Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Wargamer 03-31-06, 05:19 AM	As the Neck-Arrow seems to be appearing more and more, I figured it would be worth going into in greater detail. The Neck-Arrow technique stems from "As PC" thinking. In other words, it is designed to remind players who they are within the game. It is a technique that should only (if ever) be employed in heavy RP games. Most D&D games are low/no-RP tolerant in situations where it really isn't needed (eg: when you aren't interacting with NPCs, save perhaps hacking at them). In such a game, the Neck-Arrow is overkill, and power-abuse. In a heavy, or even total-RP game, the Neck-Arrow is 100% justifable. Here is why. I decide to make a Level 6 Halfling Rogue named Skimble. Skimble is, from his perspective, real. Skimble is not aware he has 6D6+12 Hit Points. He is not aware that his short sword is +2 Keen. He does not know that the enemy with the Longbow only does D8 damage. What Skimble knows is he has been a tomb-raider / adventurer for the best part of two years. He carries a sword named Skitter-bite forged for him by the High Sorceror Thundril. He also knows that an arrow to the skull, neck or chest is probably going to kill him. Now Skimble may know that it is not certain he will die. For example, the last time he was shot with an arrow, he was hit in the chest. However, the Studded Leather absorbed the worst of it, so the arrow just gave him a flesh-wound. He's been stabbed, burnt, crushed and battered many times, but he's never been killed by it. He knows being stabbed in the shoulder isn't fatal. He knows that a strong blow to the chest will break ribs, and could indeed kill because of forcing the bones to pierce internal organs. The whole point of an "RP-Heavy" style of play is you think as your character. In normal D&D, you think like your character, but can apply meta-knowledge. I do not worry too much about Skimble getting hit by a longbow arrow because he's skill got 40hp and there's a Cleric nearby. Skimble fears the arrow because he does not know how much HP he has, or how much damage it does. All he knows is that getting shot by arrows hurts, and can be fatal. Thus, the Neck-Arrow technique is there to remind those who refuse to be reminded. It is to be used when the DM's words have failed. Repeatedly. It is used to show that the campaign world is "real", and not simply models on a table, or scribbled markings on paper. It is a sanction to show you, as a DM, expect the player to be their Character, not to control their Character. Remember, death as a penalty is not to be taken lightly. Neck-Arrows are the last resort, the Exterminatus, the absolute highest sanction to deal against a player. It is not an excuse to make sure the Level 2 Barbarian doesn't kill your Orc NPC who you wanted to use later on.
MrBrown 03-31-06, 06:00 AM	Never. IMHO, of course, but very strongly so. To put my view in simple terms: If the player plays the game differently than what the GM would want him to, that simply means the player prefers a different kind of playing. And the GM has no right to tell the players how they should play the game. If the playing styles are so much in contradiction that playing becomes difficult, then the group should discuss it and figure out a compromise.
HalasterAteMyHamster 03-31-06, 07:09 AM	What you're saying is pretty inaccurate. Hitpoints and damage are an abstract way of representing toughness in such a way than a quantatative game engine can support those them. AttN has no place in the d20 system. There's already a type of game that supports that style of play, and it uses a Freedom of Destiny "ruleset" rather than dice rolls and numerical statistics. Heavy role-play oriented or not, you should either use the game's rules or not; selectively using them is vindictive and the sign of a poor DM. Then again, so is letting a player get to a point where you'd actually use an AttN technique.
Andrinor79 03-31-06, 07:51 AM	I would have to agree that it is a pretty poor method, why if you could not reason with said player and were unwilling to change the style of game did you not just part ways? It seems rather childish to continue to allow him to play just so you can abuse your status as the GM. Just my opinion.
Feriin 03-31-06, 08:21 AM	First a couple things here. It is possible to die from an injury inflicted to a shoulder. I know where to hit a person for this specific effect. It is also possible to die from blunt force trauma to the chest WITHOUT breaking any bones. Pretty much what happens in the worse case scenerio the heart explodes, or it simply stops beating. (When your heart rests, though it be for a fraction of a second, it is suseptable to being hit hard enough that it will just stop beating, an electical jolt at this time will produce the same effect).
pres_man 03-31-06, 08:38 AM	First a couple things here. Well he was discussing what Skimble "knows". It is possible to "know" something and be wrong about it.
Feriin 03-31-06, 08:43 AM	Yeah , you're right. However a 6th level rogue should know where to hit a person for optimal damage (this is reflected in the sneak attack ability).
oxybe 03-31-06, 08:44 AM	it depends on the situation. if you neck-arrow without ryme or reason it is rude, childish and not justifiable at the least. you might as well start singing the DM song in addition to doing it: rocks fall, everybody dies! death comes raining from the skies ect... ect... if you neck-arrow after telling the PC's (before the campaign actually starts) "3 warnings and you're out", it is completely justifiable, as long you gave the PC's the proper rules beforehand (no constant meta-talk, RP diplomacy/bluff/intimidate otherwise auto-fails, DM gives examples of how you should RP, ect...). as long as the rules are clear (maybe even a handout?), the neck-arrow is justifiable. not nice, but justifiable if you neck-arrow with consent of the player, go for it. if you spoke with the player and you both agreed that a neck arrow is best for both (player wants to leave, or it's good for the story), go for it. the neck arrow, like any other DM-fiats, should only be used sparsely and with great caution and thought.
starfire311 03-31-06, 08:55 AM	A In a heavy, or even total-RP game, the Neck-Arrow is 100% justifable. Here is why. Here is why, especially in an RP heavy game... it should not be used. Because it is meta-gaming at its worst by the DM, it shows the DM has little if any respect for the characters in game and is willing to metagame and ruin the suspension of disbelief and hurt the immersion of the game... The obvious solution to a problem player is not to metagame worse than him, it is to take it outside the game. 2 wrongs don't make a right. All you are doing by using this is showing that you can metagame worse than he can, and you have no problems with doing it yourself, completly undermines your credibility as a DM. Edited for the following:0 the absolute highest sanction to deal against a player. This is exactly why it is wrong, poor skimble in your example doesn't kow his player sucks, so why should he get punished for it. So, in essence you are punishing a character to punish a player... BS. This whole arrow through the neck thing, is just really bad DMing.
starfire311 03-31-06, 09:00 AM	doh
Wargamer 03-31-06, 09:00 AM	Yeah , you're right. However a 6th level rogue should know where to hit a person for optimal damage (this is reflected in the sneak attack ability). Sneak Attack could cover many abilities. For example, just because you know where to hit someone's neck so it snaps does not mean you where to stab so as to pierce their heart. Oxybe seems to have the idea pretty much covered.
darkness ninja of light 03-31-06, 09:15 AM	This is absolutely ridiculous. Is it just because a WizO seemed to agree with the arrow/neck thing that it's turned into a "wow it must be right" sort of deal? I have no clue, but I'm very surprised two such threads (don't know of any others) have risen up because of it. No, it is NEVER justified, especially in serious, rp heavy campaigns. 1. As has been pointed out, it is metagaming and makes little sense. 2. The first action that should be taken is to talk OOC with the player. 3. When #2 does not get through to him after several tries (as in, said player shows no effort whatsoever to try and incorporate roleplaying into his game, as hard as it may be for him) then you DO NOT LET HIM INTO YOUR GAME. 4. If you let him into your game, then you have only yourself to blame. There is no reason for him to be playing with you if you disallow it. If this guy has that much control over you, then arrows in his character's neck will do nothing to stop him anyway.
Cytokinesis 03-31-06, 09:30 AM	I believe the argument, which most of you are missing, is that since so many people are advocating this method of dealing with PC's, Wargamer is attempting to show everyone that it should ONLY be used in very specific circumstances, that should almost never come up.
starfire311 03-31-06, 09:39 AM	I believe the argument, which most of you are missing, is that since so many people are advocating this method of dealing with PC's, Wargamer is attempting to show everyone that it should ONLY be used in very specific circumstances, that should almost never come up. Wargamer AFAIK, was the 1st person to post about using it, and he has been trying to justify himself ever since.
StormKnight 03-31-06, 10:03 AM	Arrow to the neck? How: An NPC shoots an arrow at the PC. When: Then rolls a critical hit and inflicts enough damage to drop the PC to -10 HP or worse. Why: The PC got really unlucky. Wargamer, I think you are deluding yourself than an arbitrary "arrow to the neck" kill is somehow more appropraite than "a meteor lands on your hand" or "reality gets annoyed with you and decides you should not exist". A character who is "metagaming" by assuming arrows won't be a substantial threat is not being out of character if arrows are NOT a substantial threat to that character! If you are playing Superman (literally) and getting freaked out when someone shoots an arrow at you, you are playing Superman wrong. He knows a little arrow can't hurt him. He's had ample experience to prove it. A moderate level D&D character is not Superman, but he's also on a scale totally beyond you or I. Just because you or I would fear an arrow does not mean he should! If you want to teach a meta-gaming lesson, as you claim, teach it with the game mechanics. Player is overconfident that they have so many hit points or so high an AC they can't be hurt? Have an assassin who is a high level rogue who has had True Strike cast on her and has been given a magical bane arrow or something like that take a shot at him. When he's at 2 HP and running like heck for the cleric he can ponder how invincible he really is. Happens to Superman to. He gets caught off guard when someone actually can hurt him.
oxybe 03-31-06, 10:04 AM	darkness ninja of light, it has come up in diffrent ways: how to deal with problem players, characters that don't mesh, ect... the neck-arrow was just one that snowballed out of proportion, and is now synonimous(sp?) with "bad DM"... or something :confused: . thanks Wargamer. i admit that neck-arrow is not my fave method of dealing with issues however, and a good talking with the player after the session is still #1 best method of dealing with problems, in my books. even problem players, after the session can be told this little line: dude, this ain't working out. it's been real, but i don't think you should come to our sessions anymore. no hard feelings, but our styles aren't meshing/i gave you warnings/ect... it ain't working out and it would be best if you stopped coming. however, if i do startup a campaign in a style that would suite you, i'll give you a ring. and it's a lot cleaner then an arrow. As i did say in my 2nd point, the players agreed to the 3-strikes rule. there have been warnings, and they did continue, with full knowledge that they were breaking the group's "code of conduct". it ain't nice, but it is something they agreed to. it is, in reality, a house rule to make sure things don't de-rail out of proportion and keeps all players on the same wavelenght. i would, however, like to make an addition to the 3-strike rule: if you neck-arrow after telling the PC's (before the campaign actually starts) "3 warnings and you're out", it is completely justifiable, as long you gave the PC's the proper rules beforehand (no constant meta-talk, RP diplomacy/bluff/intimidate otherwise auto-fails, DM gives examples of how you should RP, ect...). as long as the rules are clear (maybe even a handout?), the neck-arrow is justifiable. not nice, but justifiable. the dm should only give 1 strike per session, to give time to the player to amend his problem, and should do a 1-on-1 talk with the player after the session to make sure he/she knows why he/she got the strike. strikes should be able to go away after X sessions. it would be just plain nasty to keep those 2 strikes gotten in the first 2 sessions, 5 months later, when the 3rd strike happends. he should bet some points for "good group behaviour" just my opinion. i would never neck-arrow personally, but i do find that within the right parameters, it is justifiable. not nice, but justifiable.
KnaveofClubs 03-31-06, 10:21 AM	Never arrow someone in the neck. If you just hate them that bad don't play with them. This is not like dog training. This is D&D. If someone is not playing the way you want to play, take them off to the side and discuss it with them. Really players should play how they want and DMs should stay out of it, otherwise they are controlling the characters for them. My group a while back was recruiting and we had this new guy in the group. He was an a$$hole. I didn't arrow-through-the-neck him. I just called the session and never invited him back. This was after he got himself killed by the party for threatening the kobold (everybody's favorite character in game and OOC), stealing our Rod of Wonder, trying to boss us around, and being very agressive to the party. He roleplayed horribly (and if you knew him you could understand more) but I didn't shaft him or blow him up. Just simply said that it was getting late and he should be going home.
eyelessgame 03-31-06, 10:47 AM	post missed the point and has been deleted
olshanski_home 03-31-06, 10:54 AM	If a DM doesn't like the way a particular player is roleplaying, the only respectable way to handle it is for the DM to tell the player that his style is not appreciated. Deal with the problem face-to-face. A DM who hides behind game rules is either afraid of real confrontation or else is so socially inept that I would question his or her ability to DM in the first place.
revnk 03-31-06, 11:01 AM	A DM who kills off a player character because he doesn't like the player's style is a pretty poor excuse for a referee. The DM's job is to be an impartial arbiter of the rules, host of a good time for all, and creator/manager of the game setting. If you don't like the way someone is playing, take him aside and tell him. Or ask him to leave. Or don't invite him back to future sessions. But try to be a frickin' adult about it. The appropriate time for "an arrow to the head" or "divine lightning bolt of justice" or other similarly arbitrary act is never. Not ever.
JadeReaver 03-31-06, 11:02 AM	I think its all pretty much been said, but to add, I completely agree that any "insta kill because you annoyed the DM too many times" is just a bad idea. Its an option I'd never use, even though I've had a couple players in my campaigns that I was tempted to off at times . . Talking with the player is the best option, and barring that, asking the player not to play in that campaign anymore. No need to take out your frustration on their character when the player is the issue here, and it really doesn't prove anything other than showing that the DM can't muster up the stuff to directly but calmly discuss the issue with the person in question.
Board_Rider 03-31-06, 11:13 AM	If a DM doesn't like the way a particular player is roleplaying, the only respectable way to handle it is for the DM to tell the player that his style is not appreciated. Deal with the problem face-to-face. A DM who hides behind game rules is either afraid of real confrontation or else is so socially inept that I would question his or her ability to DM in the first place. Damn..this was going to be my response. However, I do agree that the PC in game really doesn't know about HP, BAB, d8's and AC. These are numbers for the PLayers. I must admit though there really is no surefire way to seperate the two.
KnaveofClubs 03-31-06, 11:19 AM	Shooting them in the neck only solves the character problem, it doesn't solve the person problem.
ArcTan 03-31-06, 11:21 AM	Word. I don't like the idea of *anything* happening in-game to reflect real-life DM/player concerns in general, precisely because I fall on the side that enjoys role-play and trying to believe in the simulated world we're playing in. Especially in an RP-heavy campaign, how does it make sense that some poor guy who should be both strong and quick enough to ward off any ranged attack from all but the most skilled of enemies (i.e. someone with a big HP pool) should suddenly die just because his player -- who exists in another universe he's completely unaware of -- is being a jerk? The one DM tool for enforcing things on players outside of the game's world is the metaphysical stuff, the stuff that doesn't really "exist" in the game's world but represents the metaphysical movement of the plot. You know. *XP*. Bad roleplayers get crappy XP, good roleplayers get better XP. If you make the XP penalties harsher and harsher on the stupid powergamer, eventually he'll find his power levels lag far behind those of the party (seriously, don't be afraid to prevent him from levelling, as long as you make sure everyone understands XP in this game is RP-based) and in order to have his kind of fun, beefing up a super-powerful character, he'll have to bend a little bit and start integrating the other players' kind of fun and at least trying to RP. This is a solution that scales itself to the scale of your problem -- you can mess with the XP totals as much as you like depending on the situation -- and is a way to nudge a player without resorting to the all-or-nothing kill-the-character solution. It also makes more sense within the game world. (I picture gaining XP and levels as being "inspiration" for PCs anyway, some sort of metaphysical greatness they have, and it makes perfect sense within their world -- as much as anything else does -- that Bob for some reason has been less awesome than his buddies lately while, at the same time, he's been kind of taciturn and uncommunicative, and that he "comes to life" socially at the same time that he starts really working on his skills.) If you really have to disable the character, at least do it in a more subtle way. If this is an RP-heavy campaign where we believe in the world as more than a battleground, then there are other things that can happen in the world besides an arrow-to-the-throat. You make your point about the nature of the world more strongly if something reasonable happens *inside the world*, like the PC leaving the party because his mother's taken sick and he has to go tend to her (he's LG, of course he's gonna go) or because he's been arrested and thrown in jail for a minor indiscretion, or because your superior officer has had him transferred to a different, more elite adventuring unit (he is a powergamer, after all) and his adventures just aren't part of your story anymore. This is a cleaner, nicer way to get his character out of the story *after* telling him politely that getting his character out of the story is something you plan to do for his various offenses. Hell, if it were me I'd make sure that his character got a send-off that was noble or complimentary -- the character is promoted or wins the lottery and goes home to spend his fortune feeding the poor or something -- precisely to make the point that this is an RP campaign and we don't mix up ill feelings for players with ill feelings for characters. The arrow-to-the-throat directly violates this. It makes it feel like the DM cares more about enforcing his power in childish ways than making a coherent story, it makes it feel like players and PCs are being conflated, and it *does* intrude on everyone else's roleplaying just to tick off one guy. (So how does everyone else react to the arrow through the throat? How do they feel about their comrade suddenly dying from a minor attack that they all thought they were skilled enough to avoid now? Do they all suddenly become afraid for their own mortality? Do they hunt down the archer to see who this massively skilled sniper could be only to find out there isn't one, because you DM-fiatted an arrow-through-the-throat rather than actually rolling up a believable NPC to fire it? Etc.)
ArcTan 03-31-06, 11:25 AM	Damn..this was going to be my response. However, I do agree that the PC in game really doesn't know about HP, BAB, d8's and AC. These are numbers for the PLayers. I must admit though there really is no surefire way to seperate the two. This is why my geeky friends and I engage in the silly practice of deciding what we, in real life, would have as our stats, what levels in what classes we would possess, and talk about "failing skill checks" or "making Will saves" when something interesting happens. Okay, it's *really* because we're enormous geeks who don't have enough lives outside of gaming, but it's *also* because if you really want to get good at roleplaying for fun, you should get in the habit of being able to translate these things back and forth. You have to recognize that characters in-game *do* know about all those numbers that make up their abilities, even if they don't express it in the precise language you have on your character sheet, and figure out how they would translate it into real-life language. Your character would never say, "I can't take this guy! He's level 10!" but he *would* say the sorts of things normal people would say when they came up against a much more skilled fighter -- you know, the sort of situation in which we, because we are dorks, actually *do* say "Don't **** off Jim, he's level 10!". Or, "This test should be no problem; I'm Int 14, after all." Or, well, you know.
Jarbear00 03-31-06, 11:35 AM	This arrow-through-the-neck technique just shoots an arrow through the neck of a "problem" player's character. What I gather from the description from Wargamer the arrow comes from no real tangible source and appears out of thin air. Also, the arrow has to be propelled in some way, but again the arrow-through-the-neck arrow doesn't seem to have an way of propelling itself from what I gathered from Wargamer's description. That sort of thing is possible in a heavy RP campaign? Oh WizO, why do you give us such dretch **** as that? I love the contradiction in Wargamer's argument
red_scare87 03-31-06, 11:36 AM	The Neck-Arrow technique stems from "As PC" thinking. In other words, it is designed to remind players who they are within the game. Killing a character outright is not simply a reminder, it is a final solution. How about reminding them OOC? If that doesn't work, then stop inviting them to play. It is a technique that should only (if ever) be employed in heavy RP games. Most D&D games are low/no-RP tolerant in situations where it really isn't needed (eg: when you aren't interacting with NPCs, save perhaps hacking at them). In such a game, the Neck-Arrow is overkill, and power-abuse. It's always overkill and power-abuse. I think that you're forgetting your role as a DM. You are not part of the game in any way, you just moderate. You moderate character interactions and you moderate player interactions. If there is a problem in-character, moderate accordingly. If the there is a problem out-of-character, moderate accordingly. I don't care how "RP heavy" your game is, problems with a player should be dealt with OOC, always. Skimble is, from his perspective, real. Skimble is not aware he has 6D6+12 Hit Points. He is not aware that his short sword is +2 Keen. He does not know that the enemy with the Longbow only does D8 damage. Yes, but Skimble knows that he can absorb a lot of damage before going down, that his sword is somehow sharper than physically possible, and that he can take many clean hits from an ordinary longbow. Now Skimble may know that it is not certain he will die. For example, the last time he was shot with an arrow, he was hit in the chest. However, the Studded Leather absorbed the worst of it, so the arrow just gave him a flesh-wound. He's been stabbed, burnt, crushed and battered many times, but he's never been killed by it. He knows being stabbed in the shoulder isn't fatal. He knows that a strong blow to the chest will break ribs, and could indeed kill because of forcing the bones to pierce internal organs. What if he's wearing armor that protects his neck? Using the "arrow to the throat" technique seems a lot less justifiable in a RP heavy game. Thus, the Neck-Arrow technique is there to remind those who refuse to be reminded. It is to be used when the DM's words have failed. Repeatedly. It is used to show that the campaign world is "real", and not simply models on a table, or scribbled markings on paper. It is a sanction to show you, as a DM, expect the player to be their Character, not to control their Character. Is it really so hard to deal with the problem OOC? What's the problem with talking with your player and removing him from the game that way? You could just NPC his character until you think of a good way for the character to leave the party. It seems that this "technique" would only "need" to be used if the DM was incredibly inflexible about the direction in which his game was going. Or if the DM was too lazy to NPC the character. Remember, death as a penalty is not to be taken lightly. Neck-Arrows are the last resort, the Exterminatus, the absolute highest sanction to deal against a player. It is not an excuse to make sure the Level 2 Barbarian doesn't kill your Orc NPC who you wanted to use later on. Out-of-game problems should always be dealt with out-of-game. Always. No exceptions.
Sulaco 03-31-06, 11:37 AM	The Neck-Arrow technique stems from "As PC" thinking. In other words, it is designed to remind players who they are within the game. No, it's not. It is used (by bad DMs IMO) to remind the player's who's boss. In answer to your question: it should never be used.
Koji 03-31-06, 11:55 AM	Trying to handle a problem with a player by attacking a character is childish. If someone is ruining your game you need to tell them in a personal and direct fashion, not LOL ARRO HIT U
Lord_Canius 03-31-06, 11:56 AM	I never use Rule 0 for anything, if at all possible (AttN is distinctly related to Rule 0, I am staying on topic). Its too reminiscent of something that had been termed to me as " God DMin' ", where the DM basicly says what happens and the players are only there to reap the consequences. Said DM's should be left behind, not only because they are no fun for players, but because they could have the same amount of fun with players that they could stacking random NPC commoners against a Tarrasque by themselves. For all purposes though, I am all for the justfied and neccesary enforcement of Rule 0, but Rule 0 is an omega plan, the final straw that is only pulled as a last resort, IMO. It should not be used to arbitralily kill off a players character simply because you don't like the way the player is acting.
Bruunwald 03-31-06, 12:11 PM	#1. The arrow-to-neck "technique" as he put it, is not being used to remind players to play in-character. It is being used to discipline players as if they were the children of, or somehow subordinate socially or inferior to the DM; or to dismiss them from the game outright; and in every case, out of anger. #2. It is not the DM's job to punish or discipline players. It is his job to play the NPCs and describe the events that affect the PCs. #3. Reminding players to play in-character is as easy as saying, "Remember guys, to think like your character thinks. He doesn't know xxx or xxx. He just knows xxx." #4. Dismissing someone from your game is as easy as explaining that it is not working out, and thanking them for their time. #5. Being an adult is good.
WizO_Cat 03-31-06, 12:15 PM	IMHO*, the answer to this is: it depends on your group. If the DM and players all agree to allow "Arrow to Neck" as an option, then they're more than right to allow it to be. If they decide to make Blipdoolbloop an elven deity, if they all agree to it as a group, then knock yourself out. If they agree to that all dragons are replaced with My Little Ponies, then if the group agrees to the rule, knock yourself out. When it come to D&D, there is no "violation" just as long as everyone agrees to the rule. Now, as I mentioned in the original thread on this subject, I sure hope that you're gaming the gamer-dense region since naturally this type of strategy may lead to players getting upset if they don't agree. If a DM is gung ho to do this, go right ahead - chances are the end result is that (a) the player you killed will leave your group and/or (b) the other players will leave your group because they feel that it is unfair. However, you are the best judge of knowing your standing in your group, so if I was you I'd use that as a barometer. * - This is the opinion of a WizO and holds no official standing at WotC. WizOs moderate boards, not D&D. If you want an official opinion, either (a) e-mail the sage, (b) contact customer service, or (c) read the rules of the game and save my game columns. Personally, I think that really the group is the ultimate authority to what rules occur in your game, but to each their own. Frankly, I think my star comment is as news-worthy as "Local Boy Befriends Dog", but if it eliminated confusion, so be it.
narukagami 03-31-06, 12:16 PM	This Arrow to the neck nonsense is just that, nonsense. I feel for any player who's DM honestly thinks this is a good idea, and I feel sorry for any DM who thinks its a good idea. Bruunwald hit the nail on the head. To put it bluntly, "Arrow to the Neck" is idiotic and childish.
Bulletproof_Condom 03-31-06, 12:19 PM	Trying to handle a problem with a player by attacking a character is childish. If someone is ruining your game you need to tell them in a personal and direct fashion, not LOL ARRO HIT U Hear hear. Although I have to admit being a fan of the giant purple foot that does all your dice in nonlethal damage. The neck arrow thing is a bad idea because it instantly destroys any sort of coherent plot your campaign might've had. You've got a party of adventurers somewhere, presumably one of them is being an idiot when this arrow (or foot) comes out of nowhere and instantly kills him, and nobody is worried, nobody wants to find out who did it and seek vengance. It's just sort of, "oh look, he's dead. More tea?"
narukagami 03-31-06, 12:20 PM	IMHO*, the answer to this is: it depends on your group. If the DM and players all agree to allow "Arrow to Neck" as an option, But if the group is capable of that kind of inter-group diplomacy, and rational thought, then there is no reason for "Arrow to the Neck" to even be mentioned. If a DM asked the group, "Is it OK for me to arbitrarily kill your character if you act 'out of line'?" any being capable of rational thought is going to respond "No, why don't you just ask us to straighten up insted?"
Lord_Canius 03-31-06, 12:26 PM	But if the group is capable of that kind of inter-group diplomacy, and rational thought, then there is no reason for "Arrow to the Neck" to even be mentioned. That is a very good point right there. If you can talk with your players to resolve issues, the issue becomes whether or not you actually do. I think this is where it becomes an ego contest for the "Dungeon Master"*-types, who most likely think that, being the DM, they are in always the right and the "demands" of the players are automaticaly unreasonable. Which is bull, to put it nicely. *Dungeon Master is spelled out to point out that the fictional DM I am refering to is taking the word "Master" far to seriusly.
danielinthewolvesden 03-31-06, 12:48 PM	As the Neck-Arrow seems to be appearing more and more, I figured it would be worth going into in greater detail. The Neck-Arrow technique stems from "As PC" thinking. In other words, it is designed to remind players who they are within the game. It is a technique that should only (if ever) be employed in heavy RP games. Most D&D games are low/no-RP tolerant in situations where it really isn't needed (eg: when you aren't interacting with NPCs, save perhaps hacking at them). In such a game, the Neck-Arrow is overkill, and power-abuse. In a heavy, or even total-RP game, the Neck-Arrow is 100% justifable. Here is why. Thus, the Neck-Arrow technique is there to remind those who refuse to be reminded. It is to be used when the DM's words have failed. Repeatedly. It is used to show that the campaign world is "real", and not simply models on a table, or scribbled markings on paper. It is a sanction to show you, as a DM, expect the player to be their Character, not to control their Character. Remember, death as a penalty is not to be taken lightly. Neck-Arrows are the last resort, the Exterminatus, the absolute highest sanction to deal against a player. It is not an excuse to make sure the Level 2 Barbarian doesn't kill your Orc NPC who you wanted to use later on. There is never a good reason to use this, in any game. OOC problems should not and can not be solved IC. Talk to your player, have the other players talk to him. If that doesn't work, ask him to leave. Killing a PC because his Player misbehaves is immature, metagaming, and DM power-tripping. :teach: :rant:
bitnine 03-31-06, 01:03 PM	Skimble is, from his perspective, real. Skimble is not aware he has 6D6+12 Hit Points. He is not aware that his short sword is +2 Keen. He does not know that the enemy with the Longbow only does D8 damage.Barbarian: "Heh, those three ruffians should be no problem. It'll take far more than them to best me!" Rogue: "Psst! Don't say that! Pretend to be afraid!" Barbarian: "Afraid? Of such a pathetic trio?" Rogue: "Just do it! Act scared of their arrows!" Barbarian: "Why on Earth would I do that? Last Thursday I faced down a troll who carried a magical ballista with him! Now that put some fear into my heart, but after that and all of the hundreds of punks like these who I've put into the ground, what worry should I really carry?" Rogue: "Listen, and maybe I shouldn't say this, but there's something that I've learned. People who act cocky - and I don't care if you're previous adventures give you good reason to - they just randomly explode!" Barbarian: "You can't be serious!" Rogue: "Just trust me on this one. I know it doesn't make any sense, and I don't think we should talk about it too much, but if you value your neck you'll heed my warnings." Seriously, the game world is a character's reality. Why should they be afraid of what looks like a low level punk with a nonmagical longbow? Because arrows can be fairly dangerous in real life? Guess what - if you're basing your character's disposition and actions based off of your out of character knowledge instead of their past experiences throughout their life, then you are certainly metagaming. That mid level barbarian isn't realistic, he's heroic, near legendary. Take his personality, take the things that he experienced, and those should dictate his actions. He doesn't know that he has gallons of HP, but likewise he doesn't know that it's "unrealistic" for him to be unafraid of arrows. By mid level, he's been shot 1102 times before, so he should expect the next time to be like the times previous. He'll get out of the way, mitigate the blow, knock it aside - he always does. (And maybe the character is even being overconfident. However, overconfidence itself doesn't increase the lethality of things around you. In fact, it may be entirely appropriate to the character to be overconfident. Some dirtbag with a pointy piece of wood just doesn't register concern.) Anyways, none of that touches that you should discuss problematic player behavior with your players in a mature fasion.
