Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Illion the Red 08-15-05, 11:16 AM	Here's the situation... The party consists of the following: a 3rd level Paladin, a 2/1 Fighter/Cleric, a 2nd level Monk, a 2nd level rogue, a 3rd level sorcerer, and a 2nd level sorcerer NPC following the other sorcerer around. The party is looking for a missing (overdue) caravan along a generally well-travelled road. They come upon an area where there are a number of bootprints heading off of the road, and soon spot a narrow column of smoke rising in the distance (well off the road 2-3 miles or so). The sun is setting at this time. The PCs decide to investigate...and here's where it all goes downhill for them. The Rogue starts moving silently and hiding as she moves towards what they guess (correctly) is a campfire and encampment. As she is a small character and is moving silently, it's going to take her a while to get to the camp. The sorcerer decides that he doesn't want to wait for her and marches off on his own (NPC-in-tow) to the camp. It takes a full round of this for the rest of the party to realize that he went off ahead. The rest of them start walking at normal speed, leaving the Rogue (still sneaking) well behind and the sorcerer ahead of everyone else. The sorcerer walks into the camp and "announces his presence." The inhabitants (orcs) heard them coming and took to hiding places. Two of them charge forward and waylay the sorcerer, dropping him to -7 and most of the rest of the party get hit as well as they are charged and attacked. (lots of failed listen/spot checks there). The NPC sorcerer cast his burning hands spell at the orcs that dropped the other sorcerer and the one that charged him and missed. He rolled max dam and the orcs failed their saves...they drop. The fight ensues and the PCs eventually win, after taking some heavy damge and getting lucky on no less than 4 "unconfirmed" criticals against them. The sorcerer PC was at -9 when the npc made his heal check to stabalize. I didn't fudge any of the rolls, but if I had played the NPC any differently, the PC would have died. The NPC had been tagging along with the sorcerer and considered him as sort of a "big brother" so I'm comfortable with the heal check, but what gets me is the terrible tactics that the party employed. Should I have been even more harsh with the surprise round and ambush?
Molu Kai 08-15-05, 12:20 PM	I guess it depends on how experienced your party is. If they're newbs I would definitely go easy on them. If they know better and are still being dumbasses, I would let them have it. I have a somewhat similar problem in that my PCs don't work well together. The typical battle goes like this. -One or more of the PCs win initiative and rush in. -The bad guys now get to go. They surround the couple PCs that broke off from the group and wail on them. -second wave of PCs rushes in, leaving casters unprotected. They generally still win, but only because I want them to have fun. However, if they faced dedicated players on the other side of the table, they would get their asses handed to them. I would love to see them employ some tactics (early on I sent them to a fighting school where they were run through a series of simulations and were shown exactly what to do), but they still don't get it. Ah well, I lament. They prefer to play like James Bond (that is rush in without a plan and rely on your ability to save you) and find it fun. When I play (which is very rare), I prefer to have a plan and try to use anything I can to my advantage (eg) falling back to more suitable terrain etc.
Bruunwald 08-15-05, 01:18 PM	It's not necessary to intentionally punish the party just because they do something stupid. In fact, I'd say it's bad DMing to. In real life, fortune favors idiocy just as often as it punishes it. The dice determine a lot of this in the game, and that's good enough. In this case, the orcs hid when they heard the sorcerer coming. That was more than reasonable and you needn't expect more from orcs. The sorcerer's actions cause him to drop as far as -9 before someone managed to help him. A simple, realistic tactic (hiding the orcs and having them prepared) and the dice themselves did this, and that is how it should be. A natural negative result from natural negative behavior. Hitting him with something more just to teach him a lesson would have been metagaming and would have been equivalent to God getting mad and smiting you for not looking both ways before crossing. Ask yourself, do bad things happen on occasion when people act stupidly? Yes. Does God come down and try to kill me everytime I act stupid? No.
