Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SwiftFox 08-15-05, 01:32 AM	I have a tragic tale to relate, of the sudden an unexpected death of a rogue. My RP group got together last night for the 2nd session of a new campaign, which we had begun as a group of 5 x 4th level characters... This campaign was set in eberron, and one of the players (not mine) was a changeling rogue, and a very thorough one at that, who upon entering a dungeon would seach for traps in every corridor and room, listen at every door and scout ahead while being all stealthy. Anyway, we got to this particular section of a dungeon that was guarded by gnolls... we slew them, and the changeling assumed the visage of one of the dead gnolls to better perform at recon... the next room we entered, the changeling was first through the door, hoping to make use of the element of surprise which he thought would be with him... The DM gave a description of the room to the rogue which went something like this : "before you is a 30x30ft room with two doors in the east wall... there are a number of stange objects laid out on a rug in the center of the room, next to which is seated a human woman who appears to be dusting one of them as you enter. Upon seeing you she stands and says 'what are you doing here? get back to your post at once!' " then he paused (perhaps for breath, it is unclear) and the rogue announced : "I walk up to her and bash her with my mace!", rolled his attack dice and asked if he had hit... the DM made him roll initiative first, but he won so he got to do just as he had said... the rest of the party was in the previous room waiting to enter, but were not allowed to roll our initiatives this round. When it came time for the monster initiatives, the DM placed a minature for the woman next to the rogue's, and also a pair of gnolls, one of which was standing nearby the woman. The woman took a 5ft step back, cast a command spell at the rogue with the command "die!", the rogue then failed his save, fell over asleep, and the nearby gnoll took a 5ft step and performed a coup-de-grace with his battleaxe doing 17 points of damage, the rogue failed his fortitude save (DC 27) and died for real this time. The rogue's player stood up, announced that this session had been "a total waste of time" and left immediately in a foul mood. The rest of the party rushed into the room next round, slaughtered the woman and gnolls in a single round and the session ended there. The general consensus was that, even if raised from the dead (resulting in a lost level) or permitted to roll up a new character (which would be a shame because he had written up a 4-page history for his character), the player in question would be too upset over the manner of his character's death (directed towards the DM) to take either of these options, and would not be participating in this campaign any more. The DM's verdict was that the player had been overconfident and that '**** happens', washing his hands of the matter. Now, there are a few additional facts worth considering... it turns out the DM was using the 3rd ed. version of the command spell which allows the command 'die' to be issued... the 3.5th ed. version of this spell does not, and we were using 3.5th ed. rules where possible. It is likely that the DM did not realise the spell had changed since 3 and 3.5. At the time the spell was cast, there was some question as to whether it counted as a charm or sleep spell, because the rogue, as a changeling gets a +2 bonus to saves against charms and sleeps, which would have resulted in his having made the save, but it was uncovered that command is in fact a compulsion... in hindsight the rogue could have just used an action point (eberron) to make absolutely sure he passed, but we were all a bit new to the whole actions points system so this got overlooked in the confusion. The rest of the players (myself included) are a bit uncertain as to who is truly to blame for this unfortunate turn of events... we realise that character death is a part of the game, but this whole incident was a bit unsettling and we dont want to lose one of our players because of feelings of resentment towards the DM... The only thing I can think to do is call up the player and DM, let them know about the rules confusion with 'command' and see if some compromise cant be negotiated. Who was to blame here? what should be done? and advice would be appreciated.
Cymraegmorgan 08-15-05, 01:42 AM	The DM is to blame, mostly. If he is running a 3.5 game, it is incumbent upon him to know the 3.5 rules. The player is to blame, slightly. Rather than storming out of the session, he could have tried talking, maybe even pointing out to the DM that "die" is no longer part of this spell. The best thing for all concerned would be to pick up the game right at the point the woman used Command, then let things roll from their. There is no shame in the occasional do-over.
Raxor 08-15-05, 01:43 AM	I'd say you're right on about calling the DM and the player, let the DM know about the updated "Command" spell (can't believe your DM doesn't have the 3.5 PHB), let the player know about the action point thing (I don't play Eberron, so I have no idea what that's about), get them to talk to each other, but most importantly of all, just let them sleep on it. I'm sure that if you take a few days off and they can just cool down, things will right themselves again. This stuff doesn't happen in the games I play in because I'm the biggest rules lawyer ever (which means no end of grief for my poor DM). Anyway, that's just what I would do if I were in your shoes.