KnaveofClubs 03-31-06, 01:27 PM	This is from Dungeons and Dragons 2, the sequel to to the first one by Dr.Demento. It explains how the "arrow in the neck" situation can ruin a game. In a comedic way. Galstaff: I will accompany you if you kill the blacksmith that sold me this sword. Titania: (sarcasm)Oh yeah, kill the blacksmith that sounds fun. DM: Don't kill the blacksmith, thats stupid. Picard: So what, are we doing it wrong now? He told me to kill the blacksmith so I kill the blacksmith. DM: But you character wouldn't do that! Picard: What makes you such an expert? DM: THE BLACKSMITH TURNS INTO A DRAGON AND EATS YOU! Picard: Huh? Galstaff: Wha? Titania: Uh? Picard:... Galstaff:... Titania:... Nightblade: Aww....The funyuns are stuck in the machine. Quite an easy way to kill a game session. Not including upseting the players.
Stafir Ortnev 03-31-06, 01:41 PM	The arrow to the neck is NOT the answer to anything (unless you are in a wacky campain where such things are commonplace). The arrow to the neck technique is the same as the 'rocks fall everybody dies' technique or 'a huge red dragon swoops down from nowhere, and your level one characters can't run away..you die in a few rounds' or 'your character trips over a rock and dies..no saving throw. The arrow to the neck is an example of a DM who has gotten so mad they have to get back at the target player...or a case of 'DM wins..fatality'. It isn't disciplinary, it isn't common to the setting, it isn't a punishment for bad roleplaying (which is what refering to the numbers on the sheet is, your character knows these numbers..just not in the terms we use), its just the DM not knowing what he is doing. You don't try to stop bad RP with even worse RP. And an arrow popping up out of nowhere and instakilling a char is bad RP. An arrow normally cannot do enough damage to kill a char..it would need to be a lucky hit...or something special/fired from something special. And if you stick those things in just for the heck of it (faking the lucky hit needed...or putting in the special stuff when there is no reason for it to be there) then you are breaking roleplaying. And as others said..killing the character is not how you deal with the player. if you don't like the Player's way of playing..then you tell them not to show up at the next RP. You don't try to get a petty revenge by killing their character just to show them "who's boss". You take the mature route, let them know that their gaming style does not mesh well with your own/your groups, and tell them to not worry about comming back to play again. Then you deal with their character (who is now an npc) ingame maturely. AttN technique...the DM's new way of saying 'I win.'
Millennium 03-31-06, 01:44 PM	I'm pretty sure someone somewhere has actually used AttN appropriately in the past, but I doubt you'd need two hands to count them. To put things bluntly, AttN is cruel. Many players -especially regular ones- bond with their characters emotionally, and you can't always tell who bonds and who doesn't just by their playstyle. Black Leaf Syndrome (http://www.humpin.org/mst3kdd/) is nothing more than an urban legend, but arbitrarily killing someone's character is still more than just a simple insult. It hurts, and probably more than you're really intending. This isn't to say that AttN is a nonoption. But before you do it, be aware of what you're considering. Most DMs will go their whole lives without ever encountering a situation where it's really worth doing. If you're thinking about it, make sure it's really what you want. If you want characters to fear arrows, then the stock d20 combat system probably isn't for you. Fortunately, there are several other very good combat systems which can be bolted onto d20 without all much trouble. Grim-N-Gritty is probably the most famous, and believe me: it lives up to its name.
Tormsskull 03-31-06, 01:49 PM	Answer: Don't. However, if you are trying to add more realism to your game, a sense of danger, and real danger, rather than simply "obey me, for I am the DM" then I suggest going with the Vitality/Wound point system. Characters still fear arrows (or other attacks) because any such attack can actually wound their character. Technically, by game rules a level 1 barbarian with default stats could have 14 HP without taking toughness. The barbarian could stand stark naked, and have someone else stand 10 feet away, and shoot the barbarian with a light crossbow. Even on a critical hit, that crossbow could only do 16 points of damage without any associated feats or number of miscellaneous modifiers. Therefore, technically the example barbarian could not be killed outright in one hit with example crossbow even if he did not put up any kind of defense. If this realistic? No. Does it bother you? If so, add VP/WP, and instant kills. The VP (vitality) acts as a characters ability to get out of the way of an attack/parry an attack rather than being hit by it. Once those VP numbers are exhausted, then the character starts getting physically hit (wound points). With the addition of instant kills, anyone (even a level 1 commoner with a 3 strength wielding a dagger) has a chance, albeit incredibly small, to kill anyone else in one hit. But to get back on topic, no, you should never just kill someone outright through any method. If you want to make your world more realistic or make your players respect the realism of your world, you need to tweak the rules and such (for example, like the ones listed above) rather than simply saying "You die."
getgoldcardsoul 03-31-06, 01:58 PM	I once had a GM that used something similar to this; it was my first huge campaign gaming experience. The GM declared the first day that she was not a "dungeon master" or a "game master" (and especially took offence to "game mistress" because she's a misogynist---not kidding or otherwise mistaking her intention for another reason). She demanded to be called "god." :rolleyes: Whenever someone was goofing around, saying something she didn’t like/agree with, or criticized her for her calls, she would roll a d20 and assign damage to that player. No in-game reason. Also, this damage couldn’t be healed by spells or anything; just by her fiat. On top of this, she would sometimes do permanent damage; this happened once when a player (my girlfriend) directly opposed one of her rulings. Her maximum HP was permanently decreased, never to heal. On the flipside, those who answered her trivia questions about Star Trek and did and said things that she found favorable were awarded free skill increases. This campaign ultimately ended with a “rocks fall and you die” situation, where the party was railroaded into a barred room where sleeping gas knocked us out. Most were decapitated in our “sleep,” while others were offered a chance to side with the BBEG. Those who refused died. Those who didn’t were turned to undead. Additionally, those who had a certain skill were deemed favorable to the BBEG and absorbed into his minions. What a note to end a 9-month long campaign on, huh? ;) This arrow-to-the-throat idea, based on DM fiat, is all too similar to my experience, which was not conducive of fair play or even fun (unless your willing to shut up and put up with the GM’s arbitrary rulings). Even though that GM wasn’t using D&D, but rather a homebrew system (yeah, one of those :rolleyes: ), why bother to even pretend that there are game rules if you’re just going to react based on your emotions? If the player’s misbehaving OOC, why punish or confront that player IC? The PC didn’t do anything to warrant a blast from “god.” Even if AttT somehow isn’t an arbitrary decision, do as another poster mentioned: an arrow to the throat would work in D&D if a critical hit would take the player down to –10 anyway; a failed Fort save after taking 50 hp of damage would also be a kill by trauma. Work within the game rules to deliver the nasty killing blows that the PC should fear. Do you want a more “realistic” role-playing game than that? If so, I’m afraid D&D (by default, at least) is too much of a game rather than the simulation you desire.
fatal error 03-31-06, 02:53 PM	I agree with the majority of this thread when I say Arrow-to-the-Neck and any other similar ideas are the worst possible way to handle a situation. Have I done it before? Yea, when I was like 10 years old DMing two other 10 year olds. Now that I am older and wiser I can see that it is much better just to talk to the player and resolve issues with him. As far as Wargamer's 'reasoning' for using AttN. It is completely flawed in that example, to say the least. Skimble or whatever his name was does indeed know an arrow won't hurt him much at full HP. Because Hit Points, as has been mentioned before, represent avoiding damage as much as taking it. So, when Skimble is at full health that arrow doesn't stick in his shoulder and do 1d8 damage, he dodges aside and loses 1d8 'energy' from having to dodge it, and maybe takes a scratch along the arm (in case it was poisoned). Should Skimble not walk 10ft a round to get to a band of archers on the other side of a field? True, he should not, but his player wouldn't have him do that anyway. While his player might have him indeed run across said field, taking one or two rounds of fire on the way, that's probably what skimble would do anyway.
ArcTan 03-31-06, 02:57 PM	Yeah, see, the campaign you describe doesn't fit into *either* the mold of the powergaming rules-based wargaming campaign *or* the storytelling roleplay-based realistic-character-development campaign. There really should be a third category, something like bizarre ego-trip BDSM-relationship-with-scary-DM-goddess campaign. Some people enjoy playing the sort of game where one dominant personality jerks everyone else around randomly for an hour, but hopefully it's the sort of thing you stop doing after third grade, unless you actually get off on this stuff. (I mean, was she hot? Did she wear a leather bodysuit?)
Generic Poster 03-31-06, 03:14 PM	I can just imagine the conversation that would have gone on after Skimble or whatever his name was got shot in the neck. Player 1:OMG, they killed Skimble! player 2: you bastards! player 3: who are they? Player 1: you, know, they. They killed Skimble, they're bastards. player 3: Maybe we should help him? Player 2: Help him? Anyway, way to totally destroy any sort of self consistancy that your game world might have had.
StormKnight 03-31-06, 03:36 PM	What a note to end a 9-month long campaign on, huh? You actually put up with this nutcase for 9 months?!?!?!?!?! :eek: Technically, by game rules a level 1 barbarian with default stats could have 14 HP without taking toughness. The barbarian could stand stark naked, and have someone else stand 10 feet away, and shoot the barbarian with a light crossbow. Of course, this is a perfectly valid situation for the DM to permit a coup-de-grace or at least count the barbarian as a "helpless" target something similair - HP assume you are actively fighting and defending yourself. I think it was mentioned in the Rifts RPG for GM advice...just because you have 30 HP and a pistol does 2d6 damage doesn't mean you can shoot yourself in the head to show how tough you are! (Of course, a GOOD GM will warn the PC "hey, if you do this common sense will override game rules" when he tries to do such a stupid thing, because the player should be made aware any time the mechanics will not apply). Unless, I suppose, you have the sort of DM who peppers the party with mystically guided vorpal arrows of instant killy-death from nowhere.
Epicweaver 03-31-06, 04:09 PM	I think a neck-arrow is a bit severe and cheesey in any context. If you kill 'em they don't learn nothin'! Kill a character for their actions (or lack their of), don't kill them because their player is a meta-moron or can't follow the rules. Teach. Show such players the consequences of their own actions. If someone is a meta-turd, you say.. "No, you don't pull a cold iron morningstar out of your ass to fight the demon.", "No you don't know that Soandso pickpocketed the locket of ultimate destruction off the BBEG." Jeez... It's just as easy as saying "No." and using selective DM listening to ignore metagaming. I highly support the use of "No." over an AttN any day of the week.
Sulaco 03-31-06, 04:22 PM	IMHO*, the answer to this is: it depends on your group. If the DM and players all agree to allow "Arrow to Neck" as an option, then they're more than right to allow it to be. If they decide to make Blipdoolbloop an elven deity, if they all agree to it as a group, then knock yourself out. If they agree to that all dragons are replaced with My Little Ponies, then if the group agrees to the rule, knock yourself out. When it come to D&D, there is no "violation" just as long as everyone agrees to the rule. Now, as I mentioned in the original thread on this subject, I sure hope that you're gaming the gamer-dense region since naturally this type of strategy may lead to players getting upset if they don't agree. If a DM is gung ho to do this, go right ahead - chances are the end result is that (a) the player you killed will leave your group and/or (b) the other players will leave your group because they feel that it is unfair. However, you are the best judge of knowing your standing in your group, so if I was you I'd use that as a barometer. * - This is the opinion of a WizO and holds no official standing at WotC. WizOs moderate boards, not D&D. If you want an official opinion, either (a) e-mail the sage, (b) contact customer service, or (c) read the rules of the game and save my game columns. Personally, I think that really the group is the ultimate authority to what rules occur in your game, but to each their own. Frankly, I think my star comment is as news-worthy as "Local Boy Befriends Dog", but if it eliminated confusion, so be it. Good points all. If the group opts for at is a whole then Bob's your uncle. As long as the group agrees than anything goes. I think the problem is that some people confuse the role of the DM. A DM is there to facilitate the game, to control and play all non-player characetrs, actions and events and to adjudicate player actions within the framework of the rules. He is not there to act like a teacher, judge, or any other sort of auhtority figure. The DM runes the game but he is not boss of the game. And unfortunately, as you say, your footer should come as no shock to anyone but thanks for including it. It does, or should, eliminate confusion but it makes me sad that such confusion exists. Cheers.
Sulaco 03-31-06, 04:27 PM	If a DM asked the group, "Is it OK for me to arbitrarily kill your character if you act 'out of line'?" any being capable of rational thought is going to respond "No, why don't you just ask us to straighten up insted?" This is both true and desirable, and ideally you have a group wherein even asking such a question is totally unnecessary, but the point Cat was making is thatthe only time this "technique", or anything really, should be used is with the consent of the entire gaming group. If the group agrees on X then X is acceptable to that group, no matter what X may be.
Sulaco 03-31-06, 04:33 PM	The arrow to the neck is NOT the answer to anything Unless the question is "How can I ensure that some of my friends stop playing D&D with me?"
Sulaco 03-31-06, 04:47 PM	Skimble is, from his perspective, real. Skimble is not aware he has 6D6+12 Hit Points. He is not aware that his short sword is +2 Keen. He does not know that the enemy with the Longbow only does D8 damage. What Skimble knows is he has been a tomb-raider / adventurer for the best part of two years. He carries a sword named Skitter-bite forged for him by the High Sorceror Thundril. He also knows that an arrow to the skull, neck or chest is probably going to kill him. Now Skimble may know that it is not certain he will die. For example, the last time he was shot with an arrow, he was hit in the chest. However, the Studded Leather absorbed the worst of it, so the arrow just gave him a flesh-wound. He's been stabbed, burnt, crushed and battered many times, but he's never been killed by it. He knows being stabbed in the shoulder isn't fatal. He knows that a strong blow to the chest will break ribs, and could indeed kill because of forcing the bones to pierce internal organs. So in other words he knows specifically that he won't die. In fact he is certain of it. Yes he does no know anything about "hit points" as a meta-game concept, but he is intinately aware of the in-game effect they have. He does know that his years of adventuring, training, skill and luck mean that he can deftly avoid the worst of damage that would kill rogues of lesser skill (though not nearly so aptly as his hulking barbarian companion). He knows that arrows hurt, but unless he's already had nine kinds of crap kicked out of him he also knows that his abilities and training will mitigate the effects of the blow. He also knows nothign about +2d6 sneak attack damage but he knows that if he puts his dagger right there and pushes like this that he can prove once and for all that the most effective way to a man's heart is indeed through his stomache. The PCs do not know the meta-concepts, the hard numbers and rules-crunching, involved but they are quite familiar with what those meta-concepts model within the game world.
getgoldcardsoul 03-31-06, 05:23 PM	You actually put up with this nutcase for 9 months?!?!?!?!?! :eek::) I was very excited to play a tabletop RPG campaign for the first time. That excitement carried me through a lot of the time, naively unaware that this GM wasn't really focusing the players but rather only her little world and its uber-NPCs. She spent an entire week before one session to create every single skill/stat of every single person in a small town. All that work, and we barely even touched on that stuff. She complained that we as a party missed out on a lot of stuff, though none of us were really interested in the townsfolk and who's related to who. But that’s exactly why I love seeing threads like these develop. They challenge GMing as what it is and what it should be. Because of these threads (as well as all those horror stories of bad GMs), I know to expect better and won’t be gaming with her again. (Oh, another one for the pile: she stated that she'd tape character sheets of PCs she kills on her walls as a trophy. Not sure if she ever did that, but it was a terrible case of DM vs. player attitude for sure.)
StormKnight 03-31-06, 05:41 PM	Whoops, I realized I was mistaken. An arbitrary arrow through the neck from nowhere is perfectly acceptable GM behavior... if you are playing Paranoia. ;)
darkness ninja of light 03-31-06, 05:45 PM	If you don't want a problem PC to metagame with the abstract concept of HP, then how about hiding his HP behind your screen? When the player gets hit the DM looks at the remaining amount and relays the info accordingly. "You're bleeding slightly, but you feel fine". "You're really hurt." "You're severely wounded and you feel you're on your last legs." At least this way the PC can't always say "I can certainly survive a couple of their crossbow bolts! I've got so and so hp!" It gives a sense of fear, I think. It would be something to think about if a player really is bothering you with hp metagaming. Definately not something for an entire group though. It would at least prevent AttN. Adding to my earlier argument, even with a "three strikes and you're out" policy there's still no reason to actually KILL the character to kick the player out of the group. Just have the player leave the game/group right there (make it civil), turn the PC into an NPC and do with him what you will. Let the poor guy keep his character. Rogue: "Listen, and maybe I shouldn't say this, but there's something that I've learned. People who act cocky - and I don't care if you're previous adventures give you good reason to - they just randomly explode!" :rofl: Player 1:OMG, they killed Skimble! player 2: you bastards! player 3: who are they? Player 1: you, know, they. They killed Skimble, they're bastards. yet again :rofl:
revnk 03-31-06, 05:56 PM	Whoops, I realized I was mistaken. An arbitrary arrow through the neck from nowhere is perfectly acceptable GM behavior... if you are playing Paranoia. ;) Anyone who says an arrow through the neck comes from "nowhere" is a traitor. Claiming that an arrow through the neck is the behavior of an American corporation is treason. Anyone who attempts to convince you that there was ever a place called "America" which had "corporations" which "manufactured" devices called "automobiles" before The Computer "reorganized" the "economy" is engaging in subversive behavior and is trying to instigate treason. Arrows through the neck are a valuable gift from The Computer. The Computer is very generous to provide you with a substantial neck decoration at such a low cost to Citizens happy enough to receive an arrow through the neck. Anyone who complains about an arrow through the neck is a traitor. A happy citizen graciously receives his arrow through the neck, thanks The Computer, and promptly reimburses The Computer for the "Arrow Through The Neck Processing, Re-Allocation, and Remote Distribution Process" by filing a properly stamped ATTNPRAaRDP1342-ff-231\302b (2d Revision) card at an Arrow Through The Neck Reclamation Center along with the three ration-credit transaction processing award; anyone who fails to thank The Computer and promptly reimburse The Computer for the "Arrow Through The Neck Processing, Re-Allocation, and Remote Distribution Process" by filing a properly stamped ATTNPRAaRDP1342-ff-231\302b (2d Revision) card at an Arrow Through The Neck Reclamation Center along with the three ration-credit transaction processing award is a traitor. Have a nice day.
Aliquid 03-31-06, 06:32 PM	Arrow to the Neck: how, when and why How - by Meta-gaming as a DM When - No time is appropriate Why - No reason is appropriate Justify your actions however you want, if that makes you feel better, but doing something like this is completely inappropriate. This is power-tripping, it is immature, it is an abuse of power. It is a rude, uncalled-for way of bulling a player into doing things “your way”. Furthermore, it is horrible for the role-playing, suspension of disbelief, and immersion of the players in the game. It is an extreme example of meta-gaming by the DM. It is bad when a player meta-games, but it completely ruins the role-playing experience when the DM does it. The only situation where this would be ok, is if all the players are ok with it (and that includes the player who’s character just got killed). Heck if all players are ok with it, you can have flying space monkeys show up and steal the character's Mojo....
narukagami 03-31-06, 06:37 PM	The only situation where this would be ok, is if all the players are ok with it (and that includes the player who’s character just got killed). Heck if all players are ok with it, you can have flying space monkeys show up and steal the character's Mojo.... And I quote (me), But if the group is capable of that kind of inter-group diplomacy, and rational thought, then there is no reason for "Arrow to the Neck" to even be mentioned. If a DM asked the group, "Is it OK for me to arbitrarily kill your character if you act 'out of line'?" any being capable of rational thought is going to respond "No, why don't you just ask us to straighten up insted?"
jagraham 03-31-06, 07:37 PM	The worst part of ATTN is that it lowers the DM to the players level by handling the issue in game. It's like the director of a movie changing the story instead of yelling "cut", which he is supposed to do when the actors performance suffers.
WizO_Cat 03-31-06, 08:36 PM	But if the group is capable of that kind of inter-group diplomacy, and rational thought, then there is no reason for "Arrow to the Neck" to even be mentioned. If a DM asked the group, "Is it OK for me to arbitrarily kill your character if you act 'out of line'?" any being capable of rational thought is going to respond "No, why don't you just ask us to straighten up insted?" Well, if it is done in a strictly disciplinary manner, though I find it hard to think that I would personally enjoy the rule, one thing that I've learned through travelling to various groups in the US is that there are some very "unique" rules in them all. I really wouldn't be surprised if there was a group out there that is ok with their DM making insta-kills for disciplinary reasons. Actually, one subset that may enjoy them is a small segment of the groups that may have formed during older editions where DM fiats were more persuasive and carried their game into the current edition. Now putting the discipliary action aside, I can see how a insta-kill group can be done with an extremely mature group. Why do I say that? Because it would be done by a group that has given an extremely adult action to their DM - their trust. Basically, they are saying, "You know, if a certain player's death helps promote the plot of the game (and you are very fair to the player - bring back the player and make him a pivotable part of the plot at that time), I'd rather allow an insta-kill rather than you throw at us an encounter that has a CR +12 to our ECL just to wipe us out." (NPCs are very easy to hide in this manner) Really, IMHO for the game to work effectively, a group has to trust their DM and the DM has to trust their group. One thing that I would not recommend is that you use this rule on a group that you have only played with for a short time. If so, I agree that I can see it coming to hard feelings. At the end of the day, this really comes to the heart of the matter: if a DM really wants to kill a player, a DM can. Player versus DM never works, and it is better that both subsets trust each other in the administration of their game. If you don't have the trust, insta-kill rule or not, your group is going to wither away and die no matter what.
narukagami 03-31-06, 11:04 PM	Well, if it is done in a strictly disciplinary manner, though I find it hard to think that I would personally enjoy the rule, one thing that I've learned through travelling to various groups in the US is that there are some very "unique" rules in them all. I really wouldn't be surprised if there was a group out there that is ok with their DM making insta-kills for disciplinary reasons. Actually, one subset that may enjoy them is a small segment of the groups that may have formed during older editions where DM fiats were more persuasive and carried their game into the current edition.You're logic is still flawed, anyone who can make a rational though like that isn't going to ever say "I'd rather allow an insta-kill rather than you throw at us an encounter that has a CR +12 to our ECL just to wipe us out." Because A) They're both the exact same form of stupidity, but in different methods, and B) I garentee 10 times out of 10 their first response will be "How about just asking us to stop?" Using in-game insta-kills, no matter what the form, to deal with OOC problems is childish and stupid. Period. Now putting the discipliary action aside, I can see how a insta-kill group can be done with an extremely mature group. Why do I say that? Because it would be done by a group that has given an extremely adult action to their DM - their trust. Basically, they are saying, "You know, if a certain player's death helps promote the plot of the game (and you are very fair to the player - bring back the player and make him a pivotable part of the plot at that time), I'd rather allow an insta-kill rather than you throw at us an encounter that has a CR +12 to our ECL just to wipe us out." (NPCs are very easy to hide in this manner) Really, IMHO for the game to work effectively, a group has to trust their DM and the DM has to trust their group. One thing that I would not recommend is that you use this rule on a group that you have only played with for a short time. If so, I agree that I can see it coming to hard feelings. A killing a PC to further the plot as long as they get ressurrected or something later is not the issue here either, its using In Character methods to deal with players that cause problems out of character, so your point regarding "agreeing to it for sake of plot" is moot. At the end of the day, this really comes to the heart of the matter: if a DM really wants to kill a player, a DM can. Player versus DM never works, and it is better that both subsets trust each other in the administration of their game. If you don't have the trust, insta-kill rule or not, your group is going to wither away and die no matter what. This is true.
WizO_Cat 03-31-06, 11:36 PM	You're logic is still flawed, anyone who can make a rational though like that isn't going to ever say "I'd rather allow an insta-kill rather than you throw at us an encounter that has a CR +12 to our ECL just to wipe us out." Because A) They're both the exact same form of stupidity, but in different methods, and B) I garentee 10 times out of 10 their first response will be "How about just asking us to stop?" Using in-game insta-kills, no matter what the form, to deal with OOC problems is childish and stupid. Period. No one said that all of the rules determined by groups are 100% logical. If fact, for a group to have success, they don't need to be logical. They need to be having fun as the group when they use the rules. If the group is having fun using the insta-kill rules, that's great. If they're have fun using Blipdoolblop as an elven deity, that's great. If they're having fun using My Little Ponies instead of dragons, that's great. D&D police don't break down doors to people houses because people are using rules that are either (a) against official rulings or (b) not logical. Just because we hold the opinion that we wouldn't have fun playing under those rules doesn't mean tha other groups experience the situation in the same regard. That's all a part of human nature. A killing a PC to further the plot as long as they get ressurrected or something later is not the issue here either, its using In Character methods to deal with players that cause problems out of character, so your point regarding "agreeing to it for sake of plot" is moot. It was only meant to answer the statement, "An arrow to the head is idiotic and childish" and to highlight a way where insta-kills could be conducted in a mature manner. Agreed, it is beyond the disciplinary approach, but that's why I put the disclaimer at the beginning of that paragraph.
Illeveun Bloodblaze 04-01-06, 01:07 AM	The arrow in the neck is the best example of what you should do. You had every single right in the world to do it. You had warned him not to do it many times, it seems, so if he knew what was good, he would either 1) Know what was coming to him and except it, or 2) change what he did. You basically had the right to punish him like that the way a parent punishes their child for using their table manners: If they keep on not using them, they need to learn to do it!!! Eventually, only something as traumatic, in the childs case, as a grounding, or in the players case, AN ARROW TO THE FREAKIN' NECK!!!
allenchan 04-01-06, 01:48 AM	I must say, all of this thread to be complete, utter bullocks. This all appears a rather pitiful attempt by Wargamer to cover his sorry butt about his other thread (for those of you who havent read it; http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8627114 ). And for the fact that the WizO who closed the last two threads on this very subject is allowing the discussion, and, indeed, fueling it seems a tad wrong. Add to it the fact that the thread was closed that was appealing to the fact that such sweeping generalizations were misguided, it seems to suggest a distasteful amount of favoritism and biased. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8814580). I find this entire thing reprehensible. That is all.
Ridureyu 04-01-06, 01:48 AM	I can think of a situation where an Arrow-to-the-neck is the most appropriate thing possible. When one player powergames his character to heck and back (Read: Pun=pun)., and is ruining the game for everybody else. That character is so powerful that you can't use the rules to stop him, and any OOC-talk with a player is, by that point, useless. What do you do? Do you say, "You're out. leave my table," and have all the players pretend in-game that the character never existed? or do you RP out; "The creator of the universe is angry with Pun-Pun. Pun-Pun dies, and his soul is destroyed." Honestly, that option gives a chance for the player to come back and play a decent character.
Cantankerous 04-01-06, 01:49 AM	The old Arrow to the neck ploy again ehh? Wargamer, I've really got to wonder. Do you really believe this? If your PLAYERS are so dim witted that they "need to be reminded" that's it's just a game to them but real to their chracters, why do you bother to game with them? And do you also change their diapers for them when they, invariably, foul themselves during a session? There are rationalizers and there are rationalizers. You seem to be of the second variety. I've said it before: a heavy handed DM who believes that HE has to "remind the Players" of much of anything to do with how they play their characters, by breaking the very rules that he's supposed to be adjudicating, punishing them (the characters) for actions he does like, is simply showing an APPALING lack of respect for his Players. If a PLAYER is doing something you don't like, you act like an adult and talk to the Player. Doing anything to the character is HUGELY counter productive, ESPECIALLY in an RP heavy or total atmosphere. Because there it isn't the DM doing it. The DM doesn't exist there any more than the Player does. So, if the character is being "punished" it isn't to remind the Player of anything. It is GOD smiting the character. THIS is the crux of the DM God complex. It's stupid and it's inglorious and it's ALWAYS counter productive. Isshia
Amon_WinterfallIV 04-01-06, 01:58 AM	I have, as a standing rule with the party, attempting to PK the other players results in getting hit with 1k damage (and the point is to insta-kill the offending player). Here's the story behind this. Blackjack the Rogue, Caspar the Paladin, Sylos the Wizard, and Lady Triame the Ranger are in their 2nd class room in the local inn: Caspar: Okay guys, we need to learn more about these goblins so that we can help... Blackjack (OOC): "I sneak attack the paladin. I Rolled a 15" DM: :raincloud: Okay.. roll damage, with your sneak attack: Blackjack (OOC)"I rolled 13 for damage" DM: "Caspar, you don't get to finish your sentence. You are litterally taken to the ground by Blackjacks treachery" Caspar: (OOC) "#$T #$&* #$%%!" DM: Roll iniative everyone. [Blackjack wins on iniative]. Okay :banghead: :ahem: Blackjack, what do you do? Blackjack: "Blackjack moves to Lady Triame and Sneak attacks her" I rolled a 20!, crit roll is a 14 :D DM: That's a crit. :doh: roll damage please. Blackjack: "11 damage" Lady Triame: :weep: :weep: :weep: DM: Yeah. Lady Triame is out for the count. Sylos: Magic Missile! DM: You're standing next to Blackjack aren't you! Dude, next time make a 5 foot adjustment backward and cast it! :nonono: Blackjack: I get an Attack of Opportunity: I rolled a 14! DM: "%^&^ $%^&!" Roll damage. ^&**(! Blackjack: I rolled 5 damage! DM: Sylos: You're disabled, and everyone else is dying. You can't even get the spell off. Blackjack (Does Mortal Kombat voice) "Finish Him!": Blackjack swings and rolls 13 DM:... This aforementioned TPK happened because Blackjack got bored and killed the party. I thinking that Attn or a 1k damage burst would have been in order right at "Sneak Attack". I don't think that unprovoked attacks on other party members should ever be tolerated. This is essentially one of two grounds that I would ever AttN anyone, is because they are destroying the game for others. I also reserve the right to do this if the party starts getting really sickening too. I recognize that there is a treshold where I would AttN a PC, but they are clearly in the wrong WELL BEFORE THAT POINT. No, I'd never do this because they offed a shopkeeper, though in-game retribution would be coming.