Cantankerous 08-15-05, 01:23 PM	Never fudge FOR the Players. It turns their brains to mush. But conversely, NEVER EVER fudge against the Players either. It turns the DM's brain to mush, and since he's the guy who is supposed to be the impartial adjudicator, it's even more tragic then. Isshia
Dark_Druid 08-15-05, 01:27 PM	Punish the foolish, reward the cautious. the rouge and anyone else who attempted to use any tactics should be rewarded with "luck" or easing off of the orcish attacks. The sorcerer got what he had comming I feel, if not less. If you risk your character unnecesary then they get the axe (literally). All that player's ignorance/arogance/stupidity did was endanger the other characters. If I had been a player in that game (and evil) I'd have killed him after the battle anyways...
weasel fierce 08-15-05, 01:28 PM	Nothing wrong with fudging, if it makes a better story. However, generally, just stick with playing the enemy the way they would react, based on capabilities and knowledge of the situation. If that means PC's die, so be it. Its a dangerous world. If the players do reasonably well, and just are unlucky, usually there'll be a way to retreat and regroup for another go
WotC_Huscarl 08-15-05, 01:37 PM	Assuming at least normal intelligence, the sorcerer player should have learned a valuable lesson from this encounter. There's nothing wrong with letting him learn that lesson. If he does the same stupid thing again, then by all means let him have it. Don't punish the educational mistake, punish the foolish repetition of that mistake. Depending on the experience of the players, it might also be fair to ask, what happened leading up to this? Sometimes even experienced players take foolish risks because they've gone for a long stretch without any action, and they want to spice things up. If players were bored or frustrated (and different players have different needs in this regard), then it's not entirely fair to punish them for fanning the flames. Steve
Derren S. 08-15-05, 02:12 PM	Don't fudge. When you start fudging you can also threw the rules out of the window and do make believe games. Play the enemy according to its intelligence and ressources. Not better, not worse.
Board_Rider 08-15-05, 02:25 PM	I wouldn't say that you went easy on them. That was a good encounter and hopefully the players learned something from that. As others said, and you know already I am sure, never fudge rolls for the players. If they ever catch wind that you are doing that then they will, most likely, keep expecting it from you. If you want to be particularly nasty have your enemys attack downed PCs...whew..that will get them angry.
StormKnight 08-15-05, 02:31 PM	I don't even think there's a question of player stupidity here. The group is looking for a caravan, which they think should be in the area. They see what looks like a camp. Presuming its the caravan, and friendly, and that sneaking up on them may be a waste of time at best and potentially getting you into a fight when you are mistaken for bandits at worst isn't all that unreasonable. Sounds like things played out just fine. The sorcerer probably should have gotten a spot check to realize the camp was empty before he walked into it, which might have made him suspicious. After all, as much as someone "walking into the clearing" is a popular phrase, its not like there's a magic curtain that cuts off the view outside the clearing :)
weasel fierce 08-15-05, 04:01 PM	D&D is a makebelieve game. I generally get suspicious of DM's who claim to never fudge a roll. I think everyone has had it happen. First random encounter, just to shake things up a bit. Bad rolls ensue, and the random gnoll band is looking to decimate the party. Is it considered better DMing today, to kill off the party after 30 minutes, because the dice went poorly, then spent another 4 hours making new characters for a new campaign ?
Derren S. 08-15-05, 04:30 PM	When the PCs are too stupid to flee..... Is it considered bad DMing today to fudge to let the PCs win when they feel invincible and don't flee even against overwhelming odds?
Illion the Red 08-15-05, 04:38 PM	Sounds like things played out just fine. The sorcerer probably should have gotten a spot check to realize the camp was empty before he walked into it, which might have made him suspicious. After all, as much as someone "walking into the clearing" is a popular phrase, its not like there's a magic curtain that cuts off the view outside the clearing :) True enough. I did actually tell the Sorcerer that he didn't hear anything coming from the camp. It was getting pretty dark, and with no light source other than the campfire, the Sorcerer wasn't able to see much of anything. I suppose I could have been stronger on the hints. Thanks everyone for the responses. :)
weasel fierce 08-15-05, 04:40 PM	Noone has said anything about being stupid, or fighting overwhelming odds. If the party persists in fighting an enemy they cannot defeat, then yeah, let them die if they dont run away. I was referring to the chance of freak rolls stalling a campaign, before it even gets started. Of course, the immediate answer is.. dont do random combats, which is ultimately a preferable option.
