies. As you turn around, you see about a hundred guards running into the garden, including the Captain of the Guard (whom, as you are aware, is a Fighter six levels higher than you are.) He screams "ASSASSIN!" and rushes you. . . Let's roll it out. . . oh look, you lost initiative. Roll to hit. . . you take a two handed sword power attack. . . how many hit points did you have? Well, not any more, you're now at -6, but the King's Cleric is healing you up. . . you wake up in a jail cell heavily guarded, awaiting your trial for murder. You face the rack and the iron maiden tonight, and the headsman tomorrow morning." PC: "Yeah, that's right! That'll teach you to fudge the dice in my favor in the interests of advancing the plot!" DM: "I'm glad you're so happy. Now roll up a new character while I deal with the other party members." PC: "Wait, don't I get to roll to escape from prison?" DM: "If you want. . . roll it. . . natural 20? Okay, you manage to break out of the rack before the guard (rolls initiative, then rolls grapple) grabs you by the throat and shoves you back onto the table with the red-hot pokers and the brands. Moving on. . ." PC: "I'm gonna try again." DM: "What?" PC: "I'm gonna try to escape again." DM: "Okay, roll it out. . . you fail. The guard gets sick and tired of your attempts to escape and hacks off your feet." PC: "But that's not in the rulebook, it doesn't say you can cut off my feet to stop me from escaping?" DM: "Fine, he coup de graces you instead. . . and you're dead in a torture chamber. Buh Bye." PC: "That's fine, my friends will resurrect me, right?" Cleric: "So, you were saying?" PC: "Wait, you're not gonna use True Resurrection on me?" Cleric: "Why would I bother wasting such an important spell on someone who couldn't even assassinate the king right? Roll up a new character." PC: "You're an a--hole, you're screwing up the party cohesion." Cleric: "Whatever, mister "I want to roll to kill the king."" DM: "If we can all shut up and listen, I'm trying to DM a game here. So as the Ranger is dying painfully and horribly in the torture chambers. . ."
PenderGrass 04-01-08, 05:37 PM	DM: "Okay. The king cries out for help before he dies. As you turn around, you see about a hundred guards running into the garden-" Player: "You suck as a DM." Player leaves table. :dragon: *****
nightwyrm 04-01-08, 05:46 PM	Player: "You suck as a DM." Player leaves table. :dragon: ***** Or...a more interesting scenario and probably more helpful to this discussion. DM: Your surprise attack misses (natural 1). The king wins initiative, runs (withdraw action) to the door and shouts for help. You can hear the footsteps of guards running towards your direction. You figure they'll probably be here in a few rounds (the dm didn't plan for this and rolls a 1d4 behind his screen to determine how much time the ranger has). Do you want to continue trying to kill the king or escape in the opposite direction? Something like this is probably more reasonable rather than the hyperboles some of you are coming up with.
green_yawgmoth 04-01-08, 06:01 PM	If the players are fine with it, it's all good. If everyone wants to roll everything out, it's all good. The great thing about RPGs is that everyone can enjoy the same game in different styles. The dice are merely there to settle arguments.
PenderGrass 04-01-08, 06:14 PM	Something like this is probably more reasonable rather than the hyperboles some of you are coming up with. Player: "You suck as a DM." DM: "I call on my league of role-playing freedom fighters." Player: "I call on my Evil Army controlled by my subconscious." DM: "My freedom fighters slay your Evil army - no rolls needed." Player: "My Evil Army is immune to your attacks of rail-roading story-telling DM tactics." Mother: "WILL YOU BOTH SHUT-UP DOWN THERE!!???!!! sheesh - a person can't even watch American Idol without you stupid gamers yelling at each other...." DM [whispering]: "I push the red button and destroy the Universe." Player [whispering]: "You better roll for that...." ...and thus it begins anew. :dragon: *****
StSteven 04-01-08, 06:14 PM	The simple fact that the situation warranted a question to be composed and posted on this forum is enough to say that the DM ignored the rules at an inappropriate time. In other words, this debate would not exist if it weren't for the incident being called into question in the first place. :dragon: ***** That is pure speculation. So are any scenarios that you come up with. My pure speculation (that relies on fewer leaps of faith) is that the ranger knew he was in a position to kill the king and get away with it. The player would have thought about the king yelling for help. There was obviously (unless the player was an idiot) that yelling for help wasn't going to result in the ranger being captured. Therefore, the DM did a reasonable thing in auto-killing the king. The simple fact is that because this debate exists, the DM was reasonable in his decision. "Rules always" minded DMs would roll it out and "rules as a facilitator" DMs feel it is ok to not roll it out. I'm sure there are reasonable folks in the latter camp (possibly even both).