Cantankerous 04-01-06, 02:17 AM	Exactly how is this bozo getting his sneak attacks off? Where was the Paladin's Spot check to see this brain dead excuse for a Player Character getting into flank position and pulling his blade? Why as a group were you people stupid enough yourself to invite this moron to join? The Player does not dicate to you as the DM that their Player sneak attacks anything or anyone without the proper sequence of events taking place. If you actually KNOW and USE the rules, this type of idiocy isn't as possible. If you use more than the brain power of a dead squirrel in forming the group, idiots don't get invited to join. This wasn't the fault (entirely) of the Player of the Rogue. This was the joint fault of the group as a whole for having this idiot sit in, in the first place. Isshia
Amon_WinterfallIV 04-01-06, 02:32 AM	I was the first time many of them played D+D at all. Yes, they (and I as well) needed a better grasp of the game mechanics. It is also the last time that this person ever joined. One of them knew the rules well, the others clearly didn't. I do view this as being too hands-offish about the matter, but the principle I feel is sound: Extreme actions (like trying to break a game for everyone else) deserve Extreme retailiation. An AttN is appropriate in this circumstance, as it is "extreme retaliation". If a PC decides that he's bored and decides to TPK the party, or even just a single unwarranted PK (which is my rule), he gets AttN. I honestly think that fair.
ArcTan 04-01-06, 02:40 AM	I can think of a situation where an Arrow-to-the-neck is the most appropriate thing possible. When one player powergames his character to heck and back (Read: Pun=pun)., and is ruining the game for everybody else. That character is so powerful that you can't use the rules to stop him, and any OOC-talk with a player is, by that point, useless. What do you do? Do you say, "You're out. leave my table," and have all the players pretend in-game that the character never existed? or do you RP out; "The creator of the universe is angry with Pun-Pun. Pun-Pun dies, and his soul is destroyed." Honestly, that option gives a chance for the player to come back and play a decent character. If this character literally were Pun-Pun or some equivalent, his very existence would warp the fabric of the game world so severely that it would probably be better to simply assume he had never existed, rather than try to come up with some justification for how the gods allowed him to exist then killed him.
Rylen 04-01-06, 02:50 AM	I can't say I've ever had a problem like what I've read in this thread. I role-play only with my two brothers, and we all like the same type of play: serious, story-and-character driven compaigns with a strong cinematic flare. We all play our characters to collectively write an interesting story together. That's the whole point of role-playing! There's basically three mediums for telling stories: books, movies and role-playing. What makes role-playing unqiue is that is not 'passive storytelling' like books and movies, in which the reader/viewer sits back and enjoys a story without influencing it. In RP, the players/DM direct and influence the story directly, reaching an end that is not pre-scripted. Therefore, when a player does things that directs the story in a fashion that is vastly different from the intentions of the other players/DM, it gets in the way and hampers the enjoyment. Usually, it seems, the case is one in which someone's PC does stupid idiotic things that makes the setting and demeanor of the story silly or impossible to believe. It might be funny to have your character strip to his skivvies and dance the whatutzee on the dead body of the troll you just defeated, but that's just plain stupid and doesn't fit into any serious role-playing group. If Strider did that in Lord of the Rings, we'd laugh at first... then frown and say "This movie is friggin' stupid." There's nothing wrong with RPing a game with silly characters doing stupid things to make you laugh. If that how you enjoy RPing, then find a group who likes that. But don't be offended if your style of play doesn't mesh well with a group who likes serious role-playing.
Ridureyu 04-01-06, 03:06 AM	If this character literally were Pun-Pun or some equivalent, his very existence would warp the fabric of the game world so severely that it would probably be better to simply assume he had never existed, rather than try to come up with some justification for how the gods allowed him to exist then killed him. Pun-Pun is simply a good example. There are Hulking Hurlers, overly-done Frenzied Berserkers, etc. et.c that can break the rules within a game while not actually breaking D&D rules, and ruin the game for everyone. How about someone who plays his character as a CA barbarian who keeps robbing and killing his party members without any fear of retribution? if you send in a monster strong enough to take him out, you endanger everyone else's characters as well. This would be a situation where destroying his character - and giving him a warning about ruining the gmae for others - is appropriate.
Cantankerous 04-01-06, 03:14 AM	Which is the entire reason that the group has to decide ahead of time what can and won't be used. And the DM just MUST be fully conversant with it first, before it gets into the game. Isshia
Andrinor79 04-01-06, 03:52 AM	Pun-Pun is simply a good example. There are Hulking Hurlers, overly-done Frenzied Berserkers, etc. et.c that can break the rules within a game while not actually breaking D&D rules, and ruin the game for everyone. How about someone who plays his character as a CA barbarian who keeps robbing and killing his party members without any fear of retribution? if you send in a monster strong enough to take him out, you endanger everyone else's characters as well. This would be a situation where destroying his character - and giving him a warning about ruining the gmae for others - is appropriate. Well first off you probably shouldnt allow the character to get that far out of hand and if you do the ATTN is not the answer, there are many ways within the rules to deal with this. If he kills the whole party chances are someones going to find out about it and murder is generally against the law pretty much anywhere you go, and even if it isn't how many people do you think will want to adventure with a guy who has a rep. for hacking down his companions? So in a sense the PC in this case has pretty much taken care of the problem for you, you simply inform him that his character is now an NPC and move on from there. OOC you should talk to him and figure out what the problem is, if he's not into the RP aspect of the game and is unwilling to behave himself while the rest of the party is engaged in these situations then you simply don't play with him anymore.
Archangel62 04-01-06, 03:56 AM	I'll put my hat into the ring. I have very little patience with a DM who simply murders a character, no chance, no saving throw, just wipes out the character. Yes, some players are irascable, but the actions that the OP has made, and what he's talked about in his game in which he is into the bootcamp method of roleplay. Yes, it might not have been perfect, but I ask how used the person was the game. Also, I want to know how even you were, I realize that you want pure RP but explaining things in abstract terms can lead to more confusion and frustration than most people want to think about. I've run games for the better part of 5 years now, I've played in a fair number too and have come to a conculsion, everyone has a different view of how they will run a game. If you and your players prefer your method, fine, but I am saying that I would see that act as petty, and if you've met some of the people I've played with you probably would have exploded. The arrow to the neck and other actions like that are just stupid, it's like playing football against a 1 year old, tackling the kid into a pulp, then crowing about your victory. A DM has infinite power because they control and shape the world. They can create monsters infinitely, they can modify and alter the world however they want. But the attitude of 'Arrow to the Neck' creates a scenario that's more of player vs. DM which is only going to lead to frustration. If I go into a game knowing that the DM is going to, if I ever 'step out of line,' wipe out my character I'm not going to get attached to it. There's no reason to, if I say soemthing OOC and it gets my character killed I'm not going to want to play or be involved. It might also be that your players were fawning and praising more in the vein of 'please don't let it happen to me, maybe if I praise him he'll be nice...' The point is this, the arrow to the neck idea is mean spirited and petty. I wouldn't tolerate it as a player and I'd be disgusted with myself if I used it as a GM. Onto the other note, not knowing your characters HP is actually, IMO, unrealistic. HP are an abstract but they essentially mean your ability to roll with damage and redirect it to avoid causing trouble to your vitals. What this means to me is this. Throg the babarian has 90hp he doesn't necessarily know that he has 90hp, but he doesn't fear that longbow, want to know why? Because he understands that he can duck and weave, those arrows might hurt, sure, but he knows how to manuever so that they don't do much more then leave some scars and maybe nick him. Sure, they might get a really lucky shot, and those suckers can sink in deep, and they might be specially trained to go for vital points, but that can also be assessed by how they're set up. Usually only those who are thieves or trained to be able to quickly dispatch foes focus heavily on the vitals. Throg also realizes that Longbows usually don't hit him in the vital spots, he's just too good, if someone does...well Throg can enter the purity of rage that he's felt and all the pain will disappear, or more accurately it will be inflicted on everyone else. That is roleplay, it's also a true rigamarole in terms of explanation, especially if you want to keep the game moving. I wonder about when your group meets and how long those games go. Not all of us have an eternity to play and that means that when we do we try to keep things going, so yes, I might find the discussions a little annoying at times I don't have a problem with it. I actually wonder if your players ever call you on metagaming. I mean if you announce damage how is their character supposed to understand these concepts, how do you handle skills, how do players compare notes on how skilled they are at a particular thing. Trying to do pure RP can be good but without, at the very least, some aid to those not used to it and some understanding that it's not exactly the best idea anyhow, you end up with more confusion and having to defer to the DM for nearly everything, which again slows the game to snails pace.
a_psh 04-01-06, 05:06 AM	Pun-Pun is simply a good example. There are Hulking Hurlers, overly-done Frenzied Berserkers, etc. et.c that can break the rules within a game while not actually breaking D&D rules, and ruin the game for everyone. How about someone who plays his character as a CA barbarian who keeps robbing and killing his party members without any fear of retribution? if you send in a monster strong enough to take him out, you endanger everyone else's characters as well. This would be a situation where destroying his character - and giving him a warning about ruining the gmae for others - is appropriate. I think this was nicely covered previously (by ArcTan himself): the simplest solution is just to retire the character, like so: If you really have to disable the character, at least do it in a more subtle way. If this is an RP-heavy campaign where we believe in the world as more than a battleground, then there are other things that can happen in the world besides an arrow-to-the-throat. You make your point about the nature of the world more strongly if something reasonable happens *inside the world*, like the PC leaving the party because his mother's taken sick and he has to go tend to her (he's LG, of course he's gonna go) or because he's been arrested and thrown in jail for a minor indiscretion, or because your superior officer has had him transferred to a different, more elite adventuring unit (he is a powergamer, after all) and his adventures just aren't part of your story anymore. This is a cleaner, nicer way to get his character out of the story *after* telling him politely that getting his character out of the story is something you plan to do for his various offenses. Hell, if it were me I'd make sure that his character got a send-off that was noble or complimentary -- the character is promoted or wins the lottery and goes home to spend his fortune feeding the poor or something -- precisely to make the point that this is an RP campaign and we don't mix up ill feelings for players with ill feelings for characters. So, effectively, like spontaneous human combustion, wrath-of-god lightning bolts, and random things falling out of the sky, arrows to the neck are never appropriate. Any situation in which you might actually be able to use it without everyone in your group thinking you're a vindictive control freak can be better handled by doing one of 50 other things (such as the above) instead.
WizO_Cat 04-01-06, 11:30 AM	Let me preface by saying that if the reason for the closure of the other two threads occurs in this thread, then this thread will be closed as well. So what were the reasons for closure of the other two threads? Let's go through what they were. I must say, all of this thread to be complete, utter bullocks. This all appears a rather pitiful attempt by Wargamer to cover is position in his other thread (for those of you who havent read it; http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8627114 ). The reason why this thread was closed was due to that some of the guests started to make their posts personal and not on the topic of the thread. If this happens, it is considered Baitng which is against the Code of Conduct. It's fine to say, "I find that the actions with juvenile and petty", but it isn't fine to say, "I find poster x and DMs like him juvenile and petty." The first is focusing on an action, the latter is focusing on a single poster or group. And for the fact that the WizO who closed the last two threads on this very subject is allowing the discussion, and, indeed, fueling it seems a tad wrong. Add to it the fact that the thread was closed that was appealing to the fact that such sweeping generalizations were misguided, it seems to suggest a distasteful amount of favoritism and biased. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8814580). The reason why this thread was closed was that the situation that was being discussed was being brought to legal avenues. Yes, it fine to discuss, "Hey, I want to discuss whether paladins can be banned from a game": however it's isn't acceptable to bring up, "Hey, I want to discuss whether paladins can be banned from a game since in this situation last night, after the DM banned the character, the character affected through the air resulting in the breaking of valuable miniatures ... by the way it's going to court." Discussion on the board is to revolve on the lighthearted or serious discussion of a lighthearted matter - the playing of a game. It isn't to discuss either lightheartedly or seriously the discussion of serious matters - court actions. Part of the reason for holding this position is that we as the Wizards Community don't want to be dragged into court actions between two other parties - it's very couner-productive to a message board's health. So, in conclusion, the previous threads weren't closed due to discussion of arrows to the neck - they were closed due to other matters. If you want clarification of anything that I have stated in this post, do not hesitate to PM or e-mail me. Frankly, my discussion of it in this thread is barely on topic solely for the reminder to all guests to not conduct the actions in the other two threads.
Aliquid 04-01-06, 11:54 AM	Because there it isn't the DM doing it. The DM doesn't exist there any more than the Player does. So, if the character is being "punished" it isn't to remind the Player of anything. It is GOD smiting the character. THIS is the crux of the DM God complex. It's stupid and it's inglorious and it's ALWAYS counter productive.You know, this may be blatantly obvious to you an me... but I guess it is just too abstract of a concept for some people to wrap their brain around. It really is ironic though. A DM getting mad at a player who is having trouble grasping the concept of in game and OOC knowledge. When the DM is having difficulty with that very same concept.
starfire311 04-01-06, 12:54 PM	You know, this may be blatantly obvious to you an me... but I guess it is just too abstract of a concept for some people to wrap their brain around. It really is ironic though. A DM getting mad at a player who is having trouble grasping the concept of in game and OOC knowledge. When the DM is having difficulty with that very same concept. Lol, exactly that is what I find so odd about it, the DM is upset with a player for "metagaming" so to fix it the DM metagames even worse than the player.
Yak of Darkness 04-01-06, 01:04 PM	Pun-Pun is simply a good example. There are Hulking Hurlers, overly-done Frenzied Berserkers, etc. et.c that can break the rules within a game while not actually breaking D&D rules, and ruin the game for everyone. How about someone who plays his character as a CA barbarian who keeps robbing and killing his party members without any fear of retribution? if you send in a monster strong enough to take him out, you endanger everyone else's characters as well. This would be a situation where destroying his character - and giving him a warning about ruining the gmae for others - is appropriate.And now . . . the complete solution to all of these problems, without resorting to the arrow to the neck: Pun-PunDM: Ha! That's a pretty funny build. Now make a real character and stop being a jackass. Hulking HurlersDM: Ha! That's a pretty funny build. Now make a real character and stop being a jackass. How about someone who plays his character as a CA barbarian who keeps robbing and killing his party members without any fear of retribution?DM: I'm serious. Stop being a jackass. Oh, and one more . . . DM: Arrow to the neck!Players: Stop being a jackass.
Hariman 04-01-06, 04:53 PM	I have to agree with the majority of the posters here. Arrow to the neck is unacceptable in 99% of D&D groups. The same goes for the "Bluebolt", the "Paladin Gestapo", "Ninja Archers", "No Save Ceiling Drops" and the Level 80 Punisher. I don't think I'd ever use AttN on anyone while DMing. There are so many better ways to handle the situation could be handled that are better than that. Having the arrow stick in his head and look like a gag arrow would be at least a little better. Rolling an attack roll and damage before doing so would be even better than that. (Or having the arrow do no damage, and just having the guy write on his sheet "Arrow in head") The only time an arrow through the neck (Or head) is truly acceptable is when a hit has been rolled and the damage kills the player, or if the player fails their save on an assassin's death attack. AND your players know that their characters might die AND you just made all of the rolls where the players could see them. AttN is also very disrespectful of the player. And Disrespect is one of the worst things to show someone who is taking the time out of their life to join your game, in the expectation that their character and that they themself will be treated fairly. Altough, admittedly, there are players that you really want to kick out of your game because they just won't listen. It is still be better to just kick them out of the group, rather than being spiteful and killing their character.
Illeveun Bloodblaze 04-01-06, 08:27 PM	Wargamer did it completly and exactly correct. This point was brought up earlier, but if the player is kicked, that character is completely useless. It is better to just kill the char, and it might also lead to interesting roleplaying points. As in the other threads, the other players were just fine with Wargamer's handling of the situation. The player had to realise that the truth hurts, like an arrow to the head, and actions had consquenses.
HalasterAteMyHamster 04-01-06, 08:33 PM	Wargamer did it completly and exactly correct. This point was brought up earlier, but if the player is kicked, that character is completely useless. It is better to just kill the char, and it might also lead to interesting roleplaying points. As in the other threads, the other players were just fine with Wargamer's handling of the situation. The player had to realise that the truth hurts, like an arrow to the head, and actions had consquenses. Yes, because a mysterious arrow appearing out of nowhere to hit a character's head and, beyond all logic, instant-kill him, makes for a better roleplaying experience than a character retiring, allowing for him/her to appear later as an NPC who can actually make for interesting stories.
red_scare87 04-01-06, 09:11 PM	change what he did. You basically had the right to punish him like that the way a parent punishes their child for using their table manners: If they keep on not using them, they need to learn to do it!!! Parent: Timmy, let's use better table manners please Timmy: No! I don't wanna! Parent: Please, you have to learn how to do it right. Timmy: NO! Parent: Okay, well I didn't want it to come to this... **Parent takes out bow and arrow and shoots Timmy in the throat** Sound ridiculous? It should.
Cantankerous 04-02-06, 12:35 AM	You know, you can TALK to the Player without booting them. I mean, yeah, radical idea, but if the game is supposed to be, as Wargamer said, deep or total RP, then the other answer is simply god smiting the character for being naughty. In what way exactly does that enhance RP? Isshia
lastcurse 04-02-06, 01:22 AM	I just see the arrow to the neck as extremely immature. If it is all rational adults at the table you should be able to say "Hey ____, cut it out. Its not funny anymore." Can there be a situation where the arrow to the neck is fitting? Probably. I can't think of any, but lots of things happen. It is also (as previously obeserved) disrespectful to the player. Why not handle it in a respectful manner? Or if not respectful, at least have the cojones to stand up out of game and say "Hey, stop :censored: ing around" instead of spitting on the game they are trying to preserve. While I could see it as borderline acceptable where the player was outright disrespectful, I don't think the game should be bent around the DM flexing their arm. It leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth. If you have to do it, do it out of game. Talk it out like adults. The arrow to the neck is just childish.
Hariman 04-02-06, 01:42 AM	Can there be a situation where the arrow to the neck is fitting? In a lighthearted cartoon campaign that has ressurection without penalty times measured in rounds. Auto Ressurection at that. But not is serious play. Not with any of the groups that I know of. Heck, Tournament DMs would probably get banned just for using it, instead of talking it out.
Ryven 04-02-06, 07:32 AM	I personally believe that if there's a player in my game who's A) too stupid to understand rules, B) too stubborn to follow them C) has been warned many, many times in and out of game or D) all of the above, than an arrow to the neck is a perfect prelude to "Get the Eff out of my game, you friggin' moron." If a player is seriously that stupid that they don't understand out of game warnings, or simply that stubborn, then he or she shouldn't be in the game in the first place, and all bets are off. *gets ready to ignore flames*
WizO_Cat 04-02-06, 09:39 AM	Can there be a situation where the arrow to the neck is fitting? Probably. I can't think of any, but lots of things happen. Personally, in a game that I was playing, I could see it done and be fitting in this condition which I note earlier: Now putting the discipliary action aside, I can see how a insta-kill group can be done with an extremely mature group. Why do I say that? Because it would be done by a group that has given an extremely adult action to their DM - their trust. Basically, they are saying, "You know, if a certain player's death helps promote the plot of the game (and you are very fair to the player - bring back the player and make him a pivotable part of the plot at that time), I'd rather allow an insta-kill rather than you throw at us an encounter that has a CR +12 to our ECL just to wipe us out." (NPCs are very easy to hide in this manner) Really, IMHO for the game to work effectively, a group has to trust their DM and the DM has to trust their group. One thing that I would not recommend is that you use this rule on a group that you have only played with for a short time. If so, I agree that I can see it coming to hard feelings.
Yak of Darkness 04-02-06, 02:52 PM	If a player is seriously that stupid that they don't understand out of game warnings, or simply that stubborn, then he or she shouldn't be in the game in the first place,Then say, "I'm sorry. This isn't working out, and we both know it. Please don't come back next time." If you really have given many out-of-game warning/discussion, this shouldn't be surprising to him. I seriously don't get the logic behind people saying what is effectively, "But what if he's a really bad player? Isn't your only choice to not just talk to him like a normal Actual Adult Human Being would and just act like a childish jackass?" Why someone else's relative rules knowledge or stubbornness completely removes the option of just saying, "Dude, seriously, leave," and forces one to act in a catty*, passive-aggressive manner is beyond my understanding. Personally, in a game that I was playing, I could see it done and be fitting in this condition which I note earlier:Oh, I don't think anyone here thinks that it's 100% always inappropriate for a DM to ever use the phrase, "An arrow hits you in the neck, killing you." Low-level wizards are especially vulnerable to this (or at least having the arrow in the neck drop them, and put them in need of immediate clerical attention), although a good crit with a longbow can do it to a lot of people, especially if it's not the first hit they took that day. And there's always a Tomb of Horrors-esque dungeon, where the damage on any given trap might just read, "Death." "An arrow hits you in the neck, cutting off both your ability to scream and react as the floor opens out from under you, dropping you 500 feet through the floating razor blades into the poisoned spikes below," is a perfectly acceptible phrase in such a game (although you might not want to design such a trap if the party has a monk with Deflect Arrows :D ). And of course, your suggestion, where a death can spur narrative tension or whatnot, a la Wash's impaling in Serenity. You want to recreate a moment like that in a game, you're probably going to have to step outside the rolling to do so. And if your players all trust you and are okay with that, it can work fine. But "arrow to the neck," on the boards, and for a great majority of this discussion, doesn't just mean the combination of Arrow A and Neck B in all possible situations, but is pretty specifically limited to DMs punishing players for . . . whatever, really, by passive-aggressively attacking their characters in-game. The "DM discipline" arrow to the neck is the problem one. * No offense intended to Cat, of course. ;)
ArcTan 04-02-06, 03:39 PM	OK, see, the "disciplinary" arrow to the neck is almost the polar opposite of the "plot" arrow to the neck. I don't have a problem at all with a character suddenly dying to advance the plot, if it's very clear from the beginning that this is the kind of campaign it is, where the role-playing side of the RPG takes precedence over the game side of the RPG and inevitable plot events are allowed. It's like having a battle that, no matter how well the PCs do, will be lost by the good-guy army and force the PCs to retreat. Or a dungeon that will start collapsing no matter what the PCs try and force them to escape. If some character becomes really important to the plot in some way, killing her off may be the best way to create a sudden chaotic situation that the PCs have to deal with. (Say she's the heir to the throne, or the Chosen One who's the only one capable of wielding some holy weapon to smite the BBEG with, or something.) But this is almost the *opposite* of the disciplinary arrow-to-the-neck, in that you'd only do it to a player with her permission, who completely agreed with and understood why you were doing it, you'd do it to make her character *more*, not less important, and you'd probably reward her by letting her roll up a new character to join in the quest spurred by the old character's death. (The heir to the throne's brother/lover/best friend/apprentice runs up, swearing vengeance...) I don't even think these are the same category of thing. It's like the difference between allowing a character to find an amazing artifact weapon because the plot requires it, and allowing a character to find an amazing artifact weapon because she's your girlfriend. The latter is something that people make fun of the stereotypical bad DM for doing, *because* it's taking something that should be done for game reasons and doing it for metagame reasons. A *good* Arrow-to-the-Neck -- which would, ideally, not be something as stupid as an Arrow-to-the-Neck, but involve something like a character falling ill with a mysterious disease, or being mobbed by a horde of goblins who just wouldn't stop coming as she frantically tried to hold them off so the party could escape, or being hurled off a cliff during a horrible earthquake, or poisoned in his sleep by a black-clad assassin -- advances the plot, makes the world feel more real and more self-contained, and creates a storytelling connection between the players and DM in exactly the way that an arbitrary, metagame, out-of-nowhere, I'm-annoyed-and-can-do-whatever-I-want Arrow-to-the-Neck *doesn't*.
Delfedd 04-02-06, 04:13 PM	In My opinon, the arrow to the neck should be more of a reminder. Nothing more. Instead of "Oh, you're making me mad, time to kill you, it should be more like..." Players are level five DM: You round a corner, and come face to face with a band of orcs. They wear black hide armor and has a longbow. Player: Oh, look, each orc has about five hit points, and the bow only will do a maximum of say, sixteen on a critical hit- DM: One of the Orcs trains his arrow on you and shoots you through the neck. You're dead. Start rolling a new character Player: What! I have seventy seven hit points! No way it could kill me! DM: Just a reminder. You're not dead. Don't worry. By the way, stop metagaming.
lastcurse 04-02-06, 05:13 PM	I could maybe see the plot arrow to the neck if it the player would be OK with that sort of thing. But if the player is OK with something, than anything goes. But, absent their consent, it would really depend heavily on the group. Any group that I have played with would toss me out on my ear if I said "Ted, your fighter just got an arrow in the neck. Sorry, he died." Ted- "What did he roll? I have like 70 HP, it must be some arrow." Me- "It was. Roll up a new character." Yes, Players should trust their DM as DMs trust their players, as Cat says, but, the problem is that players trust their DMs not to do this. Every player I have played with takes a lot of pride and care in their characters. Of course, they still accept that they die, but that is a risk of the game. But just killing off characters for plot doesn't seem like a good way to handle things, especially because *I* am in charge of the plot. I can always find another way. While the plot arrow to the neck isn't in the same league as the discipline arrow to the neck, it doesn't seem like it would *generally* (you can never speak in absolutes with D&D-- too many situations come up) be an awful idea. So, while I respect Cat's opinion and see where he/she/it is coming from, I respectfully, yet strongly, disagree.
Yak of Darkness 04-02-06, 06:05 PM	Player: Oh, look, each orc has about five hit points, and the bow only will do a maximum of say, sixteen on a critical hit-That's the kind of metagaming that will get a player in trouble. Not by DM fiat, though, but because using that kind of reasoning is the metagame equivalent of saying, "Well, my Uncle Wally told me that trolls hate the cold. Anyone got a freezing sphere prepped?" Not only are you using knowledge you shouldn't have, but it's likely wrong. Any player who ever, especially at higher levels, says, "Don't worry, guys, it's only an orc/kobold/goblin/imp/gnome/monkey," is just asking to be felled by a combination of backup baddies, monsters with class levels, and his own hubris. The hell of it is (discussion of hit points and longbow damage aside), the player is actually doing a decent job of getting into his character's head. Only problem is, the character in question is just a little too big for his britches (with a little, albeit flawed, reasoning . . . after all, how many orcs has he killed at this point? makes sense he'd be a little arrogant). If you seed your dungeons with powered-up monsters, though (sure, there are a bunch of orc warrior 1s guarding the gate, but they're led by a barbarian10 with a +1 acidic burst composite longbow), most PCs (and their players) will soon be snapped out of this habit. And it won't take any metagaming or jackassery on the DM's part to make it happen. If you think you have a problem with a metagamer, put Just An Orc as a random villain on the PCs' next quest. Won't be a problem for an organized party of players (especially the kind that like to get as much scouting/info on their foes as possible before a fight), but will be a nasty surprise to anyone who recklessly charges into combat thinking, "No sweat, I can handle this." (EDIT: And the maximum damage a non-magical, non-composite longbow can do on a critical hit is 24. If there are a bunch of orcs in the room, a few lucky shots will make them a credible threat, even if they are only level 1 with 5HP a piece.)
revnk 04-02-06, 08:59 PM	That's the kind of metagaming that will get a player in trouble. Agreed. A far more effective solution to the kind of metagaming referred to is to apply templates, class levels, and (if you have them) monster variants and lookalikes (gas spores instead of beholders, deathlocks instead of zombies, etc.) At my table, I think my most experienced player is actively afraid to metagame monster stats simply because he's afraid that his advice will result in a TPK. No, as another poster wrote, the ATTN only really works in a cartoony game with instant resurrections--which is where another poster and I were riffing on Paranoia, a cartoony RPG with instant resurrections. Generally, though: the ATTN is indefensible.