Arrowhen 08-15-05, 05:48 PM	D&D is a makebelieve game. I generally get suspicious of DM's who claim to never fudge a roll. I think everyone has had it happen. First random encounter, just to shake things up a bit. Bad rolls ensue, and the random gnoll band is looking to decimate the party. Is it considered better DMing today, to kill off the party after 30 minutes, because the dice went poorly, then spent another 4 hours making new characters for a new campaign ? Agreed. Since D&D is both a game and a story, it's necessary to strike a balance between the two. It's bad for the story to allow lousy dice rolls to kill off the entire party in the first round of the evening's "warm-up encounter." It's bad for the game to completely negate the impact of bad luck. The judicious application of fudging is one way to maintain the proper balance. Another way, one which I've recently adopted, is the use of Action Points. Action Points, to me, are the best optional rule since THAC0. The let me retain the tension created by rolling everything in the open while giving the players a bit of insurance against bad luck by letting them fudge their own rolls.
Cantankerous 08-16-05, 05:42 AM	First, you don't let the idiot dice rule. If the dice alone are the culprit, then by all means, do what is necessary, but if you do, take a minimalist approach. If the roll would have instant killed a character who did everything right and just hit bad luck, have it drop him to neg something instead. If it would have dropped him unconscious and THAT would DEFINATELY result in his death soon thereafter, have it leave him at 1 HP. Do NOT ever fudge for players when THEY screw the pooch though. THAT absolutely WILL cause problems for the rest of that PLAYER'S gaming with you. Even if it's subconscious, they come to expect it and then their brains DO leak out their ears. And irregardless, NEVER, EVER, EVER fudge against the players! Bad DM, bad! Isshia
Joe Khol 08-16-05, 06:55 AM	I certainly don't think you were too easy (or too hard) on them. It sounds like that for a couple of lucky roles, both the PC and NPC sorcerers could have died. I assume the player realises how lucky he is to still have his character and so has learned a valuable lesson. Out of interest, when you say the Rogue was 'taking a long time' sneaking up, was that just a long time IC (and so the Sorcerer was acting in character) or were you running the hide/silent move roles step by step (and thus the Sorcerer player was getting bored). And how come it took the rest of the party a full round to notice two people had left? Side issues I know but worth considering for future games.
Ut-Napishtim 08-16-05, 09:03 AM	The rest of them start walking at normal speed, leaving the Rogue (still sneaking) well behind and the sorcerer ahead of everyone else. The sorcerer walks into the camp and "announces his presence." The inhabitants (orcs) heard them coming and took to hiding places. Two of them charge forward and waylay the sorcerer, dropping him to -7 and most of the rest of the party get hit as well as they are charged and attacked. (lots of failed listen/spot checks there). The NPC sorcerer cast his burning hands spell at the orcs that dropped the other sorcerer and the one that charged him and missed. He rolled max dam and the orcs failed their saves...they drop. The fight ensues and the PCs eventually win, after taking some heavy damge and getting lucky on no less than 4 "unconfirmed" criticals against them. The sorcerer PC was at -9 when the npc made his heal check to stabalize. So really what it boils down to is a player did something stupid, and then you saved him. Why do you even need another character in there, you have 5 PC's already? Or is he really a DMPC? I mean the guy doesn't even have Heal as a class skill and he's stabilizing the PC instead of blasting with Magic Missiles. That dude would've been rolling a new character in my game. It's funny how you say you didn't fudge any rolls and the PC's just got lucky like a: See, I didn't favor them! Unfortunately the NPC's actions were somewhat questionable and ended up giving a mulligan to a stupid player. Take off the kid gloves, man. The guy deserved to die. :twocents:
Illion the Red 08-16-05, 09:06 AM	I certainly don't think you were too easy (or too hard) on them. It sounds like that for a couple of lucky roles, both the PC and NPC sorcerers could have died. I assume the player realises how lucky he is to still have his character and so has learned a valuable lesson. Out of interest, when you say the Rogue was 'taking a long time' sneaking up, was that just a long time IC (and so the Sorcerer was acting in character) or were you running the hide/silent move roles step by step (and thus the Sorcerer player was getting bored). And how come it took the rest of the party a full round to notice two people had left? Side issues I know but worth considering for future games. Good questions: In real-time, the Sorcerer's decision to go on ahead took no more than 30-60 seconds. The Rogue had not even had to roll a move silent at that point as she was still well over a mile away from the camp and I had no intention to let the game slow down THAT much. The rest of the party was arguing about whether the tracks were human, Orc, or "You're sure they aren't dragon tracks?" What struck me the most odd was the rest of the party intentionally letting the Sorcerer forge on alone. They could have easily caught up, but they didn't even try.