Zappy 04-01-08, 07:22 PM	Folks, I asked a simple question, "Why you couldn't follow the rules in this case?", but I'm still looking for a compelling reason not do. Because the King was not actually a no HP 1 or 2 level aristocrat as everyone has said. He was actually a high level sorceror who had a modified, home brewed, self made, pseudo Feign Death spell in effect. It reads as such when the caster takes damage he immediatly appears to die and takes no more damage from any subsequent attacks for the period of three hours per caster level (22). So they could have rolled it out and the Ranger could have sat there slashing for 66 hours until the spell finally wore off. In stead the DM said the King dies and the ranger runs off. A few sessions later he was supposed to come back and surprise the PC's however through your demanding of rolls that surprise has been ruined! That is just one example of why I couldn't follow the rules. Perhaps the OP's DM had a similar one that the OP didn't know about.
nightwyrm 04-01-08, 07:30 PM	Player: "You suck as a DM." DM: "I call on my league of role-playing freedom fighters." Player: "I call on my Evil Army controlled by my subconscious." DM: "My freedom fighters slay your Evil army - no rolls needed." Player: "My Evil Army is immune to your attacks of rail-roading story-telling DM tactics." Mother: "WILL YOU BOTH SHUT-UP DOWN THERE!!???!!! sheesh - a person can't even watch American Idol without you stupid gamers yelling at each other...." DM [whispering]: "I push the red button and destroy the Universe." Player [whispering]: "You better roll for that...." ...and thus it begins anew. :dragon: ***** Ah....and I was under the impression that we're all mature, responsible adults....my mistake. :banghead:
PenderGrass 04-01-08, 07:36 PM	Ah....and I was under the impression that we're all mature, responsible adults....my mistake. :banghead: Stop banging your head. It is a joke. How could anything that includes American Idol not be a joke? :dragon: *****
nightwyrm 04-01-08, 07:40 PM	Stop banging your head. It is a joke. How could anything that includes American Idol not be a joke? :dragon: ***** I got it was a joke, perhaps I used the wrong smiley. :P
Johnathan_Vagabond 04-02-08, 09:30 AM	Bad luck can always account for the 5% miss chance. Ranger: I slip the dagger out behind his back. DM: *rolls* The King continues to walk, paying your knife no attention. Ranger: Fantastic, I slide the dagger between his ribs. DM: Ok, roll. Ranger: *rolls* oh no, natural 1. DM: Ok. Just before your dagger makes contact, the King stumbles over a loose stone, bumping his hand into your chest in the process. He turns around sheepishly to apologize and sees the dagger. Roll initiative. Ranger: Alright, come on improved initiative. *rolls* 17, hows that. DM: Lets see, *rolls* better than the King. He is stunned by your actions and waits for an explanation. Ranger: I tell him 'I'll explain later' and rush him. *rolls* Thats a 16 total, for 5 damage. DM: You stab the surprised King, but he's stronger than his pudge lets on. The wound must be superficial, because turns around and bolts for the guards, screaming. Take your AoO. Ranger: *rolls* 13, for 6 damage, does that hit? DM: Yes. The King stumbles, bleeding profusely from the wound in his back. He's not dead, but he can barely run or scream, he still tries though. He only manages to stumble 30 feet away, bringing him just around the corner from the guards. Ranger: No! I throw the dagger at him. *rolls* 19 *rolls* 12, does a 12 hit? DM: Yes, barely. Ranger: It's a crit! 9 damage! DM: The King stumbles and collapses. He isn't moving, you doubt he'll survive long. Make a listen check. Ranger: *rolls* 12, what do I hear. DM: You aren't sure how many, but at least one armor clad guard is approaching, he probably heard the scream. Ranger: I whisper 'see you later, highness.' and bolt outta there. Bad luck is whats supposed to account for any natural 1, not poor skill. Skill is a success or failure between natural 2s and 19s.
