Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ImmortalBlueMage 05-24-04, 04:06 AM	I feel recently that I'm being a little too hard on my players. I love setting up large-scale challenges for them and throwing lots of clever enemies and dire situations their way. That's what makes a good story, right? Still, after the last night's session, I feel like I might just be tormenting them. The group is about ninth level, been playing for almost a year now, here's a rundown of the misfortunes they've each suffered: 1#: This guy is on his second PC for the campaign. I didn't feel too bad about the death of his first one, because he made a critical logic error in a fight with a red dragon (everyone player should know that in the midst of a dragon fight is not the time to take rash action), and because he was always a little unhappy with the way he put the character together at early levels (specifically that he had a Strength of 6, which is fine for a Wizard in theory, but in practice meant he spent a lot time failing Jump, Swim, and Climb checks). #2: This guy is on his second PC for the campaign right now when his last met a poor fate during an archery battle with a swarm of BBEG minions. I felt considerably worse about this death just because I hadn't realized beforehand just how hard the fight was and felt somewhat reckless. It was still partially his fault for not taking cover when he should have, but even so. His current PC is also in a bad bind, having been dominated by a Mindflayer and replaced in the group with a Doppleganger. #3: This one was killed in a fight last game, but was brought back via a Reincarnation spell. He came back as an Elf, which is only a short jump from the Half-Elf he'd been before. Overall I feel he got off rather light, but I still feel bad about it next to the other PC kills. #4: Player number four has had a Mark of Justice placed on in him by an Inevitable which forces him to never allow a wrongful death if he has it in his power to stop it. Again, rather light treatment, considering that he could very easily have just been killed in the same circumstances, but he still didn't seem too happy about it. #5: Nothing bad has actually happened to this one yet, but unbeknownst to him the spirit of an ancient Lich is planning on taking over his body. #6: The last guy is no longer a part of the game due to relocation to another city, but I feel I should mention him cuz his character died in the last session he could show up for, which then just seemed remarkably good timing, but now I feel somewhat bad about it on top of everything else. There are lots of good things that happen to them too of course, lots of rewards, treasure, magic items, extra XP, and many powerful allies, but I fear it's my nature to highlight the dangers of the situation moreso. What's everyone else's view?
Lina_Inverse 05-24-04, 04:19 AM	that is entirely up to you to decide.but heres a tip,if your bad guys use alot of tactics realize this should affect the CR.therefore throw weaker smarter enemys and give them CR boosts for favorable circumstanses. #3 got off too hard though,why wasnt he simply raised?why did he get hit with the reincarnate tables?there 9th level raise dead should be easy as dirt to get for them since they can easily aford and the party cleric can just cast it. #4 seems wrong to my dming morals,im against long term stealing of pc freewill but its your game. so heres my tip,make sure the pcs are haveing fun.so long as they are your doing your job.
ImmortalBlueMage 05-24-04, 04:36 AM	Couple points just to make clear the situation: #3: For some reason my players just never seek Ressurection. The option has been in front of them a few times but they for some reason never follow through. The Scroll of Reincarnation used by the NPC in this instance was intended for another purpose when I put it into the story (long story), but when the Monk dropped dead I opted to give the party the chance to use it because I knew if I didn't they would never seek any other means to raise him. #4: Well, he did some pretty heinous stuff to attract the attention of an Inevitable in the first place. One of the principle rules of DMing is that your actions have to have consequences. Of course, I guess I could have just killed him instead, it would certainly have been in character for the creature in question, but I thought this was a more proactive way to go about things. And I'll eventually give him the chance to have it removed, once he's learned his lesson... I see your points and I'm not being defensive, I'm just clarifying my decision-making process in the above.
Trydan 05-24-04, 04:44 AM	Originally posted by ImmortalBlueMage For some reason my players just never seek Ressurection. A lot of players won't. For them, death is final. Also, it gives them a perfect opportunity to start anew - and fix all the "mistakes" they made in the creation of their previous character.