Ut-Napishtim 08-16-05, 09:15 AM	They could have easily caught up, but they didn't even try. Hmmmm... maybe even the other players were tired of his crap and figured it was high time he learned his lesson and started playing as a part of the team. The PC's had already agreed to let the Rogue scout things out, and then the Sorcerer decided to act unilaterally. He should then unilaterally reap the rewards of his foolishness. :thinks:
pjackson 08-16-05, 09:20 AM	I mean the guy doesn't even have Heal as a class skill and he's stabilizing the PC instead of blasting with Magic Missiles. What's wrong with that? Heal can be used untrained, and putting attempting to save the live of a friend ahead of killing enemies was not unreasonable, given that the NPC had already dealt with the immediate threat.
Ut-Napishtim 08-16-05, 10:41 AM	What's wrong with that? Heal can be used untrained, and putting attempting to save the live of a friend ahead of killing enemies was not unreasonable, given that the NPC had already dealt with the immediate threat. There's nothing "wrong" with it per se, especially when there's no Cleric or Paladin in the party. Considering other PCs were dropped into the negatives, I'd guess the threat wasn't immediately taken care of by the end of round two though. From a tactical standpoint the NPC's most effective option would be to use his spells and let the Cleric or Paladin take care of the fallen, because even if he has a cross-class rank in it he's still probably looking at a 50/50 chance at best (say two cross-class ranks and +3 from Wisdom and that's being very generous to a Sorcerer 2). In fact my Cleric in an online game has 2 ranks in Heal and a +3 from Wisdom. From a roleplaying standpoint the NPC wouldn't be aware if the PC was at -3 or -9 respectively without metagaming. When taken in a more hollistic perspective including party composition and the situation it's fairly obvious that the DM used the NPC to save a Chaotic Stupid player, perhaps not consciously - but the end result is the same. Now the player's notion of The DM can't kill me for being stupid, I was just playing my alignment has been reinforced as the DM did save him at the last second. Now somewhere down the road another DM is going to have to deal with the player getting miffed when it doesn't work the same way in another game.
Bruunwald 08-16-05, 11:56 AM	From a roleplaying standpoint the NPC wouldn't be aware if the PC was at -3 or -9 respectively without metagaming. When taken in a more hollistic perspective including party composition and the situation it's fairly obvious that the DM used the NPC to save a Chaotic Stupid player, perhaps not consciously - but the end result is the same. Now the player's notion of The DM can't kill me for being stupid, I was just playing my alignment has been reinforced as the DM did save him at the last second. Now somewhere down the road another DM is going to have to deal with the player getting miffed when it doesn't work the same way in another game. Assuming this player, and every player in the world is a complete idiot. Which is a very large assumption. I've sent in the cavalry, from time to time. Doesn't stop some players from accusing me of trying to kill their characters. Each player is different. Most, if not all, are aware that their characters can die. I think the myth of the clueless player who thinks his PC can never die is just that: a myth. I mean, look at the boards. Every day there's a thread about how somebody is going to leave a game because his DM is nerfing and won't let him die. And nobody disagrees with him.