Lukas_the_Dead 04-02-08, 10:34 AM	I love that people are still fighting over there way being, "The one true way of playing D&D." It's almost like people are saying, "Anyone different from me has to be wrong! I need someone to look down on, otherwise I might lose my self-worth!" Not that poking the zealots with a stick isn't a whole lot of fun mind you, I just wanted to share my amusement that people really think there is a right way to have fun. I mean, some people find my love of kicking the wasp nest juvenile, and then I poke them with a stick.
Johnathan_Vagabond 04-02-08, 10:52 AM	Yet you've said many times that the DM must treat PCs differently than NPCs. That doesn't leave room for difference of opinion either.
Lukas_the_Dead 04-02-08, 12:21 PM	Yet you've said many times that the DM must treat PCs differently than NPCs. That doesn't leave room for difference of opinion either. Nope, I said PCs and NPCs aren't by default equivalent, and so there is no reason I must treat them the same.
StSteven 04-02-08, 09:00 PM	Nope, I said PCs and NPCs aren't by default equivalent, and so there is no reason I must treat them the same. I think this is a running theme here. The folks on this side are saying that there is no reason that the DM must do it either way. It was acceptable to do it the way he did it. It would be acceptable to do it by rolling it out. There does seem to be a lot of "you must do this" and "you must do that." I hate that in all forms (at least as far as D&D goes).
BW0222 04-16-08, 11:55 AM	TwistedPuppy, "... the DM has the prerogative to decide when rolling dice is appropriate, and when it isn't." Lots of folks keep bringing this one up. It is a non-arguement, since no one is arguing that a DM doesn't have the right to play one way or the other. The OP (and we) are discussing whether the DM should have in this case. Discussing this does not deny DM the right to do what he did or prevent him from doing so in the future. I see nothing wrong with challenging a style of play, examining others, and listing the advantages and disadvantages for each over the other. I see nothing wrong with asking for reasons from people to allow open-minding folks to make up their own minds. I appreciate folks who come forward with reasons and who are willing to defend them. Good arguements have led to me changing my style of DMing in a number of cases -- ways of tracking initiative, whether to read box-text verbatum or not, CR calculations or not, use treasure limits, use of 'certs' in home games, etc. I am honestly interested in reasons why folks wouldn't run through initiative in this case. I'm not doing this to make folks look bad (in case folks don't have many reasons). I've given credit to folks who have provided reasons and I've given my reasons to run this case through initiative. I certainly allow others the freedom to judge the merits of each reason themselves. However, saying that "the DM has the prerogative" isn't an argument. It comes across as just wanting to end discussion without providing reasons. Saying that one has the right to do something is not and answer to asking for reasons why someone is doing something on way vs. another.
Krusk 04-16-08, 02:59 PM	I am honestly interested in reasons why folks wouldn't run through initiative in this case. I'm not doing this to make folks look bad (in case folks don't have many reasons). Because when the DM deems an action an auto success no die rolling is needed. When the DM thinks an action should not need die rolling for cinematic enhancement, no die are rolled. Should this be done to players? NPCs auto killing them? of course not, should this be done whenever the players want? of course not. It should rarely be done, and only when it enhances the story, without hurting the PCs or making things way to easy. Considering that the PC put a lot of effort into the assassination, the DM probably planned the next X encounters around this action succeeding. So the DM allowed it to auto succeed without roles, so that the hours of encounter prep were not wasted.