Lina_Inverse 05-24-04, 04:44 AM	Originally posted by ImmortalBlueMage Couple points just to make clear the situation: #3: For some reason my players just never seek Ressurection. The option has been in front of them a few times but they for some reason never follow through. The Scroll of Reincarnation used by the NPC in this instance was intended for another purpose when I put it into the story (long story), but when the Monk dropped dead I opted to give the party the chance to use it because I knew if I didn't they would never seek any other means to raise him. #4: Well, he did some pretty heinous stuff to attract the attention of an Inevitable in the first place. One of the principle rules of DMing is that your actions have to have consequences. Of course, I guess I could have just killed him instead, it would certainly have been in character for the creature in question, but I thought this was a more proactive way to go about things. And I'll eventually give him the chance to have it removed, once he's learned his lesson... I see your points and I'm not being defensive, I'm just clarifying my decision-making process in the above. well,not seeking raiseing?ok chock that up to player stuipity hmmmm but most inevtibles are off enforceing there thing of law,heinous shouldnt mean didly.i agree actions have consequences but denying pc freewill is a bit overboard.id really need to know what he did. and you shouldnt try teach pcs lessons,its there job to muck up the caimpaign world.wouldnt be fun if anything went according to plan.
Uratoh 05-24-04, 04:51 AM	Don't be afraid to ask your players, 'are you having fun?' I've done it and been told some of the weak points in my DMing, and also been told for the most part I run a pretty good game...they also told me to make the encounters a bit harder ^_^. Basicly it's not you vs them, it's all of you trying to have a good time, so if there's no communication it's a lot harder.
ImmortalBlueMage 05-24-04, 05:33 AM	Originally posted by Lina_Inverse hmmmm but most inevtibles are off enforceing there thing of law,heinous shouldnt mean didly.i agree actions have consequences but denying pc freewill is a bit overboard.id really need to know what he did. Well to make a long story short, while being held by some Devils on Pandemonium the character in question made a deal with a fellow (NPC) prisoner to escape together, but in the end sold him out to the fiends. When a Chaotic/Good character betrays a comrade to Devils, that's pretty heinous in my book. The Inevitable didnt' care much about the morals of the situation, it was all the oath-breaking that got his goat. Kolyaruts are big on making sure people keep their word. So because he was responsible for a wrongful death, he's now cursed to prevent them. I don't think it was that bad. He still has free will. He can certainly choose to ignore this command and simply bear the brunt of the curse if he wants. It might not be my job to teach character's lessons, but it's certainly the job of some NPCs.
MinusInnocence 05-24-04, 06:05 AM	I think you've been far too lenient with these scoundrels. It sounds like they wouldn't last a game session in my world. However, personally I dislike your use of the Inevitable. In my opinion, such beings are meant to enforce actual agreements, not just the flimsy "social contract" theory that you seem to be proposing. Apparently, the person who died because of the Chaotic Good PC assumed that PC would be on his side; he took the original support as a sign of good faith. Then, when this was violated, the Kolyarut came calling because the Chaotic Good PC broke an oath. Well, unless he actually SWORE a verbal oath or signed his name somewhere, this prosecution flies out the window. You can't say vague things like, "The spirit of your friendship was a bond that could never be broken" and expect them to hold up to scrutiny. Such things are beyond the care of the Inevitables, who have far too many serious issues in the Multiverse to worry about. They don't need to add unfaithful adventuring companions to a long list of grievances. Was what he did crummy? Absolutely, the very worst. But an Inevitable shouldn't have come after him. A Celestial should. :) Also, you made the statement that certain NPCs serve to keep the PCs in line. Well, unless you accurately portrayed the NPCs in the past even before the PCs angered them, this really isn't very fair, is it? How are the players supposed to know whose toes they absolutely can't afford to step on? I understand realism is important and all that - I absolutely agree. But you placed those NPCs there yourself. If it wasn't for you, they wouldn't exist. Springing their dissatisfaction on the PCs seems arbitrary and a little too much like foul play. Fun holds out over realism. If you've broken any Laws of DMing, it's that you had to ask us if what you've done seems severe. You know your group better than anyone here; are THEY happy with the way you treat them? That's the question you should be asking. Good luck!
mekillot 05-24-04, 11:36 AM	I do not believe you are too harsh. You make believable consequences to actions. Characters will always take risks that normal people call unacceptable. That's the fun of playing a character. This often lands them in trouble or dead dead dead, but hey, sometimes the gambles pay off. A high mortality rate means one of couple of things: 1. the dm is on a power trip (i don't see that here) 2. the pc's are extraordinarily foolish (emmm, i see a little here) 3. the pc's are taking risks to liven up the story (i see this for most of your players). If the case is #3 then I'd expect to hear that the players are having fun. If they say they are having fun, then your group can accept a high mortality rate and life is good. From your earlier posts I would venture to say that this is the case, so good on ya, mate!