Ut-Napishtim 08-16-05, 12:25 PM	I've sent in the cavalry, from time to time. Doesn't stop some players from accusing me of trying to kill their characters. Each player is different. Most, if not all, are aware that their characters can die. I think the myth of the clueless player who thinks his PC can never die is just that: a myth. I mean, look at the boards. Every day there's a thread about how somebody is going to leave a game because his DM is nerfing and won't let him die. And nobody disagrees with him. Sure, there are a lot of different types of players out there. There's no requirement to assume every player on the face of the planet is an idiot (or was that intended as hyperbole?) simply the one in this particular instance who is in fact playing Chaotic Stupid is. Now I don't know about you, but IME the whole Chaotic Stupid player is pretty much a bundle where the majority of the time the CS player can't grasp CN due to his dim wit, and percieves it as an excuse to do stupid things. In fact as I understand it, that is the definition of CS over CN. I don't know if I offended you somewhere on another thread or something, if I did I'm sorry, but I don't recall ever perpetuating a wide-sweeping myth that all players are stupid and believe their characters can't die. Can you quote me on that one please? I mean aside from the instance you claim was reffering to all players when I'm talking in fact about one CS one, in one particular game, that is actually the topic of this very thread. Also while you're at it, please link the "every day" threads for the last thee days where players are complaining their DM won't let them die. I totally missed those, thanks. Just to reiterate, in this instance the DM is reinforcing a CS player's behavior by having an NPC come to the rescue at the last second. There's no way the NPC would know how hurt the PC was, and there was both a Cleric and a Paladin in the party (who mysteriously did not come to the fellow PC's rescue - a sure sign of being fed up with a CS player if I ever saw one), and other enemies to deal with. To me it seems that Illion the Red is not going too easy on all his players, just one of them in particular that the rest of the players wish he wouldn't. Not exactly a earth-shattering conclusion considering all the easily spottable signs from the other players in the posts. I must say I'm a bit confused as to why this sparked such a reaction from you Bruunwald. :twocents: :confused:
Illion the Red 08-18-05, 09:57 AM	Just to reiterate, in this instance the DM is reinforcing a CS player's behavior by having an NPC come to the rescue at the last second. There's no way the NPC would know how hurt the PC was, and there was both a Cleric and a Paladin in the party (who mysteriously did not come to the fellow PC's rescue - a sure sign of being fed up with a CS player if I ever saw one), and other enemies to deal with. To me it seems that Illion the Red is not going too easy on all his players, just one of them in particular that the rest of the players wish he wouldn't. Not exactly a earth-shattering conclusion considering all the easily spottable signs from the other players in the posts. I must say I'm a bit confused as to why this sparked such a reaction from you Bruunwald. :twocents: :confused: To clarify a few things here... The player had not played as "chaotic stupid" before this incident, so I'm not sure what prompted his behavior. The only thing I can think of is that he thought it was the caravan campsite as I have had more than one "friendly" encounter in the campaign before. I find it interesting that you decided that the NPC was a DMPC. The NPC stays in the background for the most part, helping in combat occasionally and with an occasional tidbit of information, gets a marginal share of experience (if any at all), and doesn't take a share of treasure. If that is the definition of a DMPC, then, yes, it's a DMPC. It's the result of the first "friendly" encounter of the campaign and has been following the Sorcerer around ever since. The Fighter/Cleric and Paladin were still involved in combat with orcs of their own, so running over to the fallen Sorcerer to help him probably would have been a severe tactical error. The NPC, however, did not have any combat threats near him and feels that he owes the Sorcerer some allegiance stemming from their first encounter. It made perfect sense for him to help the Sorcerer. Once the fight was over, both the Fighter/Cleric and the Paladin came over to help the Sorcerer. Could I have played the NPC differently? You bet. Would that have gone against the NPC's personality traits? I would say so. Has the Sorcerer learned his lesson? That remains to be seen. If he rushes into combat like that again with the encounters coming up, there's no way he'll survive, especially if the PCs insist on pursuing some of the "out of their reach at this level" plot hooks hanging around in the background.