LeeAlucard 04-16-08, 06:02 PM	Yet you've said many times that the DM must treat PCs differently than NPCs. That doesn't leave room for difference of opinion either. By the rules, PCs are supposed to be treated in a different manner. Otherwise, the entire party would get leveled by an NPC Diplomancer.
BW0222 04-16-08, 07:47 PM	Krusk, >Because when the DM deems ... You quoted from my last post, so I can't see how you didn't get my point? I'm not interested in the DMs right to "deem" something an auto success. That is agreed upon. I'm interested in why (in this specific case) the DM would elect to "deem" rather than going through initiative and the pros and cons of each. >It should rarely be done, and only when it enhances the story, without >hurting the PCs or making things way to easy. Are you saying that this is the case here? I fail to see how you couldn't go through initiative and (within the rules) and ensure that the king killed. I fail to see how box-texting the encounter enhances the story more than a combat with a cinematic death scene. Certainly, the OP felt something was wrong or he wouldn't have posted. As I have said a half-dozen times now, the DM is certainly within his right to rule one way or another, but that doesn't mean we can't question his decision or see what the pros and cons of the alternatives are. >Considering that the PC put a lot of effort into the assassination, the DM >probably planned the next X encounters around this action succeeding. So >the DM allowed it to auto succeed without roles, so that the hours of >encounter prep were not wasted. But why would going through combat change this? If the player spend hours of prep-time, then the combat would have the same result. The king would be setup (within the rules) so badly that the outcome would not be in any real doubt and the hours of future encounter prep-time would not be risked either. Again, sleep potion, CdG, and it's over within the rules. IMO, the player's plan (dagger) was pretty poor. The pro-boxtext arguements so far are: * Time/boredom. Which I don't consider applicable in this case. * Risk not getting the same result. Which doesn't appear to be the case unless the player's plan is poor. * Dramatic effect. Which I'm neutral on since combats can be just as memorable and you can still have the dramatic death. Does anyone have any other reasons other than "it is the right of the DM to do it" which isn't a reason for doing it?
Krusk 04-17-08, 01:01 AM	You asked why a DM would do this. I gave you a few reasons. Sure they could go through init when things like this come up, but then I'd like to refer your to situations like my post 208, and 216. Sure going through combat might give the same result, but when a coal miner misses the wall with his pick 1 in 20 swings your odds are not the best. You definatly don't put something like the assassination of a king in those odds. Why leave that 1 in 20 chance for failure in there, if everyone [most people] wants the outcome to be one thing?