Autosponge 05-24-04, 12:40 PM	Wow. So much railroad traffic I think it's grand central station. It seems that every PC has some sort of mality or affliction that is totally out of thier control or even their knowledge. I think the DM is overusing the device here. It's a good thing for a novel but you're not playing a novel and the players feel cheated--I know I would. You're probably verging on a coup in your game. You need to relax a little or you're going to loose your group (not the party, the actual group of players). And if not in a physical sense, meaning they walk out, at least in an emotional sense. They will become disconnected because they feel that their fate is too far removed from their control--even though it's their character. You got a lot of work to do to undo what you've done or plan to do to these characters. My bet is your going to disregard this advice, watch the campaign go down the drain, and pick up where you left off with the next group--but I've been wrong before.
Vecna, lord of secrets 05-24-04, 03:31 PM	With the expection of the doopleganger you are perfectly fair, a game should not be easy and if you are stupid you should be punished, a bad mistake followed by a good action by the bad guy is not your fault it is a simple thing.
ImmortalBlueMage 05-24-04, 08:07 PM	Hmm, lots of dissenting opinions here, lol. I really don't think I'm railroading anyone here, btw. The deaths that occured certainly weren't railroading, I don't think, it's not like I told anyone "Fight that Dragon or else, um, a bigger one will come along to attack you". The Reincarnation was also not a matter of railroading, IMHO. The player had a choice. After being killed in battle (which was also the result of a choice on his part, specifically, the choice to keep a stolen magic item even though he knew that the creature it was stolen from might seek him out), he could have chosen to remain dead, or to have waited for the chance to be Ressurected (hey, they've got to figure it's a good idea sooner or later). The player chose to subject himself to Reincarnation because it was the quickest and easiest way to do things. He knew the risks, he took them, it didn't work out too poorly for him in the end. The Doppleganger/Mindflayer business was the result of a roleplayed encounter that could have ended a lot of different ways. The biggest objection seems to be concerning the Inevitable, and to be honest, that was the one bothering me the most also. I still don't think it was railroading. The creature didn't appear in a puff of magic, put a Mark of Justice on the guy, then dissapearebefore anyone could react. There was extended interaction with the creature, the PC was given the chance to speak in his defense, and was given a few options as to what he felt a fitting punishment would be. Everything that's happened has been the result of player's choices. All of the conflicting feedback has given me a lot to think on, though, and I appreciate the opinions, even those I disagree with. I'll think it over and let everyone know how things turn out in the future.
MoogleEmpMog 05-25-04, 12:17 AM	I've always been fond of high mortality games, especially when players make foolish choices. In such games, if you choose to stand and return fire rather than taking cover, you're not being heroic (or, perhaps you are, but also...), you're being foolish. The Inevitable things sounds a bit off the wall. I'd imagine that's what set a lot of the 'OMG!!! Railroad :mad: !' posts off. Either that or the 'unbenknownst to the player a lich is going to inhabit his PC's body' part. Other than that, it sounds like a fun campaign... and rather than send an Inevitable after that Chaotic 'Good' PC, I would've just made his alignment shift to Chaotic Neutral.
manneedshaircut 05-25-04, 12:22 AM	I think that Autosponge was referring to both the Mindflayer/Doppleganger bit and to #5, the soon-to-be controlled by a Lich. While I understand that the Mindflayer one was role-played out, without player pre-approval, I would never do that. I don't know if you had it or not, but if you didn't, I agree with Autosponge that you may be facing a revolt soon. Also, completely nix that idea bout the lich taking over player #5. That is a complete removal of player free will, and could easily leave the player completely out of the action. In addition, I agree that the Inevitable wouldn't have cared about that. Inevitables normally concern themselves with truly major things, like broken treaties that lead to the deaths of thousands. One person betraying someone he had made a verbal committment to is not bad enough for an inevitable. As for player #2, he should not have been allowed to die because you overestimated the difficulty of a battle. Even if it comes to fudging rolls, I wouldn't let him die because of my mistake.