WizO_Cat 04-02-06, 10:40 PM	Yes, Players should trust their DM as DMs trust their players, as Cat says, but, the problem is that players trust their DMs not to do this. Actually, group trust their DMs not to mess them over. There's a world of difference, and an arrow to the neck doesn't always mean being messed over. (For more details, see my response below) Every player I have played with takes a lot of pride and care in their characters. Of course, they still accept that they die, but that is a risk of the game. But just killing off characters for plot doesn't seem like a good way to handle things, especially because *I* am in charge of the plot. I can always find another way. While the plot arrow to the neck isn't in the same league as the discipline arrow to the neck, it doesn't seem like it would *generally* (you can never speak in absolutes with D&D-- too many situations come up) be an awful idea. So, while I respect Cat's opinion and see where he/she/it is coming from, I respectfully, yet strongly, disagree. Ah, but the assumpton is that a player would be dead and gone sitting on their hands waiting to be resurrected. The DM could be having your player actually finding out plot information on their god's home plane. In a light-hearted but more popular way of looking at it, think of the seasons of SG-1 after Daniel was killed off or look at it like the movie "Ghost." As you said, just because one can not find a reason for this to be a good thing doesn't mean that there isn't one out in D&D. Hey, that's the power of an RPG. And really the player isn't the one that makes the plot. Yes, you are creating actions that influence your world, but you have no idea of how it really is affecting the plot. The only one that would know what the progression of he plot would be would be the DM.
narukagami 04-02-06, 11:51 PM	Actually, group trust their DMs not to mess them over. There's a world of difference, and an arrow to the neck doesn't always mean being messed over. AttN, when used in a disciplinary matter, does, always, however. Ah, but the assumpton is that a player would be dead and gone sitting on their hands waiting to be resurrected. The DM could be having your player actually finding out plot information on their god's home plane. In a light-hearted but more popular way of looking at it, think of the seasons of SG-1 after Daniel was killed off or look at it like the movie "Ghost." As you said, just because one can not find a reason for this to be a good thing doesn't mean that there isn't one out in D&D. Hey, that's the power of an RPG. And really the player isn't the one that makes the plot. Yes, you are creating actions that influence your world, but you have no idea of how it really is affecting the plot. The only one that would know what the progression of he plot would be would be the DM. Especially true if your playing something like Ghostwalk, as a matter of fact, in a game using those rules, players would enjoy their characters getting killed. Note though, none of the above applies to the "used as a disciplinary action" situation, however.
tiercel 04-03-06, 01:57 AM	So... we have all these flavors: "Disciplinary" AttN: The DM gets fed up with a PC's antics and declares him dead by fiat. From what I've seen here, I think there is general agreement that this is pretty ridiculous. If you are having a problem with how a player is playing their character, the problem needs to be resolved with the player. Arbitrarily killing off that person's character, by whim/fiat, is likely to just them more petty and disruptive. "Plot" AttN (PC): A PC dies, possibly without detailed mechanics, for reasons of advancing the plot. If the player is on board with this, the situation is plausible, and the result is a major plot development that moves the story forward and makes the game more enjoyable, then this can be cool. If this is the result of the DM railroading the plot toward a destination, it shares the pitfalls of any railroading (about which see more below). "Plot" AttN (NPC): An NPC dies, generally without detailed mechanics / any chance for the PCs to save/revive that NPC, for purpose of advancing the plot. Because this is more likely to be something that the DM does without consulting players, it can fall potentially under the heading of railroading. Most players expect that the plot will follow the basic path the DM prepares -- this is the nature of the game. But to the extent that it becomes transparent that PC actions have no impact on a particular outcome, it hurts the plausbility of the game. It's one thing for an encounter to be loaded / very difficult so that the most likely outcome is that the major NPC winds up dying, for dramatic reasons that are plausible within the rules. It's another thing to literally have a major NPC die from a single, canonical AttN when the PCs have every reason to believe that the NPC has plenty of hp (has withstood significant attacks before) and is being just attacked "out of nowhere" (not by a high-level Assassin or any other character that the PCs at least theoretically could have attempted Spot checks against or set up defenses against). This kind of death can work if it isn't pure railroading: it involves death from a plausible source within the framework of the existing campaign, using the rules. A DM fiat "he dies and there is nothing you could have done to stop it, I don't care how many traps you put down or how good your Spot check is or how well you disguised him or that you were sleeping in the room with him, he is DEAD" is likely to make the players feel jerked around. "Metagaming" AttN: This is similar to a couple of the cases above, insofar as it is designed to get players to stop metagaming (ha, a single arrow can't do enough damage to kill me). I'd argue this partly has some of the problem of the "disciplinary" AttN -- what you, as a DM, are facing is a player problem and not a character problem, and as such it is probably better resolved in real life face-to-face rather than DM-to-character. I'd also argue that this has some of the "NPC Plot" AttN problem -- doing it by fiat makes the player feel jerked around. If you really want to get the player's attention, don't have a random level 1 orc AttN your PC. Have a orc Ranger1/Rogue5 with favored enemy human wait in a likely ambush situation, trying for a surprise round against your human PC with the metagaming player. If the NPC has a Str of even 16, a composite bow with that Str rating, and a few +1 human bane arrows, a single arrow in the surprise round could be d8+3(Str)+2(favored enemy)+3+2d6(bane arrow)+3d6(sneak attack) = 30 points damage average (without crit). That might not kill your PC, but frankly scaring the excrement out of him (as the player prays to win initiative) is probably a more effective learning tactic than simply "arrow flies, PC dies." Just make sure that such an NPC makes sense within the story of your world (e.g. your orcs do have some crafty scouts and have been fighting humans for some time), and isn't a NPC created out of nowhere specifically for punishment purposes. If it just *happens* to be particularly good at taking Mr. Big Shot PC down a notch, well, that's fine, as long as that isn't the ONLY narrative reason for its existence.
Edwind 04-03-06, 02:15 AM	I don't really see much of a problem with using the Neck-Arrow method. I use something similar and it gets the point across... My Players wont shut up when I'm trying to DM or the constant "white power" jokes from the side lines "Ok, out from the forest an axe zings by and catches - insert char name here - in the face. *roll 4d6* alright you take 21 so your at -1 and as all the other characters watch as you fall to the ground a band of orcs storm from the ambush point." It has its moments when its clearly not needed, but I feel its a tool that sometimes has to be dusted off and shown it can be used. My little say so please don't flame me O.O;! Edwind.
narukagami 04-03-06, 02:22 AM	I don't really see much of a problem with using the Neck-Arrow method. I use something similar and it gets the point across... My Players wont shut up when I'm trying to DM or the constant "white power" jokes from the side lines "Ok, out from the forest an axe zings by and catches - insert char name here - in the face. *roll 4d6* alright you take 21 so your at -1 and as all the other characters watch as you fall to the ground a band of orcs storm from the ambush point." It has its moments when its clearly not needed, but I feel its a tool that sometimes has to be dusted off and shown it can be used. My little say so please don't flame me O.O;! Edwind. But there is a big difference between AttN and what you did, you threw an actual encounter at them to "wake them up", and you at least rolled some kind of dice, and that player at -1 is likely to live after a quick healing. AttN does none of the above, its a straight up death, with no chance of survival, no dice rolled, that comes from nowhere and was shot by nothing.
lastcurse 04-03-06, 03:02 AM	So... we have all these flavors: "Disciplinary" AttN: The DM gets fed up with a PC's antics and declares him dead by fiat. From what I've seen here, I think there is general agreement that this is pretty ridiculous. If you are having a problem with how a player is playing their character, the problem needs to be resolved with the player. Arbitrarily killing off that person's character, by whim/fiat, is likely to just them more petty and disruptive. "Plot" AttN (PC): A PC dies, possibly without detailed mechanics, for reasons of advancing the plot. If the player is on board with this, the situation is plausible, and the result is a major plot development that moves the story forward and makes the game more enjoyable, then this can be cool. If this is the result of the DM railroading the plot toward a destination, it shares the pitfalls of any railroading (about which see more below). "Plot" AttN (NPC): An NPC dies, generally without detailed mechanics / any chance for the PCs to save/revive that NPC, for purpose of advancing the plot. Because this is more likely to be something that the DM does without consulting players, it can fall potentially under the heading of railroading. Most players expect that the plot will follow the basic path the DM prepares -- this is the nature of the game. But to the extent that it becomes transparent that PC actions have no impact on a particular outcome, it hurts the plausbility of the game. It's one thing for an encounter to be loaded / very difficult so that the most likely outcome is that the major NPC winds up dying, for dramatic reasons that are plausible within the rules. It's another thing to literally have a major NPC die from a single, canonical AttN when the PCs have every reason to believe that the NPC has plenty of hp (has withstood significant attacks before) and is being just attacked "out of nowhere" (not by a high-level Assassin or any other character that the PCs at least theoretically could have attempted Spot checks against or set up defenses against). This kind of death can work if it isn't pure railroading: it involves death from a plausible source within the framework of the existing campaign, using the rules. A DM fiat "he dies and there is nothing you could have done to stop it, I don't care how many traps you put down or how good your Spot check is or how well you disguised him or that you were sleeping in the room with him, he is DEAD" is likely to make the players feel jerked around. "Metagaming" AttN: This is similar to a couple of the cases above, insofar as it is designed to get players to stop metagaming (ha, a single arrow can't do enough damage to kill me). I'd argue this partly has some of the problem of the "disciplinary" AttN -- what you, as a DM, are facing is a player problem and not a character problem, and as such it is probably better resolved in real life face-to-face rather than DM-to-character. I'd also argue that this has some of the "NPC Plot" AttN problem -- doing it by fiat makes the player feel jerked around. If you really want to get the player's attention, don't have a random level 1 orc AttN your PC. Have a orc Ranger1/Rogue5 with favored enemy human wait in a likely ambush situation, trying for a surprise round against your human PC with the metagaming player. If the NPC has a Str of even 16, a composite bow with that Str rating, and a few +1 human bane arrows, a single arrow in the surprise round could be d8+3(Str)+2(favored enemy)+3+2d6(bane arrow)+3d6(sneak attack) = 30 points damage average (without crit). That might not kill your PC, but frankly scaring the excrement out of him (as the player prays to win initiative) is probably a more effective learning tactic than simply "arrow flies, PC dies." Just make sure that such an NPC makes sense within the story of your world (e.g. your orcs do have some crafty scouts and have been fighting humans for some time), and isn't a NPC created out of nowhere specifically for punishment purposes. If it just *happens* to be particularly good at taking Mr. Big Shot PC down a notch, well, that's fine, as long as that isn't the ONLY narrative reason for its existence. Very nice summing up of the AttNs. I would like to add on to the Plot AttN though. Cat did put forth a more reasonable situation for one-- where although there is death, it doesn't "hurt" the player because they are still in the game. Again, as long as the player is on board, no harm can be done. While this doesn't really mess the player over, there are still some problems. It seems be poor form to "break" the rules in order to railroad a story result. While the DM is in charge of the plot, it is suppossed to be reactive to the PCs actions and to honor their choices. This is why we hate railroading. Player have been crushed, burned, zapped, hit with giant greatswords, and survived it all. Then the mystery arrow out of the blue just kills them. No roll. Hp? Out the window. Would ressurection all of a sudden become unavailable (maybe a conveninet divine blackout period?) DM fiat is a sloppy way to do things. It shows a lack of respect for the mechanics, and in all but the most trusting groups, the players. If I was hell-bent on killing off a PC for plot purposes. I would do something along the lines of what Cat did-- keep them in the game despite the death. But I wouldn't just do the mystical bolt from the blue. I would just string together a really insidious but technically sound way to do it. But, I just don't see forcing something like that to happen as being a good idea. I would set something insidious up, but, I would leave them some chance to get out of it. And if I get foiled, I get foiled. That is what makes this game great-- because that can happen. So, in the narrow situation that cat mentioned where you keep them in the game despite death, it doesn't look so bad. I have some stylistic problems with it, and it would raise some skeptical eyebrows with most groups, but, unfortunately such AttNs are not so well designed or intentioned. And Cat has my applause for this fine debate. :clap:
ArcTan 04-03-06, 03:58 AM	So... we have all these flavors: "Metagaming" AttN: This is similar to a couple of the cases above, insofar as it is designed to get players to stop metagaming (ha, a single arrow can't do enough damage to kill me). I'd argue this partly has some of the problem of the "disciplinary" AttN -- what you, as a DM, are facing is a player problem and not a character problem, and as such it is probably better resolved in real life face-to-face rather than DM-to-character. As described, it *was* a disciplinary AttN. I don't see how doing something just to "make a point" to the player could possibly be other than a disciplinary measure. What, exactly, are you trying to teach by shooting an arrow through the neck? That the world's rules don't always hold and that as DM you reserve the right to make random crap happen for the sake of plot? The players should *already know that*, because you *told them*. Doing something just to "prove" you can do it -- especially in a situation like an RPG, where it's already manifestly obvious you can do anything you want, because the world doesn't exist outside of the descriptions you give as a DM -- is inherently stupid. If a player doesn't believe a single arrow can kill him, then simply tell him he's wrong -- if he *is* wrong. Then make there be instakill arrows, sure, but do it in a believable and consistent way. In a world where there are instakill arrows, if you want the world to feel real, then instakill arrows should be a possibility in any random encounter with skilled archers, and all PCs should fear them regardless of whether their players are good or bad roleplayers. This situation sounds more like one where the player *isn't* wrong -- in an ordinary situation, arrows *wouldn't* be enough to kill him, the DM isn't in the habit of killing off characters at the drop of a hat for the sake of plot or rolling a die to decide which of the characters is at risk for getting AttN'd for the sake of random challenge, but the player *talks about* his invulnerability to arrows in a way that makes the DM upset, so the DM breaks the rules in *this specific situation* to *make* the player be wrong. This is childish, stupid, and absolutely destroys any pretense that suspension of disbelief and RPing are the point of this game. Look at it this way -- either the mechanics are simulationistically accurate or they're not. Either the number on the sheet is a rule or it's a guideline. If it's only a guideline, it should always be only a guideline for everyone. If you don't like the idea that the number is strictly a rule, and that therefore a very high-level rogue with many ranks in Hide will always be able to escape detection if she so chooses, then *say so* to your players ahead of time, and *mean it* -- make it so that there are situations where no Hide check is going to work, and storytell the utter failure of the rogue's 48 Hide roll convincingly -- so that even though she blends completely into the colors of the foliage, the wise old master walks right up to her and says, "Hello". (Note that this isn't mechanically different from giving the wise old master an ungodly-high Spot check, but if the point of your style is that some things aren't represented by numbers at all, then you should point out that "Nothing you could do could hide you from the old master" and refuse to roll or even acknowledge the Spot check. My preference would be to actually create the character with a high Spot check and roll the check anyway, but that's because I think half the fun of the game is trying to simulate situations in a fair, consistent way using numerical mechanics. YMMV.) What's unconscionable to me is playing most of the game where the Hide skill *does* mechanically work as expected, and the PC *can* hide in all manner of odd places and situations, but just because the player starts saying annoying things like, "I can hide anywhere! La la la! Hooray!" all of a sudden one day you pull a "Suddenly, that random drunk-looking guard looks *right at you* and spots you and kills you!" without rolling any Spot check at all. And you punish the player by killing her character, rather than simply saying to her, "You're being annoying. Stop it." This is horrible. It's stupid. If you want a gritty campaign where time and chance can wreck any character no matter how skilled and powerful they are, go right ahead (though you should probably use a different system from D&D, which *does* emphasize godlike heroic power in its PCs). But don't create a campaign where the heroic PCs' amazing skills can triumph over adversity every time... except for sudden, unexplained, rare occasions where their luck turns horrendously and fatally bad without warning, occasions that tend to happen right when the DM is feeling annoyed at a particular player. That's the kind of thing that non-gamers *make fun of* when we say that we're actually trying to tell stories and engage in an act of collaborative literature and fantasy rather than just screwing around acting macho and rolling dice. It's the sort of thing that undermines the credibility of the idea of role-playing. It's the sort of thing that's a *stupid running joke* in every *stupid comedy skit* that's ever been done mocking people who play D&D. Godlike DM fiats that manifest as lightning bolts and arrows through the neck left and right, whether you think they're "right" or not or "fair" or not, JUST PLAIN LOOK AND FEEL IDIOTIC. They turn the cool fantasy story into those stupid games of let's-pretend you played when you were six years old and said, "Now Johnny is dead because we don't like him! Johnny's been eaten by a lion! He's dead! Nyeah!" They ruin suspension of disbelief and turn a cool collaborative writing and playacting exercise into something childish *far* more easily than mentioning your hit-point total in numbers could ever do. You'd better hope to hell that everyone else in your group is okay with it, because if someone isn't -- as I wouldn't be -- this would be the first thing I would jump on as a way to badmouth your gaming group or your hobby in general if someone asked me about it. In my experience people who like video games, MMOs, and such but are leery of tabletop RPGs are mainly turned off by the idea of letting the game be refereed by a random person who has "absolute, godlike control" over what happens in the game. This kind of thing is what adds fuel to that fire. The main reason I think everyone who's reacting negatively to this is saying so so stridently is precisely because we don't want people to get the idea that most D&Ders think this kind of thing is okay, and that this is how DMing ought to work. No one would play basketball if the game of basketball simultaneously required there be a referee present for the game to work, and then tended to propagate a joke stereotype that referees are petty and egotistical nerds who enjoy abusing their power to frustrate the players and call unnecessary fouls on them and possibly bench them all game for no reason while they also award higher scores to players who are nice to them or happen to be dating them. But that kind of nonsense *is* a stereotype about how DMing works in RPGs *because* it's a damn hard job to do that you can't run a game without and, unfortunately, it's easy for well-meaning but geeky and undersocialized people to do it in an immature, abusive way. And we really do need to reinforce, as a community, the idea that that's not how it's supposed to go; we need to temper all the jokes about being the DM's girlfriend or buying stuff for your DM or sucking up to your DM with an understanding that we joke about it because in reality we *are* adults and we *do* try to treat our game as more than a grade-school-ish exercise in one-upmanship.
Wargamer 04-03-06, 07:36 AM	Barbarian: "Heh, those three ruffians should be no problem. It'll take far more than them to best me!" Rogue: "Psst! Don't say that! Pretend to be afraid!" Barbarian: "Afraid? Of such a pathetic trio?" Rogue: "Just do it! Act scared of their arrows!" Barbarian: "Why on Earth would I do that? Last Thursday I faced down a troll who carried a magical ballista with him! Now that put some fear into my heart, but after that and all of the hundreds of punks like these who I've put into the ground, what worry should I really carry?" Rogue: "Listen, and maybe I shouldn't say this, but there's something that I've learned. People who act cocky - and I don't care if you're previous adventures give you good reason to - they just randomly explode!" Barbarian: "You can't be serious!" Rogue: "Just trust me on this one. I know it doesn't make any sense, and I don't think we should talk about it too much, but if you value your neck you'll heed my warnings." Seriously, the game world is a character's reality. Why should they be afraid of what looks like a low level punk with a nonmagical longbow? Ah, now you've brought up one key point... There is a difference between the Barbarian screaming "For Thor! For Odin! To battle we ride, last one in Asgard buys the drinks!", and saying "Hah! I have 9D10 HD and AC 23! You can't hurt me!" Arrow to the Neck does not mean every player should be terrified. It means they should act realistically! Most people will treat battle with caution. After all, in "real life" a veteran of a thousand battles will die just as easily as a conscript if he gets an axe through the face. There are plenty of reasons for a character not to be scared (experience, courage, or downright psychotic defiance), but the stats on your character sheet are not one of them.
Sulaco 04-03-06, 09:41 AM	The arrow in the neck is the best example of what you should do. You had every single right in the world to do it. You had warned him not to do it many times, it seems, so if he knew what was good, he would either 1) Know what was coming to him and except it, or 2) change what he did. You basically had the right to punish him like that the way a parent punishes their child for using their table manners: If they keep on not using them, they need to learn to do it!!! Eventually, only something as traumatic, in the childs case, as a grounding, or in the players case, AN ARROW TO THE FREAKIN' NECK!!! Sorry, but it still violates the cardinal rule of dealing with a meta problems in -game. If the player is a problem then deal with the player, not the character. No matter how good the justification the act itself is unacceptable. BTW, does anyone else find it funny that the acronym for Arrow Through The Neck (attn) is the short-form contraction of the word "attention"? I know it would certainly get my attention. ;)
Sulaco 04-03-06, 09:46 AM	I can think of a situation where an Arrow-to-the-neck is the most appropriate thing possible. When one player powergames his character to heck and back (Read: Pun=pun)., and is ruining the game for everybody else. That character is so powerful that you can't use the rules to stop him, and any OOC-talk with a player is, by that point, useless. What do you do? Do you say, "You're out. leave my table," and have all the players pretend in-game that the character never existed? or do you RP out; "The creator of the universe is angry with Pun-Pun. Pun-Pun dies, and his soul is destroyed." Honestly, that option gives a chance for the player to come back and play a decent character. No, you act like an adult and say "PLAYER X, this characetr is completely out of hand. Can you please retire it and create something a bit more in keeping with the game, world, the rest of the group and sanity?" In truth no DM worth his dice would allow anything as unbalanced and out-of-hand happen in his game, but as ye sow so shall ye reap.
Wargamer 04-03-06, 10:18 AM	Hmm... you know, I didn't spot that "AttN" and "Attention" thing until you mentioned it... No, you act like an adult and say "PLAYER X, this characetr is completely out of hand. Can you please retire it and create something a bit more in keeping with the game, world, the rest of the group and sanity?" In truth no DM worth his dice would allow anything as unbalanced and out-of-hand happen in his game, but as ye sow so shall ye reap. Ever had to DM with multiple players with an average matruity-age of 6 or under? I've tried running campaigns before with kids whose parents desperately need to take them home, put them over their knee and spank them until they bleed. Hell, I've played games with adults like that! By far the best method to get them not to come back is not to tell them "We don't want you playing anymore," it's to turn on them in-game. Give them a chance, then slaughter them when they fail to adhere. Best method by far.
Sulaco 04-03-06, 10:22 AM	I personally believe that if there's a player in my game who's A) too stupid to understand rules, B) too stubborn to follow them C) has been warned many, many times in and out of game or D) all of the above, than an arrow to the neck is a perfect prelude to "Get the Eff out of my game, you friggin' moron." You know what also works? Actually saying "Get the Eff out of my game, you friggin' moron." If you want to kick a player out then do so, arbitrarily killing his PC in complete violation both of the D&D rules and the DM's role is not the way to accomplish this.
Sulaco 04-03-06, 10:24 AM	By far the best method to get them not to come back is not to tell them "We don't want you playing anymore," it's to turn on them in-game. Nope, that is the worst method The best method is saying "We don't want you playing anymore."
starfire311 04-03-06, 10:28 AM	Nope, that is the worst method The best method is saying "We don't want you playing anymore." exactly, because just killing their character doesn't make them think you do't wnat them there.. It let's them think that you still want them there, they just need to make a new character.
Ohtar Turinson 04-03-06, 04:46 PM	I use a somewhat comical varient of Arrow Through the Neck, often loosely inspired by various webcomics. "A dragon eats you" or "rocks fall, everybody dies" or "you are hit by a stray arrow, which explodes." My players know I'm not serious- they also know that this means that they should stop carefully coordinating tactics in the middle of the fight, stop metagaming, stop irritating the DM, etc. My personal favorites: "You die of starvation" (from when a player was waiting to ambush something in the pregame portion, and the monster wasn't coming back) "You die of extreme sunburn" (from a player telling "your mom" jokes during character creation-- his character is a cleric of Dol Arrah in the aspect of god of the Sun) Real AttN should only be used on NPCs, and only as a means of plot advancement- preferably giving the PCs the chance to spot the assailant.
20goingon1232 04-03-06, 05:08 PM	What the entire lot of "Woohoo! Go, Master, go!" people have totally ignored is the OP advocating this for an extreme Shakespeare Theatre type of roleplaying. Instead, they have focused on the trees instead of the forest and end up trying to deforest the land one tree at a time. I'd sooner use a daisy cutter, but that is neither here nor there. The point of the matter is, above and beyond rude, immature, stupid, petty, arrogant and double standard (things that, hopefully, your parents should have taught you is a no-no, particularly when you throw your first temper tantrum as a child), in a Shakespeare style game, there is NO ROOM for an arrow through the neck. On one hand is a a deeply immersive game, on the other, a metagaming action. Hello? So, the DM can metagame, but the players cannot? And so, we are brought back to "rude, arrogant, petty, stupid, immature and double standards". Sure, you can DM like that. That, however, still does not absolve you of being "arrogant, stupid, immature, rude and petty" and possessing of "double standards". This reminds me of all those people that says "I'm not the bad guy! Really! Sure, I blow up kids and pregnant women, but they forced me into doing it! I swear it! I am poor and live in the streets because all those people stole it from me! Nevermind that I don't want to work and I am killing them so they can't trust me! Oh no! It's all their fault!" Contrast that with "I'm not the bad guy! Really! Sure, I do the arrow to the neck, but they forced me into doing it! I swear it! I am not enjoying myself in my L33T roleplaying experience because all those people stole it from me with their metagaming! Nevermind that I am trying to Shakespeare and they are less fanatic about it! How dare they! Shakespeare is God, the bloody female canines! It's all their fault!" I am sure either claims would excuse you of being the bad guy.
Morrowner 04-03-06, 05:47 PM	I like Hand to the Face a lot better than Arrow To The Neck. A Hand to the Face enemy is deceptively powerful and is brought in as an enforcer. Basically Mr. Hand to the Face is going to make Mr. Metagamer's life a living hell. A Mind Flayer with non-associated monk levels that is hitting and running on him and is sent by a cleric of Ilsensine to consume his brain as punish for blasphemy and intrusion...Hand to Face. A total scrub with a magical PC-killing crossbow...total BS. It shows that the DM has probably been just as much of an offensive jagoff as the person who allegedly "deserves" to have a character killed for something as bogus as "Being a power gamer" or "Not RPing well enough."
Witchblade 04-03-06, 06:11 PM	Arrow to the neck is not only ridiculous, as mentioned above by many people, it's also styleless. When you're incompetent enough to use the Arrow-Through-The-Neck method, do it with style. Like: "A hoard of berserk braineating donkies comes rushing your way and your hair catches fire. The donkies are attracted by the fire and start devouring your brain. Then lightning strikes. Twice. Your body is completely obliterated. It all happens so fast you can't react. "
Ryven 04-03-06, 07:39 PM	You know what also works? Actually saying "Get the Eff out of my game, you friggin' moron." If you want to kick a player out then do so, arbitrarily killing his PC in complete violation both of the D&D rules and the DM's role is not the way to accomplish this. Some people were big enough jerks to deserve this in games I've been in. Thankfully, I don't game with them anymore. I personally don't see what the deal is about killing off a character of a guy you don't like, a character that was disrupting the campaign and won't be playing anyway. Tell him to get the eff out your game, oh, but don't kill off his character made from paper and numbers because that would be bad?
20goingon1232 04-03-06, 08:13 PM	Some people were big enough jerks to deserve this in games I've been in. Thankfully, I don't game with them anymore. I personally don't see what the deal is about killing off a character of a guy you don't like, a character that was disrupting the campaign and won't be playing anyway. Tell him to get the eff out your game, oh, but don't kill off his character made from paper and numbers because that would be bad? One is out of game, the other in game. It is mature to deal with out of game problems out of game. In fact, I would say that it is more than that: It is an issue of courage as well. Dealing with out of game problems in game where you have the final say and ultimate power is, at the very least, perceived as bad form. If you are so sure of your stance, then take it to an arena where you do not have ultimate power as see how it holds up. Don't be a coward and hide behind your DM-ness.
WizO_Cat 04-03-06, 09:21 PM	It seems be poor form to "break" the rules in order to railroad a story result. While the DM is in charge of the plot, it is suppossed to be reactive to the PCs actions and to honor their choices. This is why we hate railroading. Player have been crushed, burned, zapped, hit with giant greatswords, and survived it all. Then the mystery arrow out of the blue just kills them. No roll. Hp? Out the window. Would ressurection all of a sudden become unavailable (maybe a conveninet divine blackout period?) DM fiat is a sloppy way to do things. It shows a lack of respect for the mechanics, and in all but the most trusting groups, the players. I'll admit that form hasn't been big on my list for things when it comes to the game. I don't play with the weapon sizing rules for small creatures and don't play with the weapon material damage resistance. Do that mean that's I get up from the table if I hear that they're playing by those rules? No, it just means that I usually propose to the group that we don't play wth them, and if the DM and the rest of the players are cool with it, that the rule. I guess the AttN would be the same situation for me. For me, the overriding thing is t have fun, and if new mechanics and disposal of some of the old mechanics works for your group, that's terrific. Now, I'd probably wouldn't bring it up as a rule since it's not a rule that I play with, but I guess I'd have a pretty open mind depending on the maturity of the DM and the group and how experienced that they were to playing with one another. Is AttN something that I would recommend to newly formed groups or young player groups? Heck no! If I was hell-bent on killing off a PC for plot purposes. I would do something along the lines of what Cat did-- keep them in the game despite the death. But I wouldn't just do the mystical bolt from the blue. I would just string together a really insidious but technically sound way to do it. But, I just don't see forcing something like that to happen as being a good idea. I would set something insidious up, but, I would leave them some chance to get out of it. And if I get foiled, I get foiled. That is what makes this game great-- because that can happen. So, in the narrow situation that cat mentioned where you keep them in the game despite death, it doesn't look so bad. I have some stylistic problems with it, and it would raise some skeptical eyebrows with most groups, but, unfortunately such AttNs are not so well designed or intentioned. I agree with most of the above. You really have to be comfortable with you group before introducing a mechanism like AttN to it. However, the only theing that I'd note is that not all forms of railroading are bad. After all, people do get on trains to go from point A to point B. It all depends on if the group wants to go along for the ride. If they do, "All aboard!" Also, if it was a pivotable plot point, then foiling may not be an option. All in all, an arrow to the players neck is not a tactic that I normally use, but (a) I wouldn't hold it against a group if they were having fun with such a mechanic and (b) I guess I could see how it could be used in a mature manner. That's the only point that I was trying to make. I do agree that there are a lot of pitfalls to the rule in general usage. And Cat has my applause for this fine debate. :clap: And you have my applause as well. :) Also keep in mind that I wouldn't mind using AttN to the monsters as well. For example if I have a 10th level party and I roll up a CR 3 encounter, I wouldn't have a problem just telling the players, "Due to your excellent combat experience, you make short work of the lackey guards." If the party rogue is smart enough to solve a riddle and fire a mysterious arrow at the BBEG at midnight, there's a good chance that I would just tell the player that they slew the BBEG and describe the flight and impact of the arrow. For me, it works both ways, and of course I would check with the group I was DMing to make sure that they were ok with those game mechanics.