TwistedPuppy 04-17-08, 11:58 AM	[Let's see, what do we know about the situation? Right let me set the scene, one PC (a female lvl6 human ranger) befreinded the king. One gaming session the PC was walking alone with the king in his private garden. The game then went like this... PC: I put my arm around the king, trying to conceal the dagger in my hand. *DM makes appropriate roll* DM: Ok, the king doesnt notice and continues to walk with you. PC: I plunge the dagger into the king's back DM: Ok, the king grunts in pain and then falls silently to the ground. Blood covers both your hand and the dagger, and the king's lifeless eyes stare up at you. Now the point im making is that the DM didn't even ask to roll to hit, or even to damage, and just ruled that the king had died. That is the information the OP gave. Now, I'm sure he has photographic memory and that short passage accurately reflects every nuance of what was going on at the game table. It certainly gives us keen insight into all the events leading up to the assassination attempt. Hey, I even got out my battle mat and set up the whole encounter to see what it looked like. Yeah. :rolleyes: The pro-boxtext arguements so far are: * Time/boredom. Which I don't consider applicable in this case. * Risk not getting the same result. Which doesn't appear to be the case unless the player's plan is poor. * Dramatic effect. Which I'm neutral on since combats can be just as memorable and you can still have the dramatic death. Does anyone have any other reasons other than "it is the right of the DM to do it" which isn't a reason for doing it? Apparently you have much more information on the situation at the table than the rest of us do. Either the OP is sending you PMs with the information, YOU are actually the OP, or you are just guessing or assuming the GM was wrong until he is proven right. I don't have a problem that you think the thing should have been rolled out. I don't disagree with any particular point you've made. But you seem to have a very large problem that Krusk, myself, and others don't agree that it MUST have been rolled out. Certainly, the OP felt something was wrong or he wouldn't have posted. So there is no possibility that the OP could be wrong? Was he privy to everything going on in game at the time? We do not know. Is it beyond the realm of possibility that the DM and the other player DID roll the thing out prior to the session, so as not to take up the other players' time? Again, we do not know. One last time: the OP didn't tell me enough for me to say the DM was wrong in this case, so I'm going to give him the benefit of a doubt. BW222, if you have more information from either the OP or his DM I might say different.
Twin2 04-17-08, 05:05 PM	I'm sure regardless of our opinions on the subject we can all agree that in the end it's the DMs job to interpret the rules, follow them, twist, or ignore them for the benefit of the group. Not everyone will do them the same, giving us different experiences for each DM.
StSteven 04-17-08, 05:17 PM	But why would going through combat change this? If the player spend hours of prep-time, then the combat would have the same result. The king would be setup (within the rules) so badly that the outcome would not be in any real doubt and the hours of future encounter prep-time would not be risked either. Again, sleep potion, CdG, and it's over within the rules. IMO, the player's plan (dagger) was pretty poor. The pro-boxtext arguements so far are: * Time/boredom. Which I don't consider applicable in this case. * Risk not getting the same result. Which doesn't appear to be the case unless the player's plan is poor. * Dramatic effect. Which I'm neutral on since combats can be just as memorable and you can still have the dramatic death. Does anyone have any other reasons other than "it is the right of the DM to do it" which isn't a reason for doing it? If there is no risk in getting the same result, then rolling out the encounter is pointless. Why roll it out if there is no chance of the player failing. That is the easiest answer to your question, though you reject it. To me, that is pointless die rolling. I wouldn't do it. You appear to think that pointless die should be rolled anyway. So I ask you, when a bad guy has one HP left, have you never said "he's dead" before the damage die roll? I sure have. The roll didn't matter, so I didn't have them make it.
MindLich 04-17-08, 05:52 PM	Ok. I have read enough. Got to page 3 and can't take it anymore. I just want to say to anyone who thinks that the DM of the OP is a "bad DM", or one that lacks skills. That apparently, the players enjoyed the moment (very powerful moment), in my book, if my players enjoy the game and prefer gaming than say going out, I'm doing my job well. The DM isn't railroading. Railroading is removing all of the PCs' possibilities, which he isn't doing. The PC clearly intended to kill the king, if he would've objected (in fact if any PC would've objected to the decision) and the DM wouldn't have changed it, then it was railroading. But that wasn't the case, the DM made a decision and everyone had fun. The point of the game is to have a common storytelling experience with a structured environment (the rules). The more the game stops being an enjoyable storytelling experience, the less fun of an RPG (Roleplaying Game) it becomes. If the game (the DM or the players) enforces the rules too strictly in scenes like this one, then it just becomes a board game. If you want to Wargame, play D&D Miniatures. If you want to Roleplay, play D&D. And don't give me BS about not reading the whole thing, and that I don't have enough information to say anything about the subject. I have the right to post without reading the whole thing, and I am not basing my reply on nothing but some comments before the 4th page and the OP post. Thanks.
StSteven 04-17-08, 06:04 PM	You read enough. Don't waste you time with the rest.