Arrowhen 08-18-05, 11:36 AM	There's no way the NPC would know how hurt the PC was... Why not? This is really a matter of individual gaming styles. Most groups I've played with have tended to be pretty relaxed about discussing hp OOC. "You have a cure moderate left? I'm down to 4 hp over here." I understand that other groups prefer not to do so, for realism's sake. But in a group where knowing the other PC's conditions is acceptable, there's nothing wrong with allowing that knowledge to apply to NPC party members as well.
Bruunwald 08-18-05, 12:18 PM	Sure, there are a lot of different types of players out there. There's no requirement to assume every player on the face of the planet is an idiot (or was that intended as hyperbole?) simply the one in this particular instance who is in fact playing Chaotic Stupid is. Now I don't know about you, but IME the whole Chaotic Stupid player is pretty much a bundle where the majority of the time the CS player can't grasp CN due to his dim wit, and percieves it as an excuse to do stupid things. In fact as I understand it, that is the definition of CS over CN. I don't know if I offended you somewhere on another thread or something, if I did I'm sorry, but I don't recall ever perpetuating a wide-sweeping myth that all players are stupid and believe their characters can't die. Can you quote me on that one please? I mean aside from the instance you claim was reffering to all players when I'm talking in fact about one CS one, in one particular game, that is actually the topic of this very thread. Also while you're at it, please link the "every day" threads for the last thee days where players are complaining their DM won't let them die. I totally missed those, thanks. Just to reiterate, in this instance the DM is reinforcing a CS player's behavior by having an NPC come to the rescue at the last second. There's no way the NPC would know how hurt the PC was, and there was both a Cleric and a Paladin in the party (who mysteriously did not come to the fellow PC's rescue - a sure sign of being fed up with a CS player if I ever saw one), and other enemies to deal with. To me it seems that Illion the Red is not going too easy on all his players, just one of them in particular that the rest of the players wish he wouldn't. Not exactly a earth-shattering conclusion considering all the easily spottable signs from the other players in the posts. I must say I'm a bit confused as to why this sparked such a reaction from you Bruunwald. :twocents: :confused: I wasn't offended. Perhaps the use of the word "stupid" painted my reply as aggressive. It wasn't intended to be. I was just trying to point out that it may be wrong to assume that every ruling on the part of the DM will create a precedent in the mind of every player. In other words, we shouldn't generalize because they're probably not all so numb in the head as to follow such a decision as was being discussed, into a pattern of bad behavior. There are people here, complaining often enough, that their DM nerfs in the not-letting-them-or-someone else die way. Of course, "every day" was an exaggeration. I don't have time to go through everything and find one right now, but I think we can take my word for it. I'm not lying. The topic does get brought up often enough that we can assume not every player wants his hand held. I don't. I know you don't when you're the player. So we are assuming that this sorcerer would. Killing him might or might not solve that, but that's still an assumption. My point was only that the cavalry's appearance at low level when the game is just getting started, or when the situation is Kosher (such as in when the party has actually hired an NPC as backup) is not such a crime. In this case, the game was just getting started, and I didn't see a pattern of behavior from the OP. I felt it was too early to assume this, and given that, that the sorcerer's near death experience was adequate, no further punishment necessary at this time. Now, I apologize if my post seemed abrupt. I didn't intend it to be. I was just trying to make a point in a hurry.
MomtheDungeonMaster 08-18-05, 01:49 PM	I personally would have let the Sorc die, because naturally running ahead thinking you are all that and leaving your group behind deserves no help. ;) You can always have him reincarnated into a Bugbear or something fun like that!