J.B. 08-15-05, 01:51 AM	You know, in a situation like this, where the oversight of a rule meant the death of a PC, our group would generally redo the situation correctly to let the PC's character live. It seems only fair. I think finding a compromise is the right idea. Did you guys continue playing after the death of the rogue. If No you could do my suggestion if not Yes then maybe the Rogue wasn't killed, just knocked unconscious.
WizardlyFriend 08-15-05, 02:00 AM	what the PC did was very immature and i woudnt be surprised if the DM just said "eff" it and didn't let him back in or said that he could make a new character one level lower. i've DMed often and i have little tolerance for people who can't keep their cool over a game. or who feel it necesary to insult the hard work that a DM puts into his games ("waste of time" is what i'm referring to). however, i would know the rules difference. perhaps your DM is a nice, i've only not allowed one person to re-enter a session of mine (cheating, munchkining, and plenty of other things). explain the spell to him and ask politely for a redo or for him to think of something, it isn't fair that he doesn't know the 3.5 spell, but the rogue is a jerk for doing what he did IMO.
IceFractal 08-15-05, 02:07 AM	Ok, but the DM did not mention the two gnolls. That's an important fact, and even if the player decided to attack before the DM mentioned it, their character is still going to notice them, and maybe reconsider it. Also, if the other players are right outside, they should get a Listen check, low DC, to hear what's going on and get to roll initiative.
ShadowDragon8685 08-15-05, 03:40 AM	I'd say both of them need to think things through. The DM was bad for not knowing the updated rules, and not mentioning the gnolls. From the player's PoV, it's like they just materialized out of thin air. The woman shot him with what was essentially a save or die spell, and those tend to leave players feeling bad. It's okay when it's NPCs, because nobody cares, but when you distil a character's whole existance down to hinging on one die roll, it starts to feel like you got ripped off. On the other hand, the player shoulden't have gotten so mad, though I see where he's coming from on it.
Nom 08-15-05, 04:11 AM	I'm going to disagree slightly. Dropping the gnolls out of nowhere is problematic, unless there was some reason why the PC couldn't have seen them. However, the DM didn't do anything "wrong" with the spell. The PC solo-ed an unknown opponent. The unknown opponent hit the PC with a save or die spell. The PC failed the save, and died. If he'd known of the presence of the gnolls might have caused him to reconsider, but the fact is he was in trouble the moment he solo-ed a caster and failed his will save. I agree that there might be some rules irregularities in there (such as the changes to command). However, there's nothing to suggest that the player's complaint was about the content of the rules. The PC took acted rashly, took a risk, failed some rolls, and died as a consequence. The player then went off to sulk. The problem doesn't seem to be that the DM made a rules error, but that the player couldn't take it when something didn't go his way. SwiftFox doesn't even suggest that the player complained "uh, that doesn't work" when the spell was cast, or that he tried to argue rules after the fact. Conclusion: the DM made several rules mistakes, but the actual "problem" is entirely of the player's making. In this, the DM is quite correct. The player was overconfident, got unlucky, and wasn't willing to accept the consequences. Resolution is a problem. If the player hadn't thrown a hissy fit, then it would be appropriate for the DM to say "look, I made a couple of mistakes, so let's change the situation so that ...". However, to do so now would be to validate the player's behaviour. The issue isn't that the DM got some rules wrong, it's that the player won't accept that things don't always go his way. My recommendation to the DM is to note where he made rules errors and "fix it for next time". Meanwhile, said player may either arrange a resurrection, play a new character, or not play, as he prefers.
q'afuu 08-15-05, 06:49 AM	... then he paused (perhaps for breath, it is unclear) and the rogue announced : "I walk up to her and bash her with my mace!" You'll need to be more clear here. Are you implying the DM was maybe not ready with his description yet and the player jumped the gun a bit prematurely? If so, the DM should have warned him IMO, and given an opportunity to ammed his action, but it should also have served as a good warning to over-eager players. It's annoying as hell for the DM when he goes to the trouble of preparing adventures and the players only listen to half what he has to say, tune out any details they think don't matter and just charge in whenever they see an opportunity. Otherwise, I agree with Nom. It doesn't really matter that the actual spell was misunderstood. The woman could have been a higher level caster with Power Word spells or any of a number of high-level save-or-dies, and there wouldn't have been any issue about the rules.