Ryven 04-03-06, 09:35 PM	One is out of game, the other in game. It is mature to deal with out of game problems out of game. In fact, I would say that it is more than that: It is an issue of courage as well. Dealing with out of game problems in game where you have the final say and ultimate power is, at the very least, perceived as bad form. If you are so sure of your stance, then take it to an arena where you do not have ultimate power as see how it holds up. Don't be a coward and hide behind your DM-ness. Hiding behind my DMness? I don't think you fully read my previous posts where I said that arrow through the neck (kobold rogue coup de gras, Monty Python Giant Foot, whathave you) is a precursor to "get the eff out." I am a reasonable woman. I've never had to do this before, even though I would have liked to a few times, but I wasn't the DM, and thusly wasn't my perogative. I'll talk to you about it until my face turns blue. But if there comes a point where talking isn't doing anything, then a blunt GTFO and an sudden exploding character comes into play. Some people just need a smack to the head to get their attention. And I'm not talking about personal issues. I'm talking about game issues, IE a broken character, a purposely disruptive character, a player ignoring rulings, ect. Because it's a game. Characters, in the end, are numbers, paper and imagination, easily portable to the next game. As much as it sucks for me to admit that, it's true. It just confuses me how people can condone TPKs in one breath and berate a DM for the ole AttN approach. Is it a lack of rules thing? 'Cause I certainly don't see it as a "coward" thing. At least, if the AttN is accompanied by a "Last session was your last warning, now please leave."
20goingon1232 04-03-06, 09:59 PM	Hiding behind my DMness? I don't think you fully read my previous posts where I said that arrow through the neck (kobold rogue coup de gras, Monty Python Giant Foot, whathave you) is a precursor to "get the eff out." I am a reasonable woman. I've never had to do this before, even though I would have liked to a few times, but I wasn't the DM, and thusly wasn't my perogative. I'll talk to you about it until my face turns blue. But if there comes a point where talking isn't doing anything, then a blunt GTFO and an sudden exploding character comes into play. Some people just need a smack to the head to get their attention. And I'm not talking about personal issues. I'm talking about game issues, IE a broken character, a purposely disruptive character, a player ignoring rulings, ect. Because it's a game. Characters, in the end, are numbers, paper and imagination, easily portable to the next game. As much as it sucks for me to admit that, it's true. It just confuses me how people can condone TPKs in one breath and berate a DM for the ole AttN approach. Is it a lack of rules thing? 'Cause I certainly don't see it as a "coward" thing. At least, if the AttN is accompanied by a "Last session was your last warning, now please leave." Asking a player to leave is an OOG thing. That is acceptable. AttN is an in game thing. That is not acceptable. The PLAYER is being disruptive to your game, not the CHARACTER. Thus, dealing with the problem in game is dealing with it in the wrong place. Doesn't matter how you cut it, AttN is wrong. Why could you not GENTLY tell the PLAYER he is no longer welcome? Why must you get off all over the map? In the immortal words of a friend of mine "Hey, man! This isn't porno! You can't just explode all over everyone!" It is a cowardly thing because it is in an arena where you have the ultimate power. "God says you die, so an arrow gets you through the neck." Electing to use an arena where you have the final say and thus an insurmountable advantage, instead of taking an option that puts you on a relatively equal footing is cowardly in this context. This is not a war or a business. This is supposedly a social situation. What you did indicated that you needed the shield of power to say what you said, otherwise you'd be too afraid to do so. Reminds me of a certain political figure here in NZ. When challenged to say what he said away from Parliamentary Privilege (which prevents him from being prosecuted for slander and libel), he ran away instead. If you are not a coward, engage your player in an arena where you don't have the shield of power. Tell him to his face that he isn't welcomed. Out of game.
tiercel 04-03-06, 10:05 PM	As described, it *was* a disciplinary AttN. I don't see how doing something just to "make a point" to the player could possibly be other than a disciplinary measure. What, exactly, are you trying to teach by shooting an arrow through the neck?Well... I mainly drew the distinction between the "disciplinary" and "metagaming" AttNs to reflect the distinction that the OP (way, way back at the very beginning of this thread) was trying to draw -- the idea that using an AttN to punish/discourage metagaming behavior was somehow OK. Personally, I don't think an AttN is ever appropriate. Of the four types that I tried to summarize in my earlier post, the only one that could work IMO are the "plot" ones -- but for them to work, they probably shouldn't be pure AttNs. In the case of the NPC plot AttN, the "arrow" should be an event which is explainable within game mechanics, and which the PCs could at least theoretically detect/foil. Sure, a DM can design a set-piece encounter where the NPC is supposed to die, but we all know that players are masters of throwing a spanner in the works -- that's part of the fun of the game. Let them have their chance! (Who knows, if they are somehow successful, the resulting plot might be even more interesting.) In the case of the PC plot AttN, having a PC die (with the player's permission) for purposes of plot can be very dramatic. On the other hand, if it is drama you are shooting for, the "AttN" should be something a little more heroic than a literal AttN, presumably -- something more like an extended scene leading up to "Fly, you fools!" rather than a simple *thunk-drop*. The very image invoked by AttN is that of an unstoppable DM fiat event. And, at least IMO, DMs shouldn't have to resort to fiat, and certainly not as a preplanned event. If it is something you want to happen, well, you are the DM! You have control of the setting, just cook up something that works within the continuity of the story and the purview of the game mechanics. I find that a story works better when you don't try to "force" certain events. Sure, set them up -- often they will work out one way or the other *sort* of like you planned them, since most players have Detect Plot Device as a class skill. On the other hand, running with the changes your players bring to the table is part of the fun of being a DM. Non-plot AttNs can pretty much always be handled in a better way -- player issues should be worked out with the players, and PC overconfidence can be handled with more challenging encounters. There is no need to get all tyrannical with your players. (Save up those tyrannical urges for your BBEG, instead.... :devil: )
Ryven 04-03-06, 10:15 PM	Asking a player to leave is an OOG thing. That is acceptable. AttN is an in game thing. That is not acceptable. The PLAYER is being disruptive to your game, not the CHARACTER. Thus, dealing with the problem in game is dealing with it in the wrong place. Doesn't matter how you cut it, AttN is wrong. Why could you not GENTLY tell the PLAYER he is no longer welcome? Why must you get off all over the map? In the immortal words of a friend of mine "Hey, man! This isn't porno! You can't just explode all over everyone!" It is a cowardly thing because it is in an arena where you have the ultimate power. "God says you die, so an arrow gets you through the neck." Electing to use an arena where you have the final say and thus an insurmountable advantage, instead of taking an option that puts you on a relatively equal footing is cowardly in this context. This is not a war or a business. This is supposedly a social situation. What you did indicated that you needed the shield of power to say what you said, otherwise you'd be too afraid to do so. Reminds me of a certain political figure here in NZ. When challenged to say what he said away from Parliamentary Privilege (which prevents him from being prosecuted for slander and libel), he ran away instead. If you are not a coward, engage your player in an arena where you don't have the shield of power. Tell him to his face that he isn't welcomed. Out of game. Don't kill his imaginary character, engage him in actual combat over a game? Um, a bit extreme, and no, not over a game. And I'll say it once again, I'LL USE IT WHEN TELLING HIM GENTLY DOESN'T WORK. I've, unfortunately, played with people that thick.
AlphaSquirell 04-03-06, 10:21 PM	Arrow-to-the-Neck: NO ~Why? Seems too much "That happened because you don't like me." DM "GodBolt": YES ~Why? Can be attributed to Divine Intervention, and can be confirmed by a Celestial creature by delivering a message to the party stating so.
20goingon1232 04-03-06, 10:45 PM	Don't kill his imaginary character, engage him in actual combat over a game? Um, a bit extreme, and no, not over a game. And I'll say it once again, I'LL USE IT WHEN TELLING HIM GENTLY DOESN'T WORK. I've, unfortunately, played with people that thick. :clap: :clap: :clap: Way to go. A sure sign of someone facing a loss and so he starts twisting the words of his opponent around and try to squirm his way free. Where did I say you are to get into a physical altercation with him? I told you to deal with it out of game, not get in a punch up with him. So, you tell him not to turn up at your doorstep and he still turns up and you still feel obliged to let him in and respond to him? After you told him in no uncertain terms that this game is not for him? Hello? Who is the thick one here?
speeblefreak 04-03-06, 10:48 PM	Up until now, I've only read, but now I think I'll throw in my :twocents: Arrow-to-the-Neck: NO ~Why? Seems too much "That happened because you don't like me." DM "GodBolt": YES ~Why? Can be attributed to Divine Intervention, and can be confirmed by a Celestial creature by delivering a message to the party stating so. I see no reason a deity would not use an arrow to strike down a character, particularly if the god happened to be a militant one. But that's beside the point. In the situation described (player metagaming and otherwise acting up), the problem is clearly out-of-character, so there's no in-character justification for an effect that works out to DM fiat, whether it's an arrow a god-bolt, a meteor, or what-have-you. Furthermore, players are smart enough to distinguish between being struck down by a god and being struck down by the DM, and having a celestial come along and inform the party that the character has been killed reeks of poor cover-up in these circumstances. Just tell the player that he needs to change his ways, and if he doesn't, un-invite him.
Ryven 04-03-06, 11:54 PM	:clap: :clap: :clap: Way to go. A sure sign of someone facing a loss and so he starts twisting the words of his opponent around and try to squirm his way free. Where did I say you are to get into a physical altercation with him? I told you to deal with it out of game, not get in a punch up with him. So, you tell him not to turn up at your doorstep and he still turns up and you still feel obliged to let him in and respond to him? After you told him in no uncertain terms that this game is not for him? Hello? Who is the thick one here? I took your "arena" remark literally, because "duking it out in game" seemed a bit... well, trite. No offense. What exactly did you mean by taking it to an arena where I didn't have DM power? Building characters and duking it out? Taking him aside and debating with him until his face turns blue? And no. He ignored warnings, in and out of game. He ignored hints. He ignored "Hey, stop cheating, jerk. Last warning." I wish I could have DMed, because this guy never got kicked out of games. The DM never had the balls to do it, because he "didn't like confrontations". It didn't help that the player was twice the size of the DM, and liked to throw that around. I wish I could have been in the DMs chair just once, so I could have taken him in the next room, told him his cheezed out, obviously cheated character was coup de gras-ed by a kobold rogue, and then shown him to the door. This is the only time I'd see it as appropriate. Not before you've talked to him. Not before you've warned him. But in that rare occasion you end up gaming with an honest to gawd arse who's too thick, stubborn, or obsessed about his character to heed anything the DM says. And knock it off with the personal attacks.
20goingon1232 04-04-06, 12:04 AM	I took your "arena" remark literally, because "duking it out in game" seemed a bit... well, trite. No offense. What exactly did you mean by taking it to an arena where I didn't have DM power? Building characters and duking it out? Taking him aside and debating with him until his face turns blue? And no. He ignored warnings, in and out of game. He ignored hints. He ignored "Hey, stop cheating, jerk. Last warning." I wish I could have DMed, because this guy never got kicked out of games. The DM never had the balls to do it, because he "didn't like confrontations". It didn't help that the player was twice the size of the DM, and liked to throw that around. I wish I could have been in the DMs chair just once, so I could have taken him in the next room, told him his cheezed out, obviously cheated character was coup de gras-ed by a kobold rogue, and then shown him to the door. This is the only time I'd see it as appropriate. Not before you've talked to him. Not before you've warned him. But in that rare occasion you end up gaming with an honest to gawd arse who's too thick, stubborn, or obsessed about his character to heed anything the DM says. And knock it off with the personal attacks. a·re·na ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-rn) n. 1. An enclosed area for the presentation of sports events and spectacles. A building housing such an area 2. A place or scene where forces contend or events unfold: withdrew from the political arena; the world as an arena of moral conflict. 3. The area in the center of an ancient Roman amphitheater where contests and other spectacles were held. - source: www.dictionary.com Note meaning number 2. You are annoyed by someone else in another DM's game. That DM didn't have the balls. Too bad. Sucks to be you. What is wrong with telling him that the game does suit his style and thus he should look for another game? There. Plain and simple. You don't need the pointless and totally antagonistic DM vs Player AttN crap. Take off your DM's hat and tell him to go. What is he going to do? Stay at the table and be ignored by everyone? I am totally amazed that you cannot see this and instead come up with a bunch of totally STUPID alliterations of the same zoned out path of extremism. Don't like a player? Stop arguing with him and tell him to get lost. You are not the DM? Hello? The whole AttN thing is DM-fiat. If you are not in the position of being the DM, why are you even here arguing about it (let alone for it)? The entire topic of the thread ASSUMES you are the DM and thus have the power. Thus, start roleplaying and think as though you are the DM. You are not doing your arguments any favours by stating you are a player in this scenario.
allenchan 04-04-06, 12:35 AM	:clap:
pres_man 04-04-06, 12:56 AM	Ryven: Killing a PC by DM fiat as a precursor to removing a player from the game is bad. Killing a former PC by DM fiat after asking the player to leave the game is good. Don't try to reason with the people on this board, just accept this position. Killing the PC when the player is at the table is bad, killing then former PC a millisecond after the player leaves the table is ok. By the way it cracks me up when people say stuff like, "Don't kill the character they didn't do anything, it was the mean player that did it. Stop picking on the character." It is an imaginary personality, it does not really exist, you can't pick on something that doesn't exists. :rofl:
Catra 04-04-06, 01:02 AM	Sorry if I'm repeating, I only read the first and last pages, but... Why does the arrow in the neck have to be a killing blow? The first thing I thought of when I read the thread name was an arrow going throught the thick, fleshy part of the throat, not throught the spine. That seems like a good thing to do to a character AFTER the player has left or been kicked out, not before. But it would throw their character's own mortality in their face to hear "You raise your sword to strike the Hobgoblin, but an arrow pierces your neck from the side. Your grip on your sword falters, and you stumble. You realize that by breathing in quick, shallow breaths you can avoid drowning in your own blood. You can still fight, but for how long..." At this point, if they die, it's their own fault (and the party's). If you've seen Kingdom of Heaven, you know that an arrow throught the neck like that is not an isnta-kill for a level 4 warrior. I would suggest using this as the result of a natural 20, and actually roll the dice of an enemy on the battlefield. You may have to bide your time, but eventually it will happen. However, if the player has seriously pushed you and the party to the limit of human patience, you might want to replace this rule with a Sneak Attack, attack of opportunity, or a regular critical hit. But STILL roll for an actual enemy!
Ryven 04-04-06, 02:21 AM	Ryven: Killing a PC by DM fiat as a precursor to removing a player from the game is bad. Killing a former PC by DM fiat after asking the player to leave the game is good. Don't try to reason with the people on this board, just accept this position. Killing the PC when the player is at the table is bad, killing then former PC a millisecond after the player leaves the table is ok. By the way it cracks me up when people say stuff like, "Don't kill the character they didn't do anything, it was the mean player that did it. Stop picking on the character." It is an imaginary personality, it does not really exist, you can't pick on something that doesn't exists. :rofl: *Ignores flames* Then I'll just have to wait the one millisecond if and when it happens in my game. But I have awesome players, so I doubt it will ever come up. At least in my current campaign. I'm just saying my previous DM should have had the cahones to do it. He always said he was gonna do it, 'cause he was as nicked as everyone else was about it, but never did. Meh. C'est la vie. And see, that's what I was thinking in the first place. Everyone's so up in arms about "killing off a character when the character didn't do anything." It's a character. An imaginary person composed of some abstract ideas, numbers, some pencil lead and some paper. Its okay to tell a guy, rudely or no, to bugger off and never come back, but it's not okay to pretend to kill off an imaginary character? But thank you for the civil response. It's muchly appreciated.
Cantankerous 04-04-06, 02:35 AM	So, it all comes back to the same point, again, and again, and again. Wargamer, you've been saying that you're doing this to promote RP. You've talked about it being most necessary in a heavy to total RP game. So, this begs the question, yet again, if the game is being based on RP, what are you doing recruiting players with the average "maturity of six year olds"? Are you looking for six year old RPing ability? If so, why are you complaining about it? Also, if this is "heavy to total" RP, why the DM god strike? How can you possibly claim to promote RP by inserting something (a obviously not dis-interested god form that smites those who step out of line) designed to make it impossible? Isshia
Cantankerous 04-04-06, 02:44 AM	BTW: The idea behind not killing off the character doesn't have anything to do with the character itself or empathy for it, but rather with running a consistant and reasonable FEELING game. Hey, in a no RP game, arrow them through the neck with a hammer gun weilded by a fat tranny in a pink tutu who's singing "Light my Fire" and then tap dances on their corpse until it's goo. What's the difference? But in a heavy RP game it's idiotic to do the old "message for your sir" bit and have "sweet Concorde" fall over dead, errr, mortally wounded, errr actually doing ok and recovering while the rest of the group just runs off to slaughter the wedding guests in their own particular....idiom; simply does NOT work. Isshia
a_psh 04-04-06, 04:16 AM	By the way it cracks me up when people say stuff like, "Don't kill the character they didn't do anything, it was the mean player that did it. Stop picking on the character." It is an imaginary personality, it does not really exist, you can't pick on something that doesn't exists. :rofl:The idea is that arbitrarily killing the character kills the other players' enjoyment of the game, because you're severely hurting immersion, suspension of disbelief, verissimilitude, &c. by throwing in your superarrow / godbolt. To them and their characters, the world ceases to make sense. So what people are actually saying is "Don't hurt the whole campaign just because of one player." Makes sense, ne?
Sulaco 04-04-06, 09:18 AM	Arrow to the neck is not only ridiculous, as mentioned above by many people, it's also styleless. When you're incompetent enough to use the Arrow-Through-The-Neck method, do it with style. I prefer "You suddenly find yourself sexually attracted to fire..." ;)
Sulaco 04-04-06, 09:24 AM	Some people were big enough jerks to deserve this in games I've been in. Thankfully, I don't game with them anymore. I personally don't see what the deal is about killing off a character of a guy you don't like, a character that was disrupting the campaign and won't be playing anyway. Tell him to get the eff out your game, oh, but don't kill off his character made from paper and numbers because that would be bad? No, it is bad when used as a solution to the problem. Once the offender has been ousted from the game you can have him buggered consecutively by the starting line of the Chicago Bears if you like - after what the group endured it might be a great cathartic stress release - but looking to it to solve the issue is just plain wrong.
Sulaco 04-04-06, 09:32 AM	And I'll say it once again, I'LL USE IT WHEN TELLING HIM GENTLY DOESN'T WORK. I've, unfortunately, played with people that thick. If telling him gently doesn't work then tell him bluntly. And if that still doesn't work then stop the session before he ruins it further and simply don't invite over anymore or even tell him when the next session is.
darkness ninja of light 04-04-06, 09:35 AM	Some people were big enough jerks to deserve this in games I've been in. Thankfully, I don't game with them anymore. I personally don't see what the deal is about killing off a character of a guy you don't like, a character that was disrupting the campaign and won't be playing anyway. Tell him to get the eff out your game, oh, but don't kill off his character made from paper and numbers because that would be bad? Also it's just stoking the flames "Haha I killed your character with my DM god powers and now I'm kicking you out of the game! We don't like you and you can't do anything about it!" Yes, I'm sure he'll be quite civil about the matter, apologize, and promptly leave after that show.
Sulaco 04-04-06, 09:42 AM	Also it's just stoking the flames "Haha I killed your character with my DM god powers and now I'm kicking you out of the game! We don't like you and you can't do anything about it!" Yes, I'm sure he'll be quite civil about the matter, apologize, and promptly leave after that show. If a DM pulled that kind of powerplay he might not be the only one leaving.
Sulaco 04-04-06, 09:51 AM	And no. He ignored warnings, in and out of game. He ignored hints. He ignored "Hey, stop cheating, jerk. Last warning." I wish I could have DMed, because this guy never got kicked out of games. The DM never had the balls to do it, because he "didn't like confrontations". It didn't help that the player was twice the size of the DM, and liked to throw that around. I wish I could have been in the DMs chair just once, so I could have taken him in the next room, told him his cheezed out, obviously cheated character was coup de gras-ed by a kobold rogue, and then shown him to the door. The DM doesn't need to be the one to do it. If the group as a whole has an issue with this guy then the group should oust him. There is no reason whatsover that this duty must fall to the DM. We had an issue with a new player a few years ago. It wasn't a cheating issue or a disuption issue, It just wasn't working out. His style and personality just didn't mesh with any of us. As a group we decided it would be best to ask him to leave but we didn't it to seem like we were ganging up on him. So my wife, being the most diplomatic and least intimidating member of the group, took him aside and explained it to him as gently as possible. He took it hard - harder then the brief couple of weeks should have entailed - but it was best overall. Last I heard he found a group of players much more like him and his style and was far happier, as were we. So I reiterate: the DM runs the game, not the group. If the group has an issue with a player then it does not necessarily fall to the DM to handle it. Either deal with it as a group or have the person best able to deal with the problem player handle it.
Sulaco 04-04-06, 09:54 AM	Ryven: Killing a PC by DM fiat as a precursor to removing a player from the game is bad. Killing a former PC by DM fiat after asking the player to leave the game is good. Sarcasm aside, that is pretty much it. Once a player leaves the group his PC become and NPC, and the DM can do whatever he wants to an NPC. The issue is not "picking on a character", it is using in-game actions to punish an out-of-game situation. This is not, I thought, a difficult concept to grasp.
Sulaco 04-04-06, 10:00 AM	And see, that's what I was thinking in the first place. Everyone's so up in arms about "killing off a character when the character didn't do anything." It's a character. An imaginary person composed of some abstract ideas, numbers, some pencil lead and some paper. Its okay to tell a guy, rudely or no, to bugger off and never come back, but it's not okay to pretend to kill off an imaginary character? Yes on both counts. That the PC is "an imaginary person composed of some abstract ideas, numbers, some pencil lead and some paper" is immaterial. The AttN is an abuse of the DM's position within the shared game. And yes, it is okay to tell someone to leave. It is not easy, and it is certainly not desireable, but it is okay. You are under no obligation to spend time with socially, or host in your home, someone whose company or actions you do not enjoy. What it gets down to, I think, is that it is easier to use the AttN then to confront the player. It is easier to honk the player off with the AttN and have them leave then it is to ask them to leave. The AttN is essentially the DM mitigating their guilt: "He got mad and stormed out" is a lot easier to handle than "We asked him to leave and it really hurt his feelings."
Twisted Puppy 04-04-06, 10:25 AM	Also it's just stoking the flames "Haha I killed your character with my DM god powers and now I'm kicking you out of the game! We don't like you and you can't do anything about it!" Yes, I'm sure he'll be quite civil about the matter, apologize, and promptly leave after that show. Effective irony lightly etches a phrase instead of dripping from every word. :) But we aren't studying rhetoric. You're correct, the player is not likely to react in a rational manner. IMC we had a problem player. Aside from various in game issues there were also issues regarding personal hygiene. On several occassions he had lost his temper with other players. I probably should have given him the boot after the second one of those tantrums. I didn't because I know my own temper is bad, and I try not to make decisions that can't be backed away from when I'm angry. In retrospect, it was a mistake not to boot him earlier. The group had been getting stalked by an assassin, who had escaped them twice previously. They were, in fact, unaware he had been watching one battle - thanks to some very good hide and move silently rolls. The player in question had been in the habit of having his character, a cleric, stand back and blasting with spells rather than moving with the rest of the party. In each battle did the exact same thing down to casting his spells in nearly the same sequence. To me, since the assassin had observed this twice, he would be ready if the character did the same thing again. The result was the cleric being on the receiving end of a death attack which succeeded. (Fort save failed). While the party had sufficient resources to afford a True Resurrection, and could used a lesser spell on their own, they chose not to revive the character. The player had left to get something to eat after his character died, and the other players siad they didn't want to raise the dead PC. They were tired of the problems the player caused at the table. I decided to tell the guy to take a week or two break, then come back after everyone had a chance to step back and think. Maybe he could take some constructive criticism and improve some of his habits. When I told the player that his character was, indeed, still dead, he was not happy. When I explained that he might want to take a week or two off he became belligerent, demanding to know why. When I listed a few of the in-game problems, he bacame abusive, cursing in a loud voice - in the middle of a book store - at me and another player who came up to ask him to calm down. At that point I told him that instead of not coming back for a couple of weeks, just not to come back. (Did I mention I do have a bad temper?) I'm not proud of or happy about the way the situation turned out. I probably should have ruled that the character had been raised, but needed to go perform a duty to her deity. That would have justified a two week break, in which I could have run some individual stuff with him via email while dropping some hints about the problems he was causing. In this case, given the personality of this player, I doubt it would have made a difference. I do hope that is a situation that never comes up again.
Twisted Puppy 04-04-06, 10:35 AM	The DM doesn't need to be the one to do it. If the group as a whole has an issue with this guy then the group should oust him. There is no reason whatsover that this duty must fall to the DM. [snip] So I reiterate: the DM runs the game, not the group. If the group has an issue with a player then it does not necessarily fall to the DM to handle it. Either deal with it as a group or have the person best able to deal with the problem player handle it. Disagree here. The DM has the responsibility to do this sort of housekeeping. Not on a whim or his own fiat. If the group has a problem with the player, and the DM agrees then he has to do the dirty work. Making hard calls is part of the DM's job. I'm not saying the DM should take on the task lightly, and he/she certainly shouldn't enjoy it, but that comes with the territory.
Catra 04-04-06, 10:38 AM	Sulaco, please use the edit button to edit your posts to put new content in if no-one has already posted after you. Your words are meaningful, but it's annoying. --- Not that I expect anyone to listen right now (it's not just the message boards, it seems I'm being universally ignored by anyone not making eye contact with me), but if you guys would just give the benefit of the doubt sometimes, you could probably avoid talking in circles like this. Also, instead of restating your opinions over and over again when we've already heard them, just let it lie and agree to disagree. You've given the advice you had to give, and if you don't have anything new and meaningful to say, I think we could do without your extra dialogue. I don't mean to be rude, but it seems to me that this is what most of these "discussion" threads really are. Anyways, here's me being hypocritical, but no one has responded to my first post, and I guess insulting people before you say what you really want to say gives the post a better chance of being read. Like I said earlier, why does it have to be a "mysterious out-of-knowhere" arrow anyways? If the party is fightting a squad of goblins, and a scouting party of goblins hears and rushes to their aid (very realistic scenario so far, I thin), and one of them just happens to have a bow, and he just happens to score a critical (or any of the other stuff), ta daa, arrow in the neck isn't such a frivolous act of DM vengeance. At the least, the party will have to run away and go to a temple to resurrect their fallen adversary. Maybe not even that if you liked my previous idea in my other post. Either way, the character isn't permanently dead, and your player is "awake" to how real combat situations are. Now, some of you seem to be saying that punishing a player in-game for how they play their character out-of-game is acceptable, and some of you are dissagreeing, quite vehemently in fact. Well, I don't think either of you are looking at the whole picture, because you can take a perfectly sane, productive member of society and put him in a certain context, and he'll act (all by his lonesome) completely contradictory to his nature. I agree with Sulaco, though. It's a lot easier to just DM-bolt a problem player's character than it is to stand up to the player in the first place, but after you've confronted him (more than once), I couldn't say, I've never had any experience with that sort of thing. Just double-check yourself and make sure you aren't using it as justification. Some of you are saying that he shouldn't have been recruiting 'stupid' players in the first place. I don't think this is founded on much, because how can you tell they're going to be a problem player in the first place if it isn't obvious? Parallel to what I said before, their attitude towards things may be completely different in-game, where they know they won't be personally punished for the things they do like they would in the real world. This could be their chance to let their hair down and relax their moral code in a way that is acceptable and also fun for them. Conversely, the most loud-mouthed trouble-making person OOG could play the most civil and polite character you've ever seen. If this is your problem, why don't you devote every other session to this kind of game, and then leave him out of your regular one? That way he gets to vent his anxiety on the game, and you get the pleasure of his absence in your regular campaign. You could create new characters for a campaign revolving around (or at least built for) his existing character, and use that as the excuse why his character left the other campaign. Since he's got a new storyline, he won't want to be part of the old one, or at least won't be able to interfere directly in it. I hope that wasn't too ambiguous. In any case, it sounds to me like you aren't paying attention to your problem-player's behavior, you're just upset because he's disrupting the game. Find out Why and How he's choosing to disrupt things, so that you can made a better judgement on how to correct his behavior. Shift your paradime. --- EDIT: Twisted Puppy, I think you handled your situation in a mature way and I admire that, but I don't really have anything to comment on other than you made a good point. :thumbsup:
StormKnight 04-04-06, 10:50 AM	You know, courtesy of Ryven's posts I CAN see a situation where this might be ok. Using Bob as our hypothetical game-wrecking pain in the backside: Group: "Bob? What are you doing here? We told you last week that we really didn't think our game styles were compatible and you should leave the group." Bob: "So? You play at a public game store. I'm allowed in the game store, I'm in your game, I'm going to keep playing." Group: "Its a public game store, but its a private game. We don't have to let just anyone in, and we just don't get along well enough. You are not in the game anymore." Bob: "Yes I am! I'm playing and you'll just have to deal with it! C'mon, I want to kill some orcs!" DM: "Right. In the morning a deranged vorpal rabbit bursts from the bushes and (rolls a d20) gosh, succeeds at its 2+ insta-kill death attack on Bob's character. Before the suprise round is over its dragged the body away. Bob, please get the point. You are not playing anymore. Go away." That involves things getting pretty bad first, but I guess I can imagine a situation where some jerk believes that by having a character in your game he's somehow entitled to keep playing, and if you are playing in a public spot could keep showing up. In that case removing the character may be neccessary to get the guy to take the, err, hint (if by "hint" you mean "GO AWAY WE DON'T WANT YOU IN THIS GROUP!").
magmer2 04-04-06, 12:13 PM	Their a spell, Improved Status i think, in a domain, Community I think, that allows a cleric to know the HP of his fellow party members? So is knowing HP really metagaming if thier is a spell that tells you how many a person has left?