Ut-Napishtim 08-19-05, 09:22 AM	I find it interesting that you decided that the NPC was a DMPC. The NPC stays in the background for the most part, helping in combat occasionally and with an occasional tidbit of information, gets a marginal share of experience (if any at all), and doesn't take a share of treasure. If that is the definition of a DMPC, then, yes, it's a DMPC. It's the result of the first "friendly" encounter of the campaign and has been following the Sorcerer around ever since. That's cool, IIRC I initially asked if it was a DMPC, but after no reply referred to him as an NPC from there on out. Just asking, not accusing, and giving the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps the NPC's loyalty to the Sorcerer PC is what has the other players willing to turn their backs on him. If he hasn't been "CS" before this, that could be a possibility. I know if I were in a game where on PC had a lackey or fan-boy and I didn't I'd probably be a little jealous. They don't have anyone following them around to give them a mulligan when they make a mistake. Maybe that's giving the Sorcerer player a big head and making him more brash than he'd be without backup in tow. Really you have to find what works for you, but personally I've found players don't always say what's on their minds and you have to be mindful of not going overboard on the attention one player or another gets. I usually have three or four players out of six that are CN, so I'm pretty comfortable killing one who does something stupid to keep them working as a team. So IMHO you're going too easy on the guy. Maybe after this brush with death the NPC re-thinks his assesment of the Sorcerer's abilities: You almost got me killed! decides his awe of the PC was unfounded, and begins following another more worthy PC around or wanders off at the next town. Perhaps the use of the word "stupid" painted my reply as aggressive. It wasn't intended to be. I was just trying to point out that it may be wrong to assume that every ruling on the part of the DM will create a precedent in the mind of every player. In other words, we shouldn't generalize because they're probably not all so numb in the head as to follow such a decision as was being discussed, into a pattern of bad behavior. I was just surprised since normally we're in agreement around here. Since you put it that way I see what you're saying better now. Not every ruling will set a precedent, but I've found with CS if you give them an inch they'll take a mile. Since, according to the DM, that's not his usual behavior pattern obviously I missed the mark on that one and there's something else going on here. Players don't just turn their backs on a party member without reason after all. Thanks for clarifying that though.
LCD2YOU 08-19-05, 09:50 AM	I try to play my game like a democracy: The players get what they have earned. (Which is why I think Democracy is the best form of government as the population earns and reaps what it votes, or not, into power. That is to say the population gets what it deserves.) The only things to be decided is the actions Sorcerer and the way the NPC reacted. Did the Sorecerer, and default the player, have a momentary lapse of reason or this is the way they play all the time? If the Sorcerer plays the dubious alignment of "Chaotic Stupid" then I agree with what Ut. He does deserver to die. If not, then while he may not deserve it, stuff may happen. Now the NPC's actions must likewise be looked into. No matter how the PC Sorcerer dropped, what was going on around the NPC? Did the situation look desperate? If so, why would a low level Sorcerer hang around? As the NPC is a follower of sorts of the PC Sorcerer, if the situation looked real bad and the NPC's "leader" dropped, depending on how brave the NPC is, they could stand and fight, pull the Sorcerer out, try to bind the wounds or run away as fast as they could. But having the NPC do a heal check first, before pulling the PC out? That one is a tough call. I don't know what else the NPC tried to do first. As Ut said, the Heal Skill is not a base skill of the Sorcerer class. If the NPC has put skill points into Heal, then that could have been one of the first things to try. Otherwise, the first act may have been to remove the PC from immanent danger.
Brashnir 08-19-05, 10:02 AM	Maybe after this brush with death the NPC re-thinks his assesment of the Sorcerer's abilities: You almost got me killed! decides his awe of the PC was unfounded, and begins following another more worthy PC around or wanders off at the next town. that sounds like the best possible outcome from this. The guy's stupid decision is punished, it makes sense, and it gives you a chance to do something else with the NPC. maybe make him into a rival or use him as a future plot hook.
Illion the Red 08-19-05, 10:16 AM	This discussion has led me to a decision. Thanks everyone, for the input. The next encounter I had planned for the group (gee, hope none of them read this...) was going to be their introduction to the BBEG of the area. He's not going to bother sticking around to personally kill the PCs as he has much more important things to do, but the PCs might ignore his minions and try to get to him anyway. They should know that they are outmatched by him, but I might just have to demonstrate it to them. I think the quick and merciless death of the NPC might just do the trick. I picture the BBEG toasting (half-red dragon) a bunch of his minions just to make sure that he gets the "annoyance." I'm rather interested in seeing how the party reacts to that. Maybe I'm going a bit too far there, but the NPC wasn't meant to last forever.