Phrennzy 08-15-05, 10:38 AM	The DM should have stopped the player from interrupting him (assuming that the DM was about to explain that there are a pair of gnolls there) instead of just saying, "roll initiative". The poorly worded command spell is a minor sticking point. The player needs to learn how to accept things without being a poor sport. Grow up. I don't agree with the 'save-or-die' would have killed him. Had the woman been alone, she most likely could not have inflicted the Coup-De-Grace level of damage that the gnoll did, which means that the rogue would have survived. However, since the player was such a baby about the whole thing, I wouldn't let him survive the encounter. No redos. Rogue is dead. Gnolls had been invisible. (I would though pack a little extra treasure into the encoutner to soften the cost impact of the raise dead.)
Pain The Unbeliever 08-15-05, 11:42 AM	what the PC did was very immature and i woudnt be surprised if the DM just said "eff" it and didn't let him back in or said that he could make a new character one level lower. i've DMed often and i have little tolerance for people who can't keep their cool over a game. or who feel it necesary to insult the hard work that a DM puts into his games ("waste of time" is what i'm referring to). however, i would know the rules difference. perhaps your DM is a nice, i've only not allowed one person to re-enter a session of mine (cheating, munchkining, and plenty of other things). explain the spell to him and ask politely for a redo or for him to think of something, it isn't fair that he doesn't know the 3.5 spell, but the rogue is a jerk for doing what he did IMO. What????....So the player got mad and left. Now I just dont get this kind of "the DM is an all powerful god BS." My group rotates DM's we all DM. So I always find this attitude to be rather silly. The DM was the real problem in that situation. And it is the DM that needs to correct the situation.
ShadowDragon8685 08-15-05, 12:06 PM	Well now, hold on there, player-bashers. This guy DID go to the trouble of writing up a four-page background. If we assume monotype (a big if in this day and age,) font at 10 points, and an average paragraph length of 5 lines, at 360 characters. 12 such paragraphs go on one page, or 48 such paragraphs total, at 17,280 characters. Assuming everything fell together perfectly, he made no typographical errors or needed to go back and change, erase, or edit something, and assuming an average typing speed of 125 wpm, with one paragraph of 360 characters compromising aproximately 40 words, then you're looking at 15.25 minutes of non-stop typing. Now, almost assuredly, he did not simply type everything down at a steady rate, get everything correct on the first go, and never edit anything. He was there, thinking about the character, going through the creative process, something any DM should by default by familar with. So you can explode that time exponentially, and I'd personally call it around 8-10 hours working on the character's background alone. Time, otherwise, comparable to that most DMs spend on their adventure module. Who's time is more valuable, mmm? Answer: Both amounts of time are equally valuable. The DM invalidated all his hard work on his character out of hand, so the player was completely within his rights to dismiss the DM's hard work in the manner that he did. The DM was, in fact, wasting his time, if he was going to kill an apparently good roleplayer with such a cheap tactic as a sleep or die spell, followed by a CDG.