StormKnight 04-04-06, 01:53 PM	Disagree here. The DM has the responsibility to do this sort of housekeeping. Not on a whim or his own fiat. If the group has a problem with the player, and the DM agrees then he has to do the dirty work. Making hard calls is part of the DM's job. I'm not saying the DM should take on the task lightly, and he/she certainly shouldn't enjoy it, but that comes with the territory. Excuse me, WHAT!? That makes about as much sense as saying "the person who usually plays the thimble in Monopoly will have to handle any issues of problem players". A roleplaying group is a group of people that get together for a social game. The GM just has a slightly different role within that game; she does NOT have a different rule within the social group, nor does she have any "authority" outside the game. (Actually she doesn't have any "authority" inside the game either beyond what the players have agreed to give her). If player A is hosting and constantly fed up with player B leaving cheeto stains on her furniture, its player A's job to speak up and tell player B its not ok. Not to run to the DM and say "Player B's always all messy! Make him stop!" The DM is NOT your parent. The DM is NOT the principal. The DM is NOT even a playground monitor. Grow up. (Oh...actually, you might be a young player and the DM IS your parent. In that case, yup, she's the final authority, like it or not :) )
Sulaco 04-04-06, 02:08 PM	Disagree here. The DM has the responsibility to do this sort of housekeeping. Not on a whim or his own fiat. If the group has a problem with the player, and the DM agrees then he has to do the dirty work. Making hard calls is part of the DM's job. I'm not saying the DM should take on the task lightly, and he/she certainly shouldn't enjoy it, but that comes with the territory. Nope. The DM's only job is to create the scenarios used by the group, to run teh NPCs and monsters, and to adjudicate the rules. Anything beyond that, including problems with a player, are not his sole responsibility.
Sulaco 04-04-06, 02:22 PM	Not that I expect anyone to listen right now (it's not just the message boards, it seems I'm being universally ignored by anyone not making eye contact with me), but if you guys would just give the benefit of the doubt sometimes, you could probably avoid talking in circles like this. Also, instead of restating your opinions over and over again when we've already heard them, just let it lie and agree to disagree. You've given the advice you had to give, and if you don't have anything new and meaningful to say, I think we could do without your extra dialogue. Not really. A discussion is a back-and-forth exchange, not just everyone making a single statement. Besides, disagreement (so long as it remains civil) is both interesting and fun. I like to hear other opinions, even if I disgaree with them.
Catra 04-04-06, 04:16 PM	Yes, but if you're always exchanging the same two things, I don't find it a very meaningful discussion. I don't honestly believe it should take five pages to discuss the why and why-nots of one topic, nomatter how controversial. Please forgive me, but I have only read the first and last pages of the thread. So if there was some meaningful discussion besides "You should be able to do it" and "No, shut up" (this is oversimplified of course), then I missed it, and I'll try to fix that problem soon.
Sulaco 04-04-06, 05:10 PM	Yes, but if you're always exchanging the same two things, I don't find it a very meaningful discussion. I don't honestly believe it should take five pages to discuss the why and why-nots of one topic, nomatter how controversial. Please forgive me, but I have only read the first and last pages of the thread. So if there was some meaningful discussion besides "You should be able to do it" and "No, shut up" (this is oversimplified of course), then I missed it, and I'll try to fix that problem soon. Then you have indeed missed it. I still don't agree with the AttN spanking technique. However, though there hae been many weak arguments in favour of it there have also been some very strong ones as well. Though not enough to sway my opinion they have certainly made valid points worth consideration. It is really too bad that you choose to disregard this all as just gainsaying as there have been salient points on both sides. :(
Twisted Puppy 04-04-06, 05:36 PM	StormKnight and Sulaco, you two are obviously of the opinion that the DM has no repsonsibility. Since you also seem to believe they have no authority, either, that seems fair. That I don't share your opinion doesn't make either of us wrong, it just means we have different styles that (apparently) work in our own groups.
WizO_Cat 04-04-06, 06:28 PM	Ok, just a few reminders: 1) Please keep your posts to the subject matter of the thread, not other guests. Otherwise, it is considered Baiting which is against the Code of Conduct. 2) If you think that someone has violated the Code of Conduct, please report the thread. Don't call them out on it. That includes saying "this style here is the only way to post." If the WizOs note that a violation of the Code of Conduct has been commited, we'll be more than happy to report it. For all those who have kept on topic, please continue the good work. :)
loaba 04-05-06, 12:32 AM	Finally jumping in here... As the Neck-Arrow seems to be appearing more and more, I figured it would be worth going into in greater detail. If by 'Neck-Arrow' you mean the DM's Blue Flame of Death, I'd say it's nothing new and has been around from the very beginning of the game. In fact, the whole idea that the DM wields such mighty power is a uniquely 1st/2nd edition point of view. The Neck-Arrow technique stems from "As PC" thinking. In other words, it is designed to remind players who they are within the game. It is a technique that should only (if ever) be employed in heavy RP games. Most D&D games are low/no-RP tolerant in situations where it really isn't needed (eg: when you aren't interacting with NPCs, save perhaps hacking at them). In such a game, the Neck-Arrow is overkill, and power-abuse. In a heavy, or even total-RP game, the Neck-Arrow is 100% justifable. Here is why. I decide to make a Level 6 Halfling Rogue named Skimble. Skimble is, from his perspective, real. Skimble is not aware he has 6D6+12 Hit Points. He is not aware that his short sword is +2 Keen. He does not know that the enemy with the Longbow only does D8 damage. What Skimble knows is he has been a tomb-raider / adventurer for the best part of two years. He carries a sword named Skitter-bite forged for him by the High Sorceror Thundril. He also knows that an arrow to the skull, neck or chest is probably going to kill him. Now Skimble may know that it is not certain he will die. For example, the last time he was shot with an arrow, he was hit in the chest. However, the Studded Leather absorbed the worst of it, so the arrow just gave him a flesh-wound. He's been stabbed, burnt, crushed and battered many times, but he's never been killed by it. He knows being stabbed in the shoulder isn't fatal. He knows that a strong blow to the chest will break ribs, and could indeed kill because of forcing the bones to pierce internal organs. The whole point of an "RP-Heavy" style of play is you think as your character. In normal D&D, you think like your character, but can apply meta-knowledge. I do not worry too much about Skimble getting hit by a longbow arrow because he's skill got 40hp and there's a Cleric nearby. Skimble fears the arrow because he does not know how much HP he has, or how much damage it does. All he knows is that getting shot by arrows hurts, and can be fatal. So, you're saying that in an RP-heavy game, it's sometimes necessary to use insta-kill methods vs. players who have "forgotten their place"? Hmm, I'd say you can cut out that part about this being strictly limited to Heavy-RP games. Like I said, the idea that the DM can blast a player for infinite damage at any time supercedes the whole roleplaying vs, rollplaying thing. Thus, the Neck-Arrow technique is there to remind those who refuse to be reminded. It is to be used when the DM's words have failed. Repeatedly. It is used to show that the campaign world is "real", and not simply models on a table, or scribbled markings on paper. It is a sanction to show you, as a DM, expect the player to be their Character, not to control their Character. You're saying it's to be used to maintain what the DM believes to be order. Sorry, I disagree. The DM's Blue Flame of Death is a ridiculous notion and I would hazard to say that it is only used by a poor DM indeed. If you feel like a player needs a smack down, simply use the rules of the game to do so. The typical Dungeons & Dragons setting is a dangerous place, no? If your problem with the player runs deeper, you feel he/she is disruptive to the game (hence the percieved need for the BFoD), it's better to discuss those issues with the player before or after the gaming session. Oh yeah - count me in with the folks who consider the DM as simply another player at the table, albeit one with a different role than the rest of the group. I absolutely agree with the guy who said that the DM is not your principle, or your parent, or your hall monitor. He/She is a rules arbiter, nothing more. Edited for spelling and tone.
Catra 04-05-06, 01:09 AM	I don't know. I like the idea that the DM is the rules arbiter, but with the responsibility of that title also comes some authority. It is the DM's job to keep the plot on track while adapting to the player's tangents and not railroading them, and to develop balanced encounters to contend with the party, as well as develop a plot for the campaign and create many different NPCs for the party to interact with. I think that with all the DM is responsible for, he/she deserves to be able to have the 'final say' on some certain decisions. Greater responsibility should be rewarded with greater authority. If you were to list the player's responsibilities next to the DM's, it would pale. The DM is held accountable for FAR more than any of the players. They're just there to play. The DM is there to rule. (take that pun as you will) This is not to say that the DM alone should be the one to either invite more members or kick any members out, but the DM should be the one to give subtle 'adjust your attidute' hints and talk one-on-one with any 'problem' player, regardless of, but not excluding, any other players who feel the need to do the same. It's the DM's responsibility to hold the game together, and he/she should have the authority to do so when problems (or problem players) arise. So I don't agree that the DM is just another player at the table with a different role. They have far too much they need to take care of in order for the game to be enjoyable for all. This does not mean that the DM should be the 'Overlord' of the game, nor should they hold their player-given authority over the players that gave it to them. It means that the DM should have the right to enforce his/her authority when authority needs to be enforced.
loaba 04-05-06, 01:29 AM	I don't know. I like the idea that the DM is the rules arbiter, but with the responsibility of that title also comes some authority. What kind of authority does a DM necessarily have? It is the DM's job to keep the plot on track while adapting to the player's tangents and not railroading them, and to develop balanced encounters to contend with the party, as well as develop a plot for the campaign and create many different NPCs for the party to interact with. I'll grant you that the DM does an awful lot of prep work, and that it can be a difficult and thankless job at times. Still, I think the DM is out of line when he/she refuses to listen to the players or even allow them a hand designing the world in which the group plays. Ask me, I'd say that the most put-upon DMs are often the same folks who insist upon ruling the game world with an iron-fist. I think that with all the DM is responsible for, he/she deserves to be able to have the 'final say' on some certain decisions. Greater responsibility should be rewarded with greater authority. The player's responsibilty is no less important that DM's. I don't think it is ever appropriate for the DM to simply use this supposed right of 'final say' as a means to justify player insta-kill. Dungeons & Dragons is a social game that demands harmonic interaction with other people. It's a game where you have to consider everyone's needs equally. If you were to list the player's responsibilities next to the DM's, it would pale. The DM is held accountable for FAR more than any of the players. They're just there to play. The DM is there to rule. (take that pun as you will) Again, there is nothing that says world creation is the sole province of the DM. This is not to say that the DM alone should be the one to either invite more members or kick any members out, but the DM should be the one to give subtle 'adjust your attidute' hints and talk one-on-one with any 'problem' player, regardless of, but not excluding, any other players who feel the need to do the same. It's the DM's responsibility to hold the game together, and he/she should have the authority to do so when problems (or problem players) arise. I agree that the DM is more often looked upon to (or takes it upon himself) talk with players in regards to in-game issues So I don't agree that the DM is just another player at the table with a different role. They have far too much they need to take care of in order for the game to be enjoyable for all. This does not mean that the DM should be the 'Overlord' of the game, nor should they hold their player-given authority over the players that gave it to them. It means that the DM should have the right to enforce his/her authority when authority needs to be enforced. I think that's the root of the problem right there; "I'm the DM, it's my world that I created and you simply play in it (nevermind that I rebuffed your attempts to help develope my world). Therefore, I determine what is and isn't disruptive in my game (because I did all the work). Irrespective of how the other players may or may not feel about your conduct, they are powerless to do anything about it, nor would it be their place to do so..." Excuse me, but I rather thought it was our game.
LCD2YOU 04-05-06, 05:49 AM	Whoa, this thread is going OT. As for DMs using the "Arrow to the neck" as a form of punishment is the same as the infamous "blue bolts from heaven", I don't use it. If I have a problem player I talk to them. Sometimes they just need to take a break. For the "Arrow/Knife to the throat" as a tactic for NPCs or PCs, that is perfectly fine. The only issue is how does a DM apply the rules fairly but make it clear that if a player decides that their PC will to whatever they want anyways despite having a knife/dagger to their throat as the damage is only 1d3/1d4 + strength and they can take that easily. Same goes for arrows readied at the PC and they are told not to do anything. As for the OT subject, sorry guys/girls, the DM is in charge of the game. They are the steward and point person for the game. What is to keep the DM from taking that to their head? The players can leave. The DM shouldn't be a dictator a rule by fiat, but they are the final judge for any decision. The players, if united on a certain point, should be able to influence the DM to the point of changing the DM's mind, but only if the players are united. DMs and players have the final trump card. If any or all players find the DM's rulings wrong/pigheaded/poorly planned/immature/etc., they can leave. Likewise, if the DM finds that the players are whiney/immature/pinheads/etc., they can leave as well. I've seen both.
Cantankerous 04-05-06, 07:05 AM	There is always that final trump card...but I've got to say that I truly pity the group that comes to that one. I also have to pity a DM who has designed a world on their own. Yea Gods! I've usually got about 100 plus hours of pre-campaign prep time before my group and I start a campaign, but between them, they probably have more than that. Yes, I do the lions share of the work, no doubt about it. But so what? I love doing it. Any DM that doesn't probably shouldn't bother with being the DM. So why the cries and whimpers about the time you've spent? It's all, every bit of it, BS rationalizing and complaining needlessly to try to shore up some justification for acting like a dictatorial "daddy" or "mommy" on crack disciplining the naughty kiddies. It's assinine at best and down right moronic for the most part. Aren't these people supposed to be your friends? The ones that you're refusing to talk to like other people, but instead are badgering in a game, with the "god like powers"tm you think you've been invested with? If not, why are you getting together with them to enjoy a pass time in the first place? Simply so that you have someone to lord it over? Isshia
Twisted Puppy 04-05-06, 08:26 AM	Cantankerous, it is less to do with any delusions of "dictatorial powers" than simple reality. If you, Player A, are having a problem with Player B, and have decided along with Players C, D, and E that the game isn't fun with Player B around. If you go to player B and tell him to mend his ways or he'll have to leave, what will his reply be? "Well, that's up to the DM, not you." Edit: With the problem player I mentioned in a previous post, this is exactly what happened when one of the other players mentioned concerns to him. I don't think the DM has the god like powers you abhor. He does have repsonsibilities, namely to players in the group to make sure they have a good time. You also need to note that not every game is strictly among friends, especially those held by clubs in public forums for the express intent of getting more people involved in Fantasy RPGs. I think your point is valid "among friends", as you say. It just isn't applicable in all situations. Which, I will admit, is unfortunate.
Cantankerous 04-05-06, 08:34 AM	Not at all. Look, the Players, presumably, are adults as well. They do NOT need the DM to play daddy for them. It is simply NOT the case that the Players can not settle it among themselves. The responsibility issue is NOT simply the DMs. The Players are responsible to the other Players as well as to the DM. If they're a group of adults they bloody well better be able to speak for themselves and hash things out for themselves. THIS is the primary point. It's the reason that in a mature group, the DM does not need (nor have) any "special powers". It's because the PLAYERS TOO have responsibilities. If the Player is nothing but a passive consumer, why the hell would any DM worth his salt want to have any part of them? Isshia
LordofIllusions 04-05-06, 08:52 AM	Cantankerous, it is less to do with any delusions of "dictatorial powers" than simple reality. If you, Player A, are having a problem with Player B, and have decided along with Players C, D, and E that the game isn't fun with Player B around. If you go to player B and tell him to mend his ways or he'll have to leave, what will his reply be? "Well, that's up to the DM, not you." Edit: With the problem player I mentioned in a previous post, this is exactly what happened when one of the other players mentioned concerns to him. I don't think the DM has the god like powers you abhor. He does have repsonsibilities, namely to players in the group to make sure they have a good time. You also need to note that not every game is strictly among friends, especially those held by clubs in public forums for the express intent of getting more people involved in Fantasy RPGs. I think your point is valid "among friends", as you say. It just isn't applicable in all situations. Which, I will admit, is unfortunate. Just an observation, but cantankerous seems to be extremely anti-DM. If you follow his posts many of them come from the anti-DM stance. What he usually does is when a problem arises he crops the blame onto the DMs shoulders, yet when something favorable happens in the game he says it is due to the PLAYERS and the DM. Watch out for his posts they seem to be extremely biased. I may be wrong but that is what they seem to be. Have fun with the thread. ~~~
pres_man 04-05-06, 09:09 AM	Just a side comment. Sometimes we hear the question, do the players need the DM more than the DM needs the players? Often it is answered that both need each other. The reality is there is a much larger number of players out there than there are potential DMs. A DM is more likely to be able to find players desperate enough to put up with all kinds of crud, than a player is to find the "perfect" DM. I'm not saying this gives DMs license to abuse their power, but the DM tends to be in the more powerful position.
Sulaco 04-05-06, 09:22 AM	StormKnight and Sulaco, you two are obviously of the opinion that the DM has no repsonsibility. Since you also seem to believe they have no authority, either, that seems fair. Well that is certainly not obvious to me. The DM most certainly does have both responsibility and authority - to and over the D&D game respectively. This responsibility and authority does not in any way, shape or form extend beyond the game, however. Please do not make sweepeing declarative statements about what I do or do not believe. The DM controls a D&D game, nothing more. He is not parent, cop, judge, jury, executioner, security guard, crossing guard, teacher, hall monitor, or meat inspector. It is not his responisiblity to castigate, spank, teach, punish or ban players. His job is to run a D&D game, not a D&D group.
LordofIllusions 04-05-06, 09:28 AM	Well that is certainly not obvious to me. The DM most certainly does have both responsibility and authority - to and over the D&D game respectively. This responsibility and authority does not in any way, shape or form extend beyond the game, however. Please do not make sweepeing declarative statements about what I do or do not believe. The DM controls a D&D game, nothing more. He is not parent, cop, judge, jury, executioner, security guard, crossing guard, teacher, hall monitor, or meat inspector. It is not his responisiblity to castigate, spank, teach, punish or ban players. His job is to run a D&D game, not a D&D group. I think he's angry. Yes, I do believe he is angry. :) ~~~
Sulaco 04-05-06, 09:30 AM	Cantankerous, it is less to do with any delusions of "dictatorial powers" than simple reality. If you, Player A, are having a problem with Player B, and have decided along with Players C, D, and E that the game isn't fun with Player B around. If you go to player B and tell him to mend his ways or he'll have to leave, what will his reply be? "Well, that's up to the DM, not you." First, that player is wrong. It is not up to the DM. Second, the DM, as a member of the play group, must, be included in the discussion. To not do so is, quite simply, baffling to me. When I say "the group" I mean just that, and "the group" includes the DM. The problem here seems to be that you count the DM to be a distinct entity who is not part of the group. He is not.
Sulaco 04-05-06, 09:32 AM	I think he's angry. Yes, I do believe he is angry. :) "He" being me? If so then you are wrong. Indeed you are the wrongest man in Wrongtown. I am not angry, I amused (and bemused, I must admit). It takes a helluva lot more than this to make me angry. You are also in violation of the COC, but that is a WizO's call to make. Cheers.
Sulaco 04-05-06, 09:34 AM	Just an observation, but cantankerous seems to be extremely anti-DM. If you follow his posts many of them come from the anti-DM stance. What he usually does is when a problem arises he crops the blame onto the DMs shoulders, yet when something favorable happens in the game he says it is due to the PLAYERS and the DM. Watch out for his posts they seem to be extremely biased. I may be wrong but that is what they seem to be. Have fun with the thread. Can you please stop discussing other posters and discuss the topic of the post? Thanks.
Wargamer 04-05-06, 09:41 AM	Wow, there really are some Anti-DM comments running here... Believe it or not, you can get situations where the DM does not want to DM. For example, I am probably one of the best DMs our gaming club has... I own more books than most, and so I usually have to be present when a D&D game is run, because people want to use my books. This also means that, as I own the books, I am better-versed, and so I wind up running the games. I am not the only person who has been in this position. I've seen people badgered into DMing because "nobody else can/will do it". Now in a situation like that, where the DM is doing you a favour by running your game, it is only courteous, in my opinion, not to **** him/her off. I've lost track of how many times I've said "Look, you asked me to run this" or "You wanted me to teach you how to play D&D" to players who have started pratting about the moment they aren't rolling to hit or to damage... literally! I knew one guy who actually got up and left the table, and would only come back long enough to roll the dice before he was off again! Run 5-6 games like that in a row, and I think you'll come to appreciate that the DM is entitled to AttN...* * Ironically, it was not these groups who have ever incurred the wrath of AttN.
Sulaco 04-05-06, 09:45 AM	Wow, there really are some Anti-DM comments running here... There are? I must've missed them. I've seen a lot of discussion of the DM's role but no anti-DM sentiments. Well, apart from advocating the AttN. Any DM who uses AttN sucks and I am anti-him. ;)
LCD2YOU 04-05-06, 09:47 AM	Cantankerous, this is OT but..... I know I'm not, and I don't believe Twisted Puppy is either, suggesting that DMs be Daddy/Mommy to the group. Neither should the DM be a dictator nor "Master of all they see" at the gaming table. However, as the DM is the ref and judge of the game, a good DM should be in control of not what happens but how it unfolds. The DM should intervene between player conflicts or we get too many threeads starting off like, "Two of my players are doing x, y and z". I am in no way suggesting that the players not be allowed to resolve things between themselves. Also, I am not saying that players can never suggest a course of action or rule interpretations to the DM. As a leader, which is what I think the DM is of the game but not the party, the DM must take into account what those who are following them are saying. It is that way with anyone in a leadership position. While there are times the DM must reconsider their position, there are just as many that they need to stand fast. All in all, that is the DM's responsibility, which makes the DM the "leader of the game". Realistically, the DM should never have to come between players but that says more to the maturity of the players. If the players are unable to solve things themselves, then the DM must be the one to do so. It is another of those balancing acts that go on everyday between the governer and the governed. Heck, it looks like this really isn't OT at all. In a game where you have mature players and a mature DM, these issue would rarely if ever come up. There would be no need for "arrows to the neck" or "blue bolts from heaven". I still think though that an intelligent, mature and "wise" DM should be able to nip things in the bud. A good DM keeps things running smoothly and is pre-emptive in diffusing situations before they get out of hand.
Aliquid 04-05-06, 10:04 AM	Wow, there really are some Anti-DM comments running here...I don't see them as Anti-DM. Most of the people making the comments play the role as a DM far more often than the role of a PC..... how can you be anti-DM when you are a DM? These people simply think that a DM shouldn't be a jerk towards the players. I don't quite see the connection between that and "Anti-DM". Actually... I could be wrong, but I believe that both Sulaco and Cantankerous have made plenty of posts on other threads that are "pro-DM" on a DM vs Player debate. For example, if a DM has spent 100 hours designing a detailed game based on Roman history, and a player comes along saying "I want to be a ninja", they would without hesitation say "tough luck, the DM says it's a Roman game, then there are no Ninjas" Believe it or not, you can get situations where the DM does not want to DM.Then don't do it This also means that, as I own the books, I am better-versed, and so I wind up running the games.That's your choice I am not the only person who has been in this position. I've seen people badgered into DMing because "nobody else can/will do it". Now in a situation like that, where the DM is doing you a favour by running your game, it is only courteous, in my opinion, not to **** him/her off. Not really. If the DM isn't having fun, he can simply say "you know guys, I'm not enjoying this any more... lets wrap the game up tonight. I'm not DMing again for a while". A much more mature way of dealing with the situation than being a bully and a jerk towards a player.
LordofIllusions 04-05-06, 10:05 AM	Can you please stop discussing other posters and discuss the topic of the post? Thanks. Can you please do the same and stop attacking every thread you think does not cater to, and coddle, players ? Thank you. ~~~
LordofIllusions 04-05-06, 10:07 AM	I don't see them as Anti-DM. Most of the people making the comments play the role as a DM far more often than the role of a PC..... how can you be anti-DM when you are a DM? These people simply think that a DM shouldn't be a jerk towards the players. I don't quite see the connection between that and "Anti-DM That's like asking how a man can be 'pro-female', it happens all the time, or better yet how you can be black and still be anti-black. It happens all the time. Look at Michael Jackson. :D ~~~
starfire311 04-05-06, 10:09 AM	Cantankerous, it is less to do with any delusions of "dictatorial powers" than simple reality. If you, Player A, are having a problem with Player B, and have decided along with Players C, D, and E that the game isn't fun with Player B around. If you go to player B and tell him to mend his ways or he'll have to leave, what will his reply be? "Well, that's up to the DM, not you." Well if I were player A in this situation and it happened to me, I would tell player B to get the heck out of my house... since the game is hosted at my house and I only DM 30% of the time, so the other 70% of the time one of my friends is DMing, I would find it absurd to think that the DM would feel he has more control over who plays in the game than me. However, whenever the topic of a new player joining the group comes up, it is discussed by everyone in the group. Also if we were to ever give someone the boot, it would not be my up to me alone or the DM alone, as an entire group it would be discussed, I have allowed people that I don't like to come into my house and game, because the majority of the group likes them. Even though it is at my house I still leave it upto the group as a whole who we let in. We are always changing DMs we have 7 Players and 4 of us DM, so if it is upto the DM who plays, which DM gets to choose? We play every Sunday in my basement and we have 2-4 different campaigns going at any given time, we just rotate based on who is ready to DM. Sorry for off-topic post, but I already added my 2 cents on the OP, and feel itis reduntant to keep saying that AttN is Bad In the game the DM may have more "authority/responsibility" than the players but as soon as you leave that arena and move past the Table, we are all human beings and we all have equal authority and we all deserve respect, even the person we may be booting.
Sulaco 04-05-06, 10:31 AM	Can you please do the same and stop attacking every thread you think does not cater to, and coddle, players ? Thank you. >>sigh<< :rolleyes: I am not "attacking" anything or anyone, I am participating in a discussion - one that I find quite interesting, actually. If you have an issue with me please take it to PM. Don't waste everyone elses' time with it. Cheers.
Tormsskull 04-05-06, 10:32 AM	How it works for me is that players want to have nothing to do with creating the world. I have asked them before and they say that it feels like homework to them. So if I am DMing, and I am creating every aspect of the game, putting my free time into it when I could be doing a number of other things, then yes, I do feel that I have more authority over the game than the players. However, authority is in game, not outside of game. If someone wants to bring a new player to the table, then it would be a group decision. If someone wants to boot a player, that would be up to me though. I'm not going to have real life crap force me to boot a player who is doing good in the game. If the players are that mad at each other, then the person who demands to have the other person booted would most likely be the one to go. If that caused more than one person to leave, or left me without enough players to run a game, so be it. But to summarize the topic at hand. ATTN: How: "You, yeah you. You're dead." When: Only with player permission. Why: To advance a plotline, and once again, only with player permission. The disciplinary ATTN doesn't sit well with me.