LCD2YOU 08-19-05, 10:30 AM	If killing the NPC doesn't work, then killing one of the PCs right out will do the same. This is truly evil, but kill a PC who wasn't doing anything. Many BBEGs love "punishing" the "good guys" by making sure that any attack on him results in the deaths of innocents. Better yet, when a PC mouths off the first time, ie before you squish the NPC, have it be the NPC. When the BBEG says, "Do you have anything else to say?", if the player is foolish enough, kill another PC. Hey the guy has already shown his true colors. If the PC still is being stupid, pick another PC and say to them, "You kill him or I will kill you". Hey, BBEGs are nasty. Play them as such. If they insist on attack the Dragon, kill them. Or if a few have learned that attacking is stupid but they are in a pickle, kill the dumb ones and allow the others to live. Sans armor, money, etc. Yes, a full body cavity check is ok to do on the players.
Illion the Red 08-19-05, 10:34 AM	If killing the NPC doesn't work, then killing one of the PCs right out will do the same. If they insist on attack the Dragon, kill them. Or if a few have learned that attacking is stupid but they are in a pickle, kill the dumb ones and allow the others to live. Sans armor, money, etc. Yes, a full body cavity check is ok to do on the players. Well, they really haven't spent the money I've given them so far...so I guess they really don't want it. I may just have to do this.
LCD2YOU 08-19-05, 10:35 AM	Well, they really haven't spent the money I've given them so far...so I guess they really don't want it. I may just have to do this.I forgot something when I first posted. Check out the new idea. It is truly evil.
Bruunwald 08-19-05, 12:19 PM	Not every ruling will set a precedent, but I've found with CS if you give them an inch they'll take a mile. Yeah, you're always going to have that one player who does. At the risk of contradicting myself, at least one in five of my players in any longterm group has either used a ruling as a precedent against me later, or takes a mile, as you said. I've managed to get a group to where there were no problem players, at least temporarily. But eventually, they get back into the game. Definitely on a tangent here, but consistency is definitely a must-trait as a DM.
Ut-Napishtim 08-19-05, 09:59 PM	Yeah, I've seen CS players disintegrate entire campaigns. As far as Illion the Red's situation goes, I'd advise against simply killing the NPC. Sure, it's a bummer to the player, but it's not his fault. The NPC leaving by choice tells the player that he acted rashly, and gives him a chance to learn from that mistake before going further down the CS path.
Illion the Red 08-22-05, 10:28 AM	As far as Illion the Red's situation goes, I'd advise against simply killing the NPC. Sure, it's a bummer to the player, but it's not his fault. The NPC leaving by choice tells the player that he acted rashly, and gives him a chance to learn from that mistake before going further down the CS path. I considered having the NPC walk away with a harsh word or two, but I think the scene I'm building for the NPCs death will have more dramatic impact for the entire group. Although the NPC has latched onto the Sorcerer, I think this will have a solid impact on at least two of the other players. The remaining two seem to be immune to roleplaying or plot elements. (Dude, there's a 50,000 GP price on your head for something you can't even remember! "Oh, OK. I guess I go meditate at the monastery.") This, of course, depends on if the players decide to pursue this plot hook. If they go a different route, I'll have to rethink and may just go with the "Seeya later, crazy human..."
CycloneRanger 08-22-05, 11:29 AM	As long as the actions of the NPC you refer to were those that someone of his nature would logically take, you did nothing wrong. There is no need to insert "punishment" for idiocy beyond that which the game will naturally include. As some of you may know, I take a very hard-line stance on DM cheating, which is to say I allow none of it. If the PCs have been fighting Orcs and one gets a critical hit; a PC may die. That is the nature of combat. Perhaps after a few casualties the group will learn to avoid combat whenever possible. NPCs, of course, take the same attitudes, and fighting is rarely a person's first choice.