PaladinSix 05-25-04, 02:28 AM	I find myself in the rather uncomfortable (and totally unexpected) position of having to agree with Autosponge. Although you are well within your rights to enforce consequences for player actions (good and bad), it seems that you may be overusing the idea of "foreign" control of the PCs. Specifically, the lich and the inevitable pop to mind. In my experience, players are usually much better at accepting the fate of a beloved character if that fate has a sense of finality to it (i.e. death). One might think that players would like the idea of being afflicted with some condition that they have a chance of removing, but oftentimes they might rather just be dead, and be able to start over. Let's face it, one of the great things about this game (for a player) is occasionally having the excitement of rolling up a new character. As far as the other deaths are concerned, its a little harder to judge. That level of mortality in my game would be unheard of, and I run what I think is a very tough, low-magic game. But if your players aren't complaining, maybe it works for them. One thing that I tried years ago, and still do every once in awhile now: every couple of months, just come right out and ask your players, either as a group or individually, "Are you having fun?" Chances are, they'll say "Sure, I'm having a great time, but now that you mention it,.........." That can give you a pretty good idea of the things that might need adjustment in your game.
ImmortalBlueMage 05-25-04, 04:45 AM	Cuple more points: As far as the Lich subplot goes, it's not going to be a "You woke up one morning and a Lich had your body, sorry" thing. The players have had several chances to stop him (ie, several chances to uncover his plan) and so far they're still clueless. If he makes his move, the players will get a chance to stop him more directly, possibly through actual physical confrontation. The Doppleganger: manneedshaircut suggests getting player permission for this. In my mind, that's bizarre. How would that go exactly? "Hey, btw, would you mind if in this next session a Doppleganger tries to take your place in the group?" "Um, yes, I would." "Oh, okay. So much for that. Hey, on a related note, would you feel okay if a Mindflayer tried to zonk you with it's mind rays at one point?" "Um, I'd rather that not happen too." "Oh, okay. Hmm, as long as I'm asking questions, if a Gray Render started a fight with you guys, would you be okay if it hit you with it's bite attack?" "You know, I don't think I'd like that much." "How about the Orcs in tonight's game, it's cool if they shoot arrows at you or attack you with axes, isn't it?" "Nahhh, that doesn't sound like much fun to me..." etc. I guess I should have made it clear that the player isn't out of the game. His PC is neither dead nor incapacitated. While the rest of the party is blindly strolling along with what they think is their partner with them, he's been trying to catch back up with them and warn them, only to be harried along the way by a few obstacles. So his level of participation hasn't dropped at all. Personally, I never thought that any of the stuff that's happened to them individually is that bad. I mean, how can I have a story with no conflict? And how can there be a conflict if there's no risk to the characters? All I thought was that it all together might be a bit much. The character deaths bothered me more than any of the other stuff, mainly cuz it's rather new. I DMed for four years without killing anyone, then about midway through the last campaign they started dropping like flies. I don't feel like I'm doing anything different...
eudas 05-25-04, 11:51 AM	i think you're doing great, ImmortalBlueMage. Keep up the good work. I actually did like the Inevitable, especially as a solution to the character *and* the player misbehaving. You break a "law", and the Inevitable's attention will be attracted. The doppleganger thing sounds fine, too. I definitely agree with you about the "would you mind if i attacked you with..." questions, too. :) Players need to realize that the DM isn't going to save their characters, that they're not immortal, and that they will die, and that they do need to be careful. And as long as there is some method of returning a character (reincarnate, for example) for those players who absolutely can't deal with rolling up a new character, it's not that big of a deal really either. eudas
Carkni 05-26-04, 12:56 AM	Bribes work. Explain to the soon to be Dopplegangered that he'll be receiving XP fo the Doppleganger he will be playing. That makes it player incentive to play the best. Also, if theirs a rivalry going on, you can explain to the PC that Doppleganger can only sense surface thoughts (This is from 2nd Ed. I don't know about 3rd), so if the PC is ****** at another PC.... Well, time to get even. I personally dislike using demons/devils/inevitables in games because that immediately means that a character cannot ascend to Godhood without DM allowance. Not even permission. Permission means they can still fail, but to be allowed to.
ImmortalBlueMage 05-26-04, 04:29 AM	It has little to do with the topic, but I have to ask, what do Outsiders have to do with "ascending to Godhood"? And for that matter, what exactly does that mean? And under what circumstances do you not need the DM to do that in the first place?
Dameon Darkwood 05-26-04, 12:24 PM	from the sounds of it i should be playing in your campaign. i personally like to have a tough time beating things and like the fact that one mistake could cost me my character. but if your PCs arent like me and dont like the dificulty level then you should lighten up. just ask them if they like how hard it is. if they say yes then keep it up your doin your job right. if no then lighten up. but it sounds like you have a fun game goin.