StormKnight 04-05-06, 10:48 AM	I do think that the GM will often be the one who is in the appropriate position to have more "authority" within the group, but NOT by virtue of being a GM. Often, the GM will be the person who takes the initiative to organize or host a game. If I invite people to a party, I have more authority about who is allowed at the party than a guest to the party. Likewise, if I invite people to a game, I have more authority about who is allowed at the game than a guest. However, as I said, this is NOT based on being a GM, but just that often the GM is the one in that position. Say, for example, my girlfriend, myself and one of our friends put up a notice at the local gamestore that on a certain day we'll be there at a gaming table to play D&D, we'll bring all the books and minis that might be needed, and we would like 1 player and 1 DM to join us. The three of us planned this, made the "invitation" and reserved the space. The DM has no right to kick us off the table, in whole or in part, no matter how much she doesn't like us. She may be running the game, but its not "her party" (Dang it - that's "party" as in comparing this to a social event, not "adventuring party" :) ). If the DM has a problem with spare player, its equally unreasonable to think she has the authority to kick him out. They are both, at the moment "guests" at our table. If she wants him out, she'll need to talk to the rest of us. She may say "I'm sorry, I can't run a game with this person. Either he or I will have to go", but she has NO authority to make the decision that it will be the other person to leave.
bitnine 04-05-06, 10:50 AM	After all, in "real life" a veteran of a thousand battles will die just as easily as a conscript if he gets an axe through the face.When has a D&D character ever seen a "real life" battle? Does the party wizard get the History Channel? Additionally, I am unsure that a "real life" veteran ever gets DR 3/- the way our 14th level barbarian does. Anyways, usually in groups that I've been in, the DM is usually the person hosting the gathering as well as running the game. I don't think that these are necessarily the same thing, and I don't think that the duties from one always have that much to do with the other. But the two do coincide enough that sometimes people tend to make associations between the two.
mojorooks 04-05-06, 10:59 AM	I am a DM, but still *much* less experieced than one of my players. He has a tendency to try to push a DM to see how far he can get away with things. We were in a relatively tough dungeon with lower level characters and he was playing a thief. He decided to wander away from the rest of the party, so I let fate take it's course. He ran into 2 stone golems and got annihilated. It's nothing the rest of the party wouldn't have run into anyways. He should have known better, and hopefully he will next time. Its kind of the arrow to the neck thing, only more realistic. A DM has to have limits. As far as an arrow to the neck actually killing someone, I think it's possible. In my sessions I've done the following with Crits: When someone rolls a natural 20 it's a crit. Instead of double damage, I have them roll a follow up. They roll to hit again like they normally would. If it's a hit, they roll a 2nd damage roll, if it's a natural 20, they go again. The first 20 give them the ability to roll again. The second 20 lets them roll again and add a third damage roll. Rolling a third 20 adds 2 extra die rolls in itself, plus a follow up. a 1d8 damage die would be like this 1st crit = 1d8 + follow up 1st crit + successfull follow up = 2d8 1st crit + 2nd crit = 3d8 + follow up. 1st crit + 2nd crit + successful follow up = 4d8 1st crit + 2nd crit + 3rd crit = 6d8 + follow up 1st, 2nd, 3rd crit + successful follow up = 7d8 1, 2, 3, 4 = 10d8 + follow up I had a player roll 3 crit plus a follow up with a short sword for 7d6 points of damage. Unfortunately it was on a goblin with 1 hp left, but the hit was there. I don't find it too over-powering since it's 1 in 400 that they will get a second crit and 1 in 8000 that they get the second, and I get more to hit rolls than they do 8) It also means that fighters will generally get more crit follow ups due to higher skills which I find exeptable. Also, if a player cannot possibly hit something due to his attack vs. armor class, if he rolls a natural 20, I will give him another chance to roll against a lower armor class. It's kind of a 'peasant finds a chink in the knights armor' kind of philosophy.
ArcTan 04-05-06, 11:11 AM	For the "Arrow/Knife to the throat" as a tactic for NPCs or PCs, that is perfectly fine. The only issue is how does a DM apply the rules fairly but make it clear that if a player decides that their PC will to whatever they want anyways despite having a knife/dagger to their throat as the damage is only 1d3/1d4 + strength and they can take that easily. Same goes for arrows readied at the PC and they are told not to do anything. One quick comment: A lot of people talking about how the rules make no sense aren't looking at the way the rules work in 3.5e. Your HP doesn't mean how much physical damage your body can physically take before you die; it means how well you're able to take "hits" (hence "hit points", not "health points") in a combat situation before you're down. Which means that the ordinary HP calculation requires that you actually be in a fight, warding off blows with your arms, twisting aside from arrows, etc. In this case, if I've got a dagger pressed to your throat, any reasonable DM would accept that this counts as being "helpless", so if you play having your throat slit according to RAW you're going to get a coup de grace attack, which means automatic critical and an *immediate* DC 10 Fort save against instant death. That makes a good amount of sense to me, since any character up to CL 5 is going to be in serious deep trouble if they're getting coup de grace'd. So now the character making the Fort save is the character with a pretty high CL and Con score, meaning he's a huge, incredibly muscled fighter with a neck thick as corded tanned leather. I can buy that, *as a matter of random chance*, he has survived one attempt to slit his throat. Same with a wizard who's had his Fort saves boosted ungodly high by magic -- magic is holding his tissues together and desperately trying to keep him alive. Still don't buy it? Remember *all combat mechanics depend on there being a combat situation*. A coup de grace attack is an attack action that takes place within a single round -- which means that it lasts about three seconds. Like all attacks, the reason it has the chance to miss that it does and is less effective than just sticking a sword into someone in real life would be is that it's a single, quick move being done in the chaotic mess of combat. Making this an attack action only makes sense if your party is desperately trying to save you, there are arrows flying around, spells going off, a fighter dueling with the bodyguard of the assassin who's trying to kill you -- in such a situation, the assassin is therefore thinking in snapshots of time, very aware that he's been sawing at your throat for three seconds and you're still not dead, here comes some arrows, there goes off a fireball spell, three more seconds and you're still not dead, etc. But if you have a character helpless for 5 rounds and someone keeps sawing at his neck -- especially someone with Sneak Attacks (trained to know which artery to cut) or someone with high strength, as opposed to a weak-wristed wizard who barely knows how to hold a knife -- he *will* die even if he's a level 10 fighter with 16 Con. That means it takes thirty seconds to kill a high-level Conanesque hyper-muscular fighter with a body like burnished steel. I think that's fine. FWIW, if you're not in battle but are a hostage tied to a chair with no friends around, this isn't a combat action, and as a DM it'd be perfectly fair to me to let the guy with the knife "take 20", so to speak, and just kill you. After all, as with skill checks, even the most high-Con character will roll a natural 1 5% of the time. The d20 system is actually a lot more "brutal" and "gritty" than an equivalent 3d6 system would be, since it allows for even the most incredibly powerful characters to fail at something 5% of the time -- 5% of the time your amazingly powerful fighter will critically miss, your amazingly perspicacious psion will critically fail a Will save, some random stupid little orc will get a critical hit off of your dwarven defender, etc. A DM who really wants to kill a character ought not need a "plot AttN" -- just use that DM screen they give you to "roll" a "critical hit" from an ordinary mook, or better yet "roll" a "critical hit" from a ranged touch spell -- everyone ought to be afraid of a crit from a scorching ray (or, at higher levels, a lightning bolt).
oxybe 04-05-06, 11:25 AM	I have to say that i am in the same boat as Sulaco, Cantankerous & StormKnight: less DM-God-complex, a bit more player power. without the players, the best you can do to talk to yourself. they are the most important part of the game. the DM is nothing but a player with diffrent responsibilities, given to him by his peers. i can rationalize the why to use the AttN. i can see it's uses. i will just never use it in a serious game (or even serious-less game. there is a joke in every campaign, that a large, pyramid shaped comet can fall down and kill you, and only you. it never happends, it never will happen, and it's used as a joke. like how the hulking hurler mis-threw his shot and put the world's second moon in orbit, or how "god" is a kobold. the CO board monsters are in-game jokes or "legends", just like the AttN and it's variants. it's "there", you will just never see it). if everyone agrees to it, they be my guest. just make sure everyone knows it can happen before the campaign starts, otherwise, don't use at all. to wargamer: Wow, there really are some Anti-DM comments running here... anti-dm comments would be: "there should be no DM! PTTP! Power To The Players!" most comments are about what "power" the dm should hold. is he the CEO (the grand puba, his holiness, ect..), or just Human Resources? i never play with a DM-as-God mentality. i hate it actually. that is the worst coddling you can do the players (not the nice coddling either. overprotective mother coddling). they have to look to you to see what they can or cannot do. they aren't living creatures, they are penned animals, trained to jump through flaming (or acidic, depends on the dragon type) hoops. you set the limits on what the player can or cannot do, you set their possible actions. they follow the direction you want them to go. they can do A,B&C but not D,E or F. wow... that sounds a lot like a video game, eh? Believe it or not, you can get situations where the DM does not want to DM. For example, I am probably one of the best DMs our gaming club has... I own more books than most, and so I usually have to be present when a D&D game is run, because people want to use my books. This also means that, as I own the books, I am better-versed, and so I wind up running the games. so? my brother DM'ed and he only used the SRD, and a few printouts i made for him (exp & treasure charts). he owns 0 books in total, using a few of mine as a reference. he wasn't half bad either. no one can force you to dm. you can tell them "no, i won't dm". if you dm, you made a choice to do so. it's not my fault you chose to be unhappy. I am not the only person who has been in this position. I've seen people badgered into DMing because "nobody else can/will do it". Now in a situation like that, where the DM is doing you a favour by running your game, it is only courteous, in my opinion, not to **** him/her off. I've lost track of how many times I've said "Look, you asked me to run this" or "You wanted me to teach you how to play D&D" to players who have started pratting about the moment they aren't rolling to hit or to damage... literally! I knew one guy who actually got up and left the table, and would only come back long enough to roll the dice before he was off again! again, this is your fault for going into that position. you chose to dm. they can badger you all they want, ti'll the dire cows come home. just say "no". it's a lot easier then running a fake game. tell them to learn the rules themselves and they dm for a while. if they still won't listen, tell them to shove off, and stay shoved. Run 5-6 games like that in a row, and I think you'll come to appreciate that the DM is entitled to AttN...* again, your fault for letting them walk all over you. * Ironically, it was not these groups who have ever incurred the wrath of AttN. so if the bad groups don't incur the wrath of the AttN, the good groups do?
ArcTan 04-05-06, 11:27 AM	Ah, now you've brought up one key point... There is a difference between the Barbarian screaming "For Thor! For Odin! To battle we ride, last one in Asgard buys the drinks!", and saying "Hah! I have 9D10 HD and AC 23! You can't hurt me!" Arrow to the Neck does not mean every player should be terrified. It means they should act realistically! Most people will treat battle with caution. After all, in "real life" a veteran of a thousand battles will die just as easily as a conscript if he gets an axe through the face. There are plenty of reasons for a character not to be scared (experience, courage, or downright psychotic defiance), but the stats on your character sheet are not one of them. "Hah! I am the mightiest warrior in all the Norselands! I have stood before rains of arrows and still have survived! Pierced by seven arrows and cut by a sword four times, still I have stood and fought with my strength undiminished! So quick and sure is my step, and so sturdy my armor, that I could wade into seas of foes and not once would their axes touch my skin!" ...This is more or less the same thing, no? The latter is said in grandiose role-play-ish purple prose and the former is said with numbers. But they're *saying the same thing*. Because the game mechanics *do* represent a reality, and that reality is that a high-level character can survive combats that could kill an ordinary person several times over, and the character would have to be quite stupid not to become aware of this over time. Which is one reason levelling depends on experience points -- from the character's perspective, this amazing resilience is something he's developed over time through many difficult battles, so there's no reason he should be unaware of it or it should take him by surprise. If you really want your players to roleplay hardcore, then of course you'll get annoyed at the use of game stat terms, but don't conflate the use of stat terms with any particular attitude a player may have. High-level players *should* be confident. They certainly *do* know about their 20 Str score ("I can rip a tree trunk in half, you little runt") or their boosted 24 Int score ("I can see everything... the patterns... the information...") or their 22 Cha score with its high mods to social skills ("He'll do what I want. Trust me. They always do."). The player metagaming and the player being cocky are *two different things*. A DM might punish a player -- OUT OF GAME -- for metagaming if the campaign's style is firmly against it. A DM punishing a player for being cocky is egotistical and stupid. ("YOU MAY BE POWERFUL, BUT I'M STILL GOD!!! MWAHAHAHA!!!") If you don't like that the players have immense power given to them by mechanics, *find them a new set of mechanics*. Don't violate mechanics left and right to make battle more realistic -- in real-life battle, randomly dying of a bullet to the ribcage is something that happens according to certain laws of probability and laws of physics that are somewhat predictable and can be mitigated by certain actions. That's what game mechanics are for -- to have a fair, rules-based, dice-based core upon which things can happen so the DM doesn't have to constantly decide the outcomes of things based on what she thinks is fair. If you ever find that it's not possible for you to translate things from RP terms to mechanics and back -- if you don't think that a "critical hit" ought to mean anything real in game terms, or you don't wish to describe the effects of "nonlethal damage" as being separate from "lethal damage" in a meaningful way -- then alter those mechanics. In this case, it sounds like what you really want is something like Unearthed Arcana's Injury system rather than having HP at all, so that the chance to avoid death on any attack is a matter of a random die roll that you, as the DM, can fudge. Which is all fine if that's what you want to do, but then make that the basis of your campaign from the beginning -- in a D&D-based campaign you *will* be living in a world where your characters become ridiculously powerful hard-to-kill heroes, and you have to deal with that. If I were a level 15 rogue in real life, I might, just for fun, stand in the road while cars drove right at me, because jumping and diving out of the way of cars would be as easy to me as an ordinary person walking down the street. Lvl 15 rogues are the equivalent of that crazy daredevil guy who climbs up the sides of skyscrapers without a rope. It would be *unrealistic* for me, as a lvl 15 rogue, to be afraid of being hit, not knowing what I know about what I can do. If I were a lvl 15 fighter I'd show about as much fear walking into battle as Arnold Schwarzenegger does when he walks into a whole roomful of guards with AK-47s -- that is, none. Because I am a *movie action hero*, not a real soldier, and the realistic thing for him to do is not be afraid, because -- come on -- this *is* a cakewalk for him, and he knows it, and we know it. This is all beside the point that if I were a lvl 15 wizard I could point my finger at you and turn you into dust, or that if I were a lvl 15 cleric I could talk to God and God would make me a 15-foot-tall version of myself who can punch through walls. I mean, seriously. D&D. Realism. They don't go together.
bitnine 04-05-06, 11:35 AM	In this case, if I've got a dagger pressed to your throat, any reasonable DM would accept that this counts as being "helpless", so if you play having your throat slit according to RAW you're going to get a coup de grace attack, which means automatic critical and an *immediate* DC 10 Fort save against instant death. You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.everyone ought to be afraid of a crit from a scorching ray (or, at higher levels, a lightning bolt).Spells such as lightning bolt that don't use attack rolls cannot critical.
oxybe 04-05-06, 11:52 AM	In this case, if I've got a dagger pressed to your throat, any reasonable DM would accept that this counts as being "helpless", so if you play having your throat slit according to RAW you're going to get a coup de grace attack, which means automatic critical and an *immediate* DC 10 Fort save against instant death. That makes a good amount of sense to me, since any character up to CL 5 is going to be in serious deep trouble if they're getting coup de grace'd. So now the character making the Fort save is the character with a pretty high CL and Con score, meaning he's a huge, incredibly muscled fighter with a neck thick as corded tanned leather. I can buy that, *as a matter of random chance*, he has survived one attempt to slit his throat. Same with a wizard who's had his Fort saves boosted ungodly high by magic -- magic is holding his tissues together and desperately trying to keep him alive. unless you count helpless being able to move. Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks gets no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets. As a full-round action, an enemy can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace to a helpless foe. An enemy can also use a bow or crossbow, provided he is adjacent to the target. The attacker automatically hits and scores a critical hit. (A rogue also gets her sneak attack damage bonus against a helpless foe when delivering a coup de grace.) If the defender survives, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity. Creatures that are immune to critical hits do not take critical damage, nor do they need to make Fortitude saves to avoid being killed by a coup de grace. the guy has a knife at your throat, yes, but you are well-trained in hand-to-hand as well as combat. you are not "completely at his mercy". so no coup-de-grace. the rogue 1 with a knife to your throat is in more danger of you, then you are of him. if you want realism, don't play a game where dragons, ilithids, elves, wizards & beholders exist.
LordofIllusions 04-05-06, 01:50 PM	>>sigh<< :rolleyes: I am not "attacking" anything or anyone, I am participating in a discussion - one that I find quite interesting, actually. If you have an issue with me please take it to PM. Don't waste everyone elses' time with it. Cheers. I suggest you do the same Mr. Sulaco. Any DM who uses AttN sucks and I am anti-him. The initial poster uses AttN, it is the way he plays the game. Who are you to tell him he 'sucks' or is wrong ? Also, You are doing something here that you wrongly claim I was doing by saying you're angry, which is ridiculous. It was a joke since I do find that your posts are pretty directed towards individuals that disagree with anti-DM sentiments. You are attacking an individual because he chooses not to play the game the way you play it. That may be against the CoC(i.e. claiming you are anti-'him') since you brought it up. On topic, A DM can run a game however he wants. If the players disagree with the way that he is running the game they can leave. Noone has shackled them to the table. You want a game a certain way, that does not agree with the group ? Go run your own game is what I say. ~~~
Sulaco 04-05-06, 02:07 PM	The initial poster uses AttN, it is the way he plays the game. Who are you to tell him he 'sucks' or is wrong ? You elected to leave off the ;) from my quote which is strange cos that is the bit that says "just joking". Removing it changes the entire context and meaning of the post. Also, You are doing something here that you wrongly claim I was doing by saying you're angry, which is ridiculous. It was a joke since I do find that your posts are pretty directed towards individuals that disagree with anti-DM sentiments. You are attacking an individual because he chooses not to play the game the way you play it. That may be against the CoC, claiming you are anti-'him' since you brought it up. I am not attacking anyone. My posts are not directed at the poster they are directed at the content of their posts. That is the whole purpose of these boards, to dicsuss the games(s). In short: I am discussing the points, not the poster. All I, or indeed anyone, asks is for you to do the same. If your only intent here is to pick me, or any other poster, apart then don't. Such activity is counter-productive adds nothing. Again I ask that please, if you have an issue with me take it to PM rather than wasting everyone's time with it. Thanks. Now, on topic (somewhat): The knife to the thoart scenario is an interesting one. While it seems that you have someone at your mercy how many times in film and fiction have we not seen someone in that same situation who elbows the knife-holder and slips from his grasp. While it seems sensible to think that anyone holding a blade to someone's neck has then completely at their mercy this is not the case, especially in a game of heroic action like D&D. Human reaction times are not that quick and the "victim" can often capitalize on this to escape his captor's grasp.
Aliquid 04-05-06, 02:23 PM	individuals that disagree with anti-DM sentiments. I will repeat: There are no posts on this board which are anti-DM. Almost everyone here thinks that a DM has plenty of responsibility and authority in game. The only issue which there is disagreement on is if the DM has authority to punish a player for out of game problems. When it comes down to it, this AttN debate really doesn't have anything to do with D&D rules, or the game specifically. It is a matter of mature behaviour in a social environment. It is also a matter of abusing perceived authority. It doesn't matter if you are playing D&D or hanging out and watching TV with your friends. Whatever the scenario, cowardly immature powertripping is a bad thing.
ArcTan 04-05-06, 02:31 PM	Thanks for the correction on _lightning bolt_. Apologies. The thing about having a "knife-to-the-throat" is that if the knife is actually pressed up against your throat, I would call the person helpless. If you're in the middle of a grapple or hand-to-hand combat, you're *not* helpless, because you're still capable of struggling, twisting your neck away, pushing and pulling at the guy's arm, etc. You have to go through a lot before the high-level character can have the knife against his throat in the first place.
Aliquid 04-05-06, 02:47 PM	The thing about having a "knife-to-the-throat" is that if the knife is actually pressed up against your throat, I would call the person helpless.Most martial arts classes will teach you moves to deal with a "knife-to-throat" attack.
loaba 04-05-06, 03:03 PM	IMO, there is never a good rational for the DM BFoD, it's simply a cheap way of exerting a DM's perceived power over his players. Regardless of how you dress it up, whenever the DM applies infinite damage to a PC as a direct form of punishment, he's overstepping his bounds. That's simply not your job. Act like an adult and deal with the problem out of game.
Yak of Darkness 04-05-06, 03:09 PM	When it comes down to it, this AttN debate really doesn't have anything to do with D&D rules, or the game specifically. It is a matter of mature behaviour in a social environment. It is also a matter of abusing perceived authority. It doesn't matter if you are playing D&D or hanging out and watching TV with your friends. Whatever the scenario, cowardly immature powertripping is a bad thing.Bingo. Yahtzee. Gin. Sí. The problems being described here, for the most part, aren't really game problems (though they happen to manifest themselves in-game), so the Game Master has neither sole right nor sole responsibility to nanny people over them. Now the simple, "this character is just inappropriate for the game," problem is mostly a game one, but surely nobody in this thread at this point has the social cowardice to think that petty in-game backstabbing is preferable to the very simple, "Dude, change it up." If your friend isn't a jackass, he will (though you may have to give some kind of concession if you make him give up a build that is legitimate). But if someone in the group keeps doing stuff to intentionally disrupt the game (and thus everyone else's fun) after being told that this is a problem*, then you don't have a game issue anymore, you have a social issue. And it's one that applies to any game (or other get-together activity) you may be partaking in, and its solution (if the guy's being intentionally disruptive and ruining everyone else's time) is the same. If your gaming night consisted of Monopoly, which option seems like the better (by "better," I mean, "an action that clearly seems to come from an adult, instead of a bratty child") way of dealing with someone being a jerk: Ask him to please stop whatever behavior places him in the "jerk" category. If he doesn't stop, tell him he's not welcome back. If it gets really bad, tell him to leave right then. Keep on inviting him over to play, but make sure you're the Banker, and cheat him out of a bit of money every chance you get. Then everyone can have a bad time. That'll show him. I'm not sure how changing the game to D&D makes the second option any less passive-aggressive, childish, or immature. * I give next to no consideration to the hypothetical problem of telling someone to leave, and having them ignore it and keep on coming to the game and being disruptive. If you're playing in a store, you can just tell the clerk there, "Hey, this guy isn't in our game and is being a nuisance," (but odds are, if the guy's being really disruptive, someone working there will notice the jerk anyway). If you're playing at someone's house, just don't open the damn door when he comes. This shouldn't be a problem.
LordofIllusions 04-05-06, 03:10 PM	I simply boot that joker out of the game. Why waste time crafting an encounter to kill him is what I say, but if that is your thing I am not knocking it either. You try to ruin our game you're done. I have a pair of +12 steel toe boots that have rotten player written all over them. ~~~
Catra 04-05-06, 05:06 PM	I think I'm starting to agree--to a point. I was never for the insta-kill tactics, so there's no disharmony on those points. What kind of authority does a DM necessarily have? First of all, thank you for replying to my post! :D I think others made a better point than me on this subject, so I'm not sure I need to elaborate. Ask me, I'd say that the most put-upon DMs are often the same folks who insist upon ruling the game world with an iron-fist. I agree, and personally I've never been in a game where the DM 'rules over' the players. My DM is a sane, rational being who takes suggestions in stride with criticism, and he has a keen eye for balance. But he still doesn't let me go far out of line, and it's his right as the 'storyteller' to preserve the story from my machinations (though there be many). The player's responsibilty is no less important that DM's. I don't think it is ever appropriate for the DM to simply use this supposed right of 'final say' as a means to justify player insta-kill. I agree; insta-kill is bad. However, that is not what I'm advocating here, even though I see your point. Dungeons & Dragons is a social game that demands harmonic interaction with other people. It's a game where you have to consider everyone's needs equally. This is why [my version of] the neck-arrow should only be used as a last resort to 'wake up' the player and show him that his decisions (in this case, to enter a battle) have consequences that he'll have to deal with. Personally, with a player that's worth keeping in the game if he'd just tone it down a bit, so to speak. If the party just agrees unanimously that none of them enjoy the player's company at all, this tactic shouldn't even be tried because it's gauranteed not to work the way it's intended. I think that's the root of the problem right there; "I'm the DM, it's my world that I created and you simply play in it (nevermind that I rebuffed your attempts to help develope my world). Therefore, I determine what is and isn't disruptive in my game (because I did all the work). Irrespective of how the other players may or may not feel about your conduct, they are powerless to do anything about it, nor would it be their place to do so..." Excuse me, but I rather thought it was our game. And I agree! Having no say in the world your character is supposedly interacting with is not just no fun, it's rather insulting. I would never want to play with a DM like that. But to an extent, it is "his" world, despite heavy player help. Unless the players specifically got together to create a world for their characters, most of the credit should go to the DM for making the environment and using the players' advice correctly. If the DM says "You walk down the stairs into a dark cavern," and a player objects, saying "There's no reason for this cavern to be there! Why isn't there an underground lake?" what do you think your response would be? Probably something like "Uh..sorry, THIS dungeon has a cavern. Maybe you'll get lucky next time." I know that this has nothing to do with the social aspect of the problem the OP is talking about, but it's an example of DM-authority. The DM title doesn't convey any authority out-of-game where it DOESN'T cross paths with what goes on in-game. However, I think that a player who doesn't play his character correctly is one of those intersections where the DM should be the one to exercise a solution, even if he didn't come up with it.
Sulaco 04-05-06, 05:16 PM	I simply boot that joker out of the game. Why waste time crafting an encounter to kill him is what I say, but if that is your thing I am not knocking it either. You try to ruin our game you're done. I have a pair of +12 steel toe boots that have rotten player written all over them. Precisely. You deal with it out-of-game. That's what I've been saying all along.
LCD2YOU 04-05-06, 07:14 PM	One quick comment: A lot of people talking about how the rules make no sense aren't looking at the way the rules work in 3.5e. Your HP doesn't mean how much physical damage your body can physically take before you die; it means how well you're able to take "hits" (hence "hit points", not "health points") in a combat situation before you're down. Which means that the ordinary HP calculation requires that you actually be in a fight, warding off blows with your arms, twisting aside from arrows, etc.Yes. That is the case. However, with a "knife to the throat" makes it more difficult to "ward off blows with their arms" or "twist out of it". In this case, if I've got a dagger pressed to your throat, any reasonable DM would accept that this counts as being "helpless", so if you play having your throat slit according to RAW you're going to get a coup de grace attack, which means automatic critical and an *immediate* DC 10 Fort save against instant death. That makes a good amount of sense to me, since any character up to CL 5 is going to be in serious deep trouble if they're getting coup de grace'd. So now the character making the Fort save is the character with a pretty high CL and Con score, meaning he's a huge, incredibly muscled fighter with a neck thick as corded tanned leather. I can buy that, *as a matter of random chance*, he has survived one attempt to slit his throat. Same with a wizard who's had his Fort saves boosted ungodly high by magic -- magic is holding his tissues together and desperately trying to keep him alive.Actually, I think anyone will have a hard time to survive that. Doesn't matter what their level is. So perhaps instead of a Fort Check, a CON check with a DC of what the damage is can be more appropiate..Still don't buy it? Remember *all combat mechanics depend on there being a combat situation*. A coup de grace attack is an attack action that takes place within a single round -- which means that it lasts about three seconds. Like all attacks, the reason it has the chance to miss that it does and is less effective than just sticking a sword into someone in real life would be is that it's a single, quick move being done in the chaotic mess of combat. Making this an attack action only makes sense if your party is desperately trying to save you, there are arrows flying around, spells going off, a fighter dueling with the bodyguard of the assassin who's trying to kill you -- in such a situation, the assassin is therefore thinking in snapshots of time, very aware that he's been sawing at your throat for three seconds and you're still not dead, here comes some arrows, there goes off a fireball spell, three more seconds and you're still not dead, etc.Fine, but it still doesn't resolve the problem of a player metagaming their way out by figuring, "Hey, it's a DC 10, only on a 1 I fail and it's only 1d4+strength or about 7 or 8 points max." The idea is to introduce a real threat that makes a DM (with their favored NPCs) and players with their PCs. In most cases, people with a knife to your throat most likely don't want to kill you otherwise they would have already used it. A DM with a relatively high level NPC that got caught flat footed by a PC would just take the damage and attack back. The same goes for what the players and their PCs can do. If you make the risks high (but there is still more than 1 way out, the NPCs or PCs can Bluff, Intimidate, Diplomacy, etc., even going with what the demands of the person with the knife) of a character just ignoring the threat, then it becomes a really good way to do some serious RPing.But if you have a character helpless for 5 rounds and someone keeps sawing at his neck -- especially someone with Sneak Attacks (trained to know which artery to cut) or someone with high strength, as opposed to a weak-wristed wizard who barely knows how to hold a knife -- he *will* die even if he's a level 10 fighter with 16 Con. That means it takes thirty seconds to kill a high-level Conanesque hyper-muscular fighter with a body like burnished steel. I think that's fine.The only way for that to happen is if the fighter was truly helpless and then all it would take 1 round as they would be killed.FWIW, if you're not in battle but are a hostage tied to a chair with no friends around, this isn't a combat action, and as a DM it'd be perfectly fair to me to let the guy with the knife "take 20", so to speak, and just kill you. After all, as with skill checks, even the most high-Con character will roll a natural 1 5% of the time.But the difference is there are rules for killing a helpless character. There are no rules that explain what happens when a character is caught completely off guard but not helpless.The d20 system is actually a lot more "brutal" and "gritty" than an equivalent 3d6 system would be, since it allows for even the most incredibly powerful characters to fail at something 5% of the time -- 5% of the time your amazingly powerful fighter will critically miss, your amazingly perspicacious psion will critically fail a Will save, some random stupid little orc will get a critical hit off of your dwarven defender, etc. A DM who really wants to kill a character ought not need a "plot AttN" -- just use that DM screen they give you to "roll" a "critical hit" from an ordinary mook, or better yet "roll" a "critical hit" from a ranged touch spell -- everyone ought to be afraid of a crit from a scorching ray (or, at higher levels, a lightning bolt).This has nothing to do with a DM wanting to kill a character. That is too easy and it can be made to look truly legit. What I am writing about is what happens when a character, any character wakes up with a knife to the throat, when they blunder on into a situation that they were unprepared for when this issue comes up.
pres_man 04-05-06, 07:32 PM	But the difference is there are rules for killing a helpless character. There are no rules that explain what happens when a character is caught completely off guard but not helpless. Flat-footed? Loss of Dex? Suspeptible to sneak attack?
LordofIllusions 04-05-06, 07:32 PM	Precisely. You deal with it out-of-game. That's what I've been saying all along. No. You and I deal with it out-of-game. Who are we to tell someone else how they should deal with their group's problems ? Also, I sometimes give roleplaying penalties for bad role playing. Do some here think that is wrong ? Yes. Do I care what they think ? No. ~~~
LCD2YOU 04-05-06, 07:42 PM	But the difference is there are rules for killing a helpless character. There are no rules that explain what happens when a character is caught completely off guard but not helpless.Flat-footed? Loss of Dex? Suspeptible to sneak attack?To be more direct, all of what pres_man just stated but with a dagger to the throat when it is pressed up against the flesh.
starfire311 04-05-06, 08:11 PM	No. You and I deal with it out-of-game. Who are we to tell someone else how they should deal with their group's problems ? Also, I sometimes give roleplaying penalties for bad role playing. Do some here think that is wrong ? Yes. Do I care what they think ? No. ~~~ If they didnt want an opinion then they shouldn't be telling anyone what to do on a public forum. I prefer to give bonus xp for good roleplaying than penalties for bad roleplaying, but meh all good in the hood G
kelvinaw273 04-05-06, 08:26 PM	What has amazed me about this discussion is the way that some people take umbrage about a DM not playing by "The Rules". "The Rules" do not allow a character to be killed off arbitrarily, that is unfair. Well, actually they do, and the Arbiter of the decision is the DM. Period. If the other players do not like it, they can vote with their feet. What Wargamer has stated is that he has done so under extreme circumstances with a player that were disrupting the game for the DM and the other players and after repeated attempts to rectify the problem by all other means. Such players are no fun for anyone to have around. If the DM finds the players ALL prefer a different style of play, he can amend his game to fit them of close it down. If the players find the DM isn't playing the kind of game they enjoy, one of them can DM themselves. What really mazes me is the number of posters inthe original thread who reacted with stark terror at the prospect that DM could act outside the rules. They used the j-word a great deal, and assumed that the DM was being antagonistic, that he had it in for the player, that his actions basically could never be justified. Get a life. The actions were supported by the other players, so this guy must have really ticked everybody off. No loss, therefore. What I think is that some readers of this thread recognize themselves in the player who was arrowed, and fear the same fate inthe games they are currently making miserable for others. That, or they feel that DMs have no business actually running games, and that players should make all major decisions and have DMs just play 'everyone else' at sufferance. Look, if the DM has taken the time to create a campaign, and puts all the work in to run it, and makes it clear what sort of a campaign it is, the players have a duty to at least try to play the sort of game the DM is trying to run. If they don't, they have no place there, and if they don't see that the DM is well within his rights to remove them in any way he sees fit.
Aliquid 04-05-06, 08:56 PM	What I think is that some readers of this thread recognize themselves in the player who was arrowed, and fear the same fate inthe games they are currently making miserable for others. That, or they feel that DMs have no business actually running games, and that players should make all major decisions and have DMs just play 'everyone else' at sufferance.Most of the posters on this thread who are strongly against the AttN scenario are DMs themselves, not players. Furthermore, most of the people on this thread who think AttN is wrong, would not put up with annoying players, or ever just "play 'everyone else' at sufferance. They would be mature about the situation and deal with the problem player in person and out of game. It's amazing that the main point the "Anti-AttN" crowd is arguing is being completely ignored by the "pro-AttN" crowd. It is even more amazing that the "pro-AttN" group keep arguing points that the Anti group actually agree with.
ArcTan 04-05-06, 09:11 PM	What I think is that some readers of this thread recognize themselves in the player who was arrowed, and fear the same fate inthe games they are currently making miserable for others. That, or they feel that DMs have no business actually running games, and that players should make all major decisions and have DMs just play 'everyone else' at sufferance. This is way too big a leap to make, but I'll allow it in this form: If I were, for some reason, causing a huge problem in a campaign I was in, and none of the other players liked me, and the DM didn't like me, and everyone wanted me gone, then... YES, I would greatly prefer if the DM took me aside and simply told me not to come to session anymore. I would greatly prefer that to the DM finding a way to use the mechanics of the RPG session to take me by surprise and humiliate me by creating an incongruous, silly event like "There's an arrow in your neck!" If the DM had actually done this, and I somehow muscled my way into the room and sat down and started playing my character anyway, and the DM said "There's an arrow in your neck!" *first thing* as I sat down, as another *way* of saying "I'm not gonna let you play anymore," then that might be okay. Implicitly saying I was still in the game by starting up the session with my character in it anyway and then AttN'ing me at an inopportune moment would still be hella uncool. Look at it this way: As a general thing, in social events, the nice, mature, kind thing to do is to handle irresolvable personality conflicts in private, outside of the event itself. You quietly explain to that one friend who's not invited to your party *why* he's not invited. You quietly tell that one guy why you'd rather not see him at your pickup basketball games anymore. You tell the girl who can't keep time that you're gonna have to look for another bass player for your amateur band. This isn't about me thinking the imaginary fictional character of the PC has "rights", or thinking that the rules of D&D are sacred. This is about the AttN being tactless and using what ought to be a friendly game that everyone can enjoy as a tool of social aggression. This is the equivalent of letting someone come to your party but refusing to speak to her all night and telling all your guests to avoid her, or waiting till she arrives and then starting to badmouth her in front of everyone or announcing that the new party game will be everyone telling a story about their worst experiences interacting with her. It's like letting the guy come to your basketball game but intentionally picking him last when dividing up teams, and tacitly agreeing no one's going to let him touch the ball, and maybe taking the opportunity to elbow him in the side a few times running past him. It's like letting the bassist come to practice but announcing that you're only going to play songs without a bass section and let her sit in the corner feeling like crap. It's like being the Banker in Monopoly but consciously refusing to give the one kid nobody likes his $200 for passing go and constantly overcharging him for any property he wants to buy. In fact, it's like being the Banker and saying, "I'm not giving you any starting money. You're bankrupt. I'm the Banker and I'm foreclosing on everything." This is not the way grownups play games with other grownups. It's an immature and cruel way to score points off someone in revenge for being a jerk rather than being the bigger man and finding a civil way to phase him out. If all the other players are okay with it, that means that all the other players are playing into this childish game of "punish the bad kid", which is another reason I have to cast my vote among the others here for hoping I don't end up in a gaming group like yours.
tiercel 04-05-06, 09:14 PM	What has amazed me about this discussion is the way that some people take umbrage about a DM not playing by "The Rules". "The Rules" do not allow a character to be killed off arbitrarily, that is unfair. Well, actually they do, and the Arbiter of the decision is the DM. Period. If the other players do not like it, they can vote with their feet. And, if you are going to be a "my way or the highway" DM first and foremost, they probably will. Look, I don't know that anyone would dispute that a DM does not have the power to go outside "The Rules." The problem with this power, like so many other kinds of power, is that the more often it is used, the less effective it is. A DM, ideally, should not have to go outside the rules -- after all, outside of the actual PCs, you have the entire world at your command. If there are specific rules you don't like, you can houserule them in advance so that your players know what to expect in your own, self-consistent world. The problem with simply spontaneously going outside the rules is that it breaks the sense of consistency with which the campaign world works. D&D is generally not realistic -- we are talking about a game where intelligent characters can fly around through the air and hurl fire from their hands at giant, talking, flying, lightning-spitting lizards. Generally, though, it should be internally consistent -- yes, there are magic and incredibly heroic deeds, but they all work according to a set of rules that make that world seem a plausible alternate reality. If the DM starts simply dictating things by fiat, it introduces a degree of pure arbitrariness into the world -- things just happen in the world that make little or no sense within an understanding of it, and there is nothing that can be done about them. This can quite easily lead to players having their suspension of disbelief broken, feeling jerked around, and getting downright paranoid (since they don't know what will prompt it again). In limited cases, when the group is on board, it could work out. If you have already had the group-to-player chat and the player is no longer coming to game sessions and you need to get rid of his character, presumably AttN could work. (But it's lazy, and you could easily get rid of the character in a more internally consistent way, than a "magic bullet.") The point of the anti-AttN sentiment here is that most of AttN discussed (here in the thread, and in past threads) has been as "AttN as weapon by DM against character of unliked player." I would argue that in the vast majority of games, this sort of use of AttN is injurious to the game as a whole, even if it does lead eventually to the removal of a player who is in fact problematic. There is pretty much always a cleaner, better way to do so -- AttN does not need to be a DM's way of dealing with a player. What I think is that some readers of this thread recognize themselves in the player who was arrowed, and fear the same fate inthe games they are currently making miserable for others.You may or may not be familiar with the term "ad hominem," but it refers to the fallacy that an opposing viewpoint can be logically refuted by impugning the character of the other disputant. Making personal attacks is not helpful to the discussion of this thread -- if you have some beef with someone's opinion, please impress us by making a reasoned and supported argument as to why their reasoning is incorrect, rather than insinuating something like "you all must be the sort of losers who deserve an AttN if you would dare oppose it for any reason." Look, if the DM has taken the time to create a campaign, and puts all the work in to run it, and makes it clear what sort of a campaign it is, the players have a duty to at least try to play the sort of game the DM is trying to run.This much I will agree with, once the players sign on for a certain kind of campaign. (Often there is some give-and-take between DM and player at the get-go so that everyone is happy). However, I would also argue that the DM has an equal obligation to try to stick to that kind of game as well -- so if he is planning on there being "it happens because I said so" pure DM fiat moments, it would behoove him to make this crystal clear to his players. Most players join a game with the unstated assumption that the DM will be bound by the rules whenever possible, and that problems that go outside the rules (interpersonal problems at the table) will be handled on a personal basis, not on an arbitrary in-game basis. If they don't, they have no place there, and if they don't see that the DM is well within his rights to remove them in any way he sees fit.I would disagree with this last statement. Although it can be pleasant to fantasize about using the canonical hammergun to deal with a particularly odious presence at the table, no one would condone this as an actual RL method of conflict resolution. With regards to rules adjudication and disputes to how things work in the campaign world, there must be someone who makes the final call (even if there is discussion amongst the group first), and that someone is the DM. For a DM to also seek absolute power within interpersonal relationships at the table is less referee and more tyrant. Yes, if the DM and the other players have irreconcilable differences with another player, it should be the DM who is the primary spokesperson. As with any other interaction within two people, though, it behooves the DM to be as civil as possible even when doing something unpleasant. And I find it hard to believe that there is any case where being honest, face-to-face, person-to-person outside the game would be LESS civil than pulling an AttN to that player's character in-game.
WizO_Cat 04-05-06, 09:15 PM	Actually, from what I see here, it isn't just "anti-AttN" at all costs or "pro-AttN" at all costs crowds. Along with them, there are: - "anti-AttN" for disciplinary reasons; possible "pro-AttN" for roleplaying/plot development reasons for groups who have gamed together for a long time and feel comfortable gaming with one another such that the conflict that this usually provides can be dealt with maturely between all in group. - "anti-AttN" for disciplinary reasons for young players and new groups; possible "pro-AttN" for disciplinary reasons for groups who have gamed together for a long time and feel comfortable gaming with one another such that the conflict that this usually provides can be dealt with maturely between all in group. - "pro-AttN" for just problematic/young players but "Anti-Attn" for all other players. There are some shades of grey here. In essence, it depends on what the group wants to play and how comfortable they are playing amongst one another. (usually requires a fair amount of experience playing with one another)
WizO_Cat 04-05-06, 09:17 PM	All right, putting my moderator hat back on, let's refrain for the insinuations of other posters in the thread. Remember to keep the posts on the subject of the thread, not other guests. Otherwise, it is considered baiting which is against the Code of Conduct.
LordofIllusions 04-05-06, 09:29 PM	If they didnt want an opinion then they shouldn't be telling anyone what to do on a public forum. I prefer to give bonus xp for good roleplaying than penalties for bad roleplaying, but meh all good in the hood G I give XP bonuses and penalties with my role playing rewards system. The only people that complain are the metagaming spoiled gamer I have kicked, and I could care less what they say since they are gone now anyway. Back on topic, what you must realize is that many of the players in 3E have been reared under the "players can do no wrong", spiel that WoTC promoted when 3.0 first came out. They blamed everything bad on the DM, players were never held accountable for their negative actions. It is only somewhat recently when DMs began throwing their hands up in frustration at the mess that Wizards helped create, and less people could play because they had no DM available, that WoTC made the decision to start making articles designed to help out the DM with the problem players they had helped to nourish(i.e. WoTC spoon fed negative player behaviour by blaming their behaviour on the DM) in the game. Honestly I don't even expect a fairshake towards DMs from WoTC because they want to cater to what they think the majority are; players, and they are right players are a dime a dozen. Good players however are rare and so are DMs. I applaud you Kelvinaw273, excellent post! ~~~
Aliquid 04-05-06, 09:54 PM	Look, if the DM has taken the time to create a campaign, and puts all the work in to run it, and makes it clear what sort of a campaign it is, the players have a duty to at least try to play the sort of game the DM is trying to run.I completely agree If they don't, they have no place there,Again, completely agree and if they don't see that the DM is well within his rights to remove themIf reasoning with the problem player fails? Sure I'm still agreeing with you. in any way he sees fit.Completely disagree.
a_psh 04-05-06, 10:08 PM	There are some shades of grey here. In essence, it depends on what the group wants to play and how comfortable they are playing amongst one another. (usually requires a fair amount of experience playing with one another)Let's say we figure AttN is a usable tool in some situations. When is it actually useful? From the above list, what situations actually require AttN or benefit significantly from it?
loaba 04-05-06, 10:14 PM	Back on topic, what you must realize is that many of the players in 3E have been reared under the "players can do no wrong", spiel that WoTC promoted when 3.0 first came out. Do you have a link to this "spiel"? I'd like to read it. They [meaning WoTC?] blamed everything bad on the DM, players were never held accountable for their negative actions. It is only somewhat recently when DMs began throwing their hands up in frustration at the mess that Wizards helped create, and less people could play because they had no DM available, that WoTC made the decision to start making articles designed to help out the DM with the problem players they had helped to nourish(i.e. WoTC spoon fed negative player behaviour by blaming their behaviour on the DM) in the game. Wow, I never knew any of this... Honestly I don't even expect a fairshake towards DMs from WoTC because they want to cater to what they think the majority are; players, and they are right players are a dime a dozen. Good players however are rare and so are DMs. I applaud you Kelvinaw273, excellent post! ~~~ Okay, seriously, do you have anything concrete to back up these claims, or is it all just hearsay :rolleyes:
a_psh 04-05-06, 10:18 PM	Back on topic, what you must realize is that many of the players in 3E have been reared under the "players can do no wrong", spiel that WoTC promoted when 3.0 first came out. They blamed everything bad on the DM, players were never held accountable for their negative actions. It is only somewhat recently when DMs began throwing their hands up in frustration at the mess that Wizards helped create, and less people could play because they had no DM available, that WoTC made the decision to start making articles designed to help out the DM with the problem players they had helped to nourish(i.e. WoTC spoon fed negative player behaviour by blaming their behaviour on the DM) in the game.I've seen this statement on the boards way too many times not to respond... Where, exactly, is this in the books themselves? Where in the PHB and DMG does it say that players are always right and that DMs should just dance for their amusement? Is there some special pamphlet explaining all this stuff that was supposed to be mailed to me after I bought the new core books? I see how it's possible to make an argument that the community as a whole is more interested in player empowerment now than it was before, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how exactly the books themselves are supposed to have encouraged this.
WizO_Cat 04-05-06, 10:24 PM	Let's say we figure AttN is a usable tool in some situations. When is it actually useful? From the above list, what situations actually require AttN or benefit significantly from it? I understand what is being said and in some ways agree. However, the legitimate answer is: it depends on what the gaming group considers useful. Useful is a subject measure. For example, I don't consider weapon sizing and damage reduction bypass due to what the material type is for the weapon to be "useful." However, my old DM loed the 3.0 Haste where you could cast two spells in one round and, given a chance, I would game with him playing the 3.0 haste in revision 3.5. In order to keep my DM, I consider that the 3.0 version of Haste to be "useful". If I was trying to think of useful use for AttN, it would be where players actually told the DM: "Look, we understand that there will be areas in the plot where a character may die to advance it along. We trust you as a DM enough so that we're willing to give you that caveat so that you don't throw a CR that is 13 higher than our party and thus accidentally blast away half of the party just to get to the player in question." Also, some players might like that aspect of the older versions of the games and inported it into the new version. As a DM, it could be used on monsters either in the situation (a) where numerous monsters are significantly weaker than the party and thus the fight would just be time consuming or (b) where you want it such that the player fires the right artifact arrow to hit the BBEG and bring them down. Now, I agree: there are those that like the random nature that the combat provides. However, there are those that like the fact that the DM is helping out the major parts of the plot with something like this. (of course I wouldn't recommend it for all combat situations in a game) It's all subject. People's tastes are as numerous as the stars.
LCD2YOU 04-05-06, 10:24 PM	A person who runs a game with one player is still a DM. A group without a DM is engagng in a circle jerk. As players need a DM and there are more players than DMs, then role of the DM is obviously harder and therefore more important.
loaba 04-05-06, 10:25 PM	a_psh - sorry, man, I just honestly can't think of a time that it would be okay for the DM to summarily issue the BFoD. I mean, it's a joke that you tell to your players. "Don't do X, or I'll bust out the BFod!", and then everybody laughs and the game continues. At least that's what I think anyway.
loaba 04-05-06, 10:30 PM	A person who runs a game with one player is still a DM. A group without a DM is engagng in a circle jerk. As players need a DM and there are more players than DMs, then role of the DM is obviously harder and therefore more important. Players need DMs and vice versa, that's just how it goes. I would think that most people prefer playing a character to DMing, not because DMing is hard, rather because they enjoy focusing on the development of one character. But that could be just me...
LordofIllusions 04-05-06, 10:33 PM	Player coddling by WoTC was readily apparent in many of the gaming articles that appeared on this very site. Some have been discontinued, some have not. I do recall one in particular, which I printed out and showed to my good players and they laughed hysterically; it said something to the affect of if a player's character dies it is the DMs fault for letting him die. Not only did that sound horribly stupid to me, and my playes, it sounded horribly biased. The author in this article, who was also a game designer for WoTC, blatantly said that all problems in the game are the fault of the DM. That was only one article but I have seen that same ignorant sentiment, which does not hold players accountable ever, multiple times. I would guess this is the reason why many strong DMs consider WoTC to be incompetent in dealing with player problems. As far as actually going through and looking up the variious articles or books that hint at this, or outright say it, I am not even entertaining that idea. Why ? 1. Why would I waste my time trying to prove something to you ? 2. You're supporters of the anti-DM stance so no factual evidence to the contrary will curb your biased position. 3. I don't see proving something to you as being important. ~~~
LCD2YOU 04-05-06, 10:36 PM	Players need DMs and vice versa, that's just how it goes.And you get the prize. That is so true. I knew my post would get a responce.I would think that most people prefer playing a character to DMing, not because DMing is hard, rather because they enjoy focusing on the development of one character. But that could be just me...No, DMing is harder as I do both. As a player, I don't need to worry how the world is turning. All I need to worry about is how my character will react. As a DM, I have to worry about how the world is unfolding. What the big guys are up to this week. Who is killing whom, where the dragons are, etc. As I believe the world continues despite wha tthe players are doing, my world continues to evolve and operate. DMing, I will say from experience, is harder. But I prefer to be a DM as it is a labor of love.
LordofIllusions 04-05-06, 10:37 PM	A person who runs a game with one player is still a DM. A group without a DM is engagng in a circle jerk. As players need a DM and there are more players than DMs, then role of the DM is obviously harder and therefore more important. :thumbsup: ~~~
Catra 04-05-06, 10:38 PM	Let's say we figure AttN is a usable tool in some situations. When is it actually useful? If you're looking for a non-instakill method, I suggest reviewing my first post in this topic. Maybe you missed it. I agree with the main concept of "Arrow-through-the-neck can sometimes be a useful disciplinary tool", but not as a "convenient way to punish a player or kick a player out of the game" tool. I see its uses in-game, and I also see how it could be misused, but a good DM could avoid misusing it without too much trouble. WizO_Cat pretty much nailed it, I think.
LordofIllusions 04-05-06, 10:39 PM	And you get the prize. That is so true. I knew my post would get a responce.No, DMing is harder as I do both. As a player, I don't need to worry how the world is turning. All I need to worry about is how my character will react. As a DM, I have to worry about how the world is unfolding. What the big guys are up to this week. Who is killing whom, where the dragons are, etc. As I believe the world continues despite wha tthe players are doing, my world continues to evolve and operate. DMing, I will say from experience, is harder. But I prefer to be a DM as it is a labor of love. That's right our job is harder and both WoTC, and the problematic players, need to respect that or they will be without good DMs. It is that simple. ~~~
loaba 04-05-06, 10:40 PM	Player coddling by WoTC was readily apparent in many of the gaming articles that appeared on this very site. Linky, please? I do recall one in particular, which I printed out and showed to my good players and they laughed hysterically; it said something to the affect of if a player's character dies it is the DMs fault for letting him die. Surely you have this little gem archived, no? C'mon, pass it along. Not only did that sound horribly stupid to me, and my playe[r]s, it sounded horribly biased. The author in this article, who was also a game designer for WoTC, blatantly said that all problems in the game are the fault of the DM. That was only one article but I have seen that same ignorant sentiment, which does not hold players accountable ever, multiple times. What was the authors name? I would guess this is the reason why many strong DMs consider WoTC to be incompetent in dealing with player problems. What's a "strong" DM, in your mind? As far as actually going through and looking up the variious articles or books that hint at this, or outright say it, I am not even entertaining that idea.Why ? Then everything you say is a joke, and the why of it matters not a twit. And who's anti-DM?
Aliquid 04-05-06, 10:40 PM	3. I don't see proving something to you as being important.Then why are you still posting to this thread? If you don't want to take the effort to properly sway someone's opinion, why are you posting at all? Doesn't seem very rational.
LCD2YOU 04-05-06, 10:43 PM	(snip) Not only did that sound horribly stupid to me, and my playes, it sounded horribly biased. The author in this article, who was also a game designer for WoTC, blatantly said that all problems in the game are the fault of the DM. That was only one article but I have seen that same ignorant sentiment, which does not hold players accountable ever, multiple times. (snip) ~~~Chill dude. As a "pro-DM" poster, I agree that in game problems are mostly in the DM's corner. Then again I also feel that DMs are the main personages in the game. You can have a decent ame with mediocre players. You will have crap with a mediocre DM. A good DM, like a good director, can get so much more out of their players. A Mediocre DM, even with good players, still has a stilted game. So, if there are problems in a game, it is the DM's fault. With that said, it is the DM's job to hint at, give hints to in game, talk to OoG and kick out in needed, problem players. That falls on the DM if the players are divided so the DM has the final say, within limits, so the DM is ultimately responsible.
Ongorth 04-05-06, 10:45 PM	A person who runs a game with one player is still a DM. A group without a DM is engagng in a circle jerk. As players need a DM and there are more players than DMs, then role of the DM is obviously harder and therefore more important. Then my group must have INCREDIBLE STAMINA because we've been going at it DMless for, what, 5 years or so now? Regardless of what a_psh says, there are a few of us out there who are anti-DM. Being anti-DM, however, is much more then reaching the entirely reasonable conclusion that the DM is not the regulator of behavior and standardizer of social behavior. Anyone trying to make that leap has a very pessimistic view of what a D&D game looks like, a view that is so tainted that any experience gained from it isn't valuable to an overwhelming portion of the population of D&D players. This is probably why there are so many not just contridictory, but also confused responses. "Do people really play in games where this is even considered an actual possibility?" I'm just finding the "heavy rp" comment interesting. How could you come to that conclusion? Skimble knows he can whoop any green warrior with fake brave and a bow (warrior 1). He's just too good at what he does and he knows it. He's a veteran with a magic sword and mad skills. What he needs to fear is the experienced archer (fighter 12) that knows all the tricks and has the gear to back himself up. Now, trouble might come if Skimble can't tell the two apart.
LordofIllusions 04-05-06, 10:47 PM	Stating facts about how the majority of players have deteriorated to...well "not so good", gamers has nothing to do with 'swaying your opinion.' I could care less what you think. I state facts against the anti-DM stance to eradicate lies that are heaped upon the hardworking DMs shoulders simply because these players don't always get their way in games. Its more about agreeing with those who are against the anti-DM stance than trying to get the jokers that enforce it to change their mind. Their mental state is really not that important to me at all. ~~~
Catra 04-05-06, 10:48 PM	...we've been going at it DMless for... I'd like to know how this works, I'm having trouble picturing it.
LordofIllusions 04-05-06, 10:49 PM	Chill dude. As a "pro-DM" poster, I agree that in game problems are mostly in the DM's corner. Then again I also feel that DMs are the main personages in the game. You can have a decent ame with mediocre players. You will have crap with a mediocre DM. A good DM, like a good director, can get so much more out of their players. A Mediocre DM, even with good players, still has a stilted game. So, if there are problems in a game, it is the DM's fault. With that said, it is the DM's job to hint at, give hints to in game, talk to OoG and kick out in needed, problem players. That falls on the DM if the players are divided so the DM has the final say, within limits, so the DM is ultimately responsible. I don't agree. I'll leave it at that. ~~~
loaba 04-05-06, 10:50 PM	And you get the prize. That is so true. I knew my post would get a responce.No, DMing is harder as I do both. You crack me up (and note that I am not laughing with you). I DM and play as well, and in my opinion, DMing isn't harder per se, though it certainly entails far more prep work before a session. However, I find that when I include the players in the design of the game-world, that makes DMing a helluva lot easier than it is. Same thing goes for character creation and development. I much prefer to have the DM and the players input when I make my PC and when it comes time for advancement. As a player, I don't need to worry how the world is turning. All I need to worry about is how my character will react. Then as a player, you're just along for the ride. That's great, good for you. As a DM, I have to worry about how the world is unfolding. What the big guys are up to this week. Who is killing whom, where the dragons are, etc. Yeah, and that does take a bit of time out of your day, fair enough. But does it necessarily mean that you're more important than anyone else at the table? As I believe the world continues despite wha tthe players are doing, my world continues to evolve and operate. In your own mind, it does.
WizO_Cat 04-05-06, 10:53 PM	Ok, one last time: Keep the threads on the subject matter of the thread, not other guests. Otherwise, it is considered baiting, and I'm going to have to send out disciplinary actions to all involved on both sides of the argument. I really think that this is a legitimate subject to discuss or else I wouldn't have posted on the thread. However, it's not worth keeping open if the posts start becoming personal in nature.
LordofIllusions 04-05-06, 10:55 PM	I'd like to know how this works, I'm having trouble picturing it. Player 1 to Player 2: Roll a 20-sider! Player 2: *Rolls and looks up monster's AC in MM* I hit! Ok, I do X amount of damage. Player 3: He grunts as he falls, and he decides to give me direction to where he has hidden his +2 longsword with his dying breath. *Shakes head* ~~~
loaba 04-05-06, 10:58 PM	Stating facts about how the majority of players have deteriorated to...well "not so good", gamers has nothing to do with 'swaying your opinion.' Funny, from where I sit it has everything to do with opinion. I mean, unless you can prove that player quality has in fact deteriorated (which of course, you can't, because no one can). I could care less what you think. You could care less? Meaning that right now, you still care at least a little bit? Well, that's good to know. I state facts Where? against the anti-DM stance to eradicate lies that are heaped upon the hardworking DMs shoulders simply because these players don't always get their way in games. Ah, I see, you're taking one for the team, and so you don't need to actually back anything up at all. Their mental state is really not that important to me at all. ~~~ And your mental state amuses me to no end, course I am easily entertained on a dull Wednesday night. :D
LCD2YOU 04-05-06, 11:00 PM	Then my group must have INCREDIBLE STAMINA because we've been going at it DMless for, what, 5 years or so now?Good for you and the rest of your players. Sell your hormones to the makers of Viagra.Regardless of what a_psh says, there are a few of us out there who are anti-DM. Being anti-DM, however, is much more then reaching the entirely reasonable conclusion that the DM is not the regulator of behavior and standardizer of social behavior. Anyone trying to make that leap has a very pessimistic view of what a D&D game looks like, a view that is so tainted that any experience gained from it isn't valuable to an overwhelming portion of the population of D&D players.Kudos to you. Still I wonder how you handle obvious instances of being the banker AND being a player.This is probably why there are so many not just contridictory, but also confused responses. "Do people really play in games where this is even considered an actual possibility?"Yes, how do you handle a situation where the PCs may actually die? How many PCs have you lost in the past 5 years?I'm just finding the "heavy rp" comment interesting. How could you come to that conclusion? Skimble knows he can whoop any green warrior with fake brave and a bow (warrior 1). He's just too good at what he does and he knows it. He's a veteran with a magic sword and mad skills. What he needs to fear is the experienced archer (fighter 12) that knows all the tricks and has the gear to back himself up.Not with a dagger to his throat. At the very least, Skimble will have a nasty scar to remind hijm, assuming he fails his Bluff, et al, check and does something stupid. Still, in a game where a character has maxed out their Bluff, et al, they do have a good chance of faking their way through with dice rolls. The rest of us have to make do with such useless things as parley, negotiations, etc. Hardly the stuff of role-playing when a player realizes his 8th level PC has little to worry about from a 1d4 + 3 damage inflicted from a dagger to the throat. Yes I see where bulling one's way through is so much more role-playing than trying to establish a dialogue. Dilly me.Now, trouble might come if Skimble can't tell the two apart.I don't think he can.
WizO_Cat 04-05-06, 11:04 PM	Ok, it appears this thread has run its course and only result in insults to other guests. Time to close the thread and those who decided to take part continuing with the insults should get an e-mail from me in the near future.