weasel fierce 08-15-05, 01:26 PM	In a game that places so much emphasis on combat, characters are going to die. Thats plainly the nature of the game. Expecting anything else from D&D is like buying a ferrari, and using it as a towtruck, IMO. Getting ****** over something in a game of makebelieve is just plain tactless. There;'s nothing inherently wrong with spells that lead to your death. Most players dont mind frying goblins with a fireball, or whatnot. The same will happen to you, in a universe that is reasonable, rather than comic book in nature. However, it sounds like the DM may not have been very clear on what was going on, and communicating it to the players. Which is absolutely essential in combat situations. I'd talk to the DM and let him know how people feel, and why it is upsetting, then work from there. If I was the DM, I'd have given the Rogue an out, somehow, if I fudged it up like that
cambric 08-15-05, 01:49 PM	I'll jump in with my 2 cents: There was some miscommunication and misintereptation of rules: Those things happen. A couple of sessions ago, I misread an encounter and put 2 particular types of creatures at my group...I misread where it said, "only use 2 if the party is 8th level or higher"...yeah, they were 6th. :embarrass I stopped the encounter right there, apologized and we continued. That won't happen again...at least I hope not! The problem I have with this situation: The player getting up and leaving. My first reaction is to say, "what is he, 12 year's old?" But I dm a group of 10-15 year olds and none of them would do that...so who knows here. A. The DM "may" have made a mistake with not describing everything. Could this particular player, or others, have interupted the DM before and he just said, "screw it" and continued to show an example? B. The DM "probably" messed up the spell...but Nom made a valid point about it not being huge of a problem. Though, this is fixable...IF C. The player didn't leave! There's MY problem!! The player acted immature (I've played with players like this and it really annoys me). He also didn't give the DM a chance to figure out if there could be something done to fix it. My dm, would've done the same thing: You get up to leave without discussing it, then "screw it", it's not getting changed. As I noted, I will fix something if it's MY mistake! I will never allow my group to be screwed over if it's something I've done...but give me some respect by discussing it first. Don't get up and leave like a spoiled brat. If I were dming this group, I would talk it over with the entire group first and see what they wanted. (Without the player that walked out). If the group was for him returning, I would have a "man to man" talk about him doing what he did and if we could work it out where that wouldn't happen again, I would "fix" it. If the DM is willing to work this out, I would suggest going back to where he was describing the room to the guy...let the guy hear about the 2 other gnolls and then pick it up from there. As a recommendation, the DM "should" refamiliarize himself with 3.5 spell changes, just to make sure this type of mistake doesn't happen again. Cam
eudas 08-15-05, 03:05 PM	I'd say it's mostly the rogue's fault. 1) She said get outside. He looks like a gnoll. Go back outside and report back to your party on the situation up ahead like a good little scout. IT'S YOUR JOB. 1)a) You're 4th level -- be aware, sleep spells still work on you. 1)b) If you go in "No guts, no glory", be prepared to have your guts splattered all over the wall. 2) This is why you write up a 1 or 2 page story, and not a 10 page dissertation on your character's entire family, childhood, and personal thoughts on quantum physics. So when your character dies, it's not the loss of 3,582 hours of work. 2)a) if you insist on writing a 10 page dissertation on your character, give your character some siblings who are "coming of age" soon, For f*cks sake, so you can bring a new character in without discarding all your hard work. 3) Don't be such a baby when your character dies. eudas
Callista 08-15-05, 03:13 PM	I would say this is a situation that could have happened to anyone. The DM not remembering that the command spell had changed is a simple mistake. And when someone writes a 4-page background history and the character dies, being upset is understandable. That said, the death occurred because someone (the DM in this case) forgot the rules, and the woman was able to do something (put the character to sleep) that she should not have been able to do. And since the other characters weren't there to threaten the woman and her guards, the coup de grace was a logical action for her to take. This is one of the few times that it makes sense to say, "Guys, I goofed up--let's say the last half hour was just a bad dream for your characters." The suspension of disbelief sacrificed to keep a character alive who shouldn't have died is worth it.
jasper 08-15-05, 04:02 PM	the fix is to say he only mostly dead. Read both people mess up. but the rogue is now at -3 after the party finishes off the women and her two henchmen. Not a full tap back but enough of a one were player got stupid (either didn't let dm finish description) and dm got stupid (forgot spell description) to call it even. So no harm no foul game play begins 3.5 seconds after last monster falls. Tweet!
Mike W 08-15-05, 05:57 PM	The command spell, even in 3.0, cannot put anyone to sleep. In 3.0, a command of Die, if given, causes the target to feign death. Not fall asleep, feign death. Not even in second edition would Command put someone to sleep. The DM is to blame here. I'm a sometimes DM, and I would blame myself if I had done as poorly in one of my games as he did in his. The session ended what... two rounds after the incident? Back time up a little bit. That'd be the best solution. Just say that the Rogue got a premonition of what would happen if he followed through with his action, and gets to re-do the scene.
SwiftFox 08-15-05, 11:48 PM	Thanks for all the input guys, Id just like to clarify a few points at some folks request : * the 'command' spell : none of us realised at the time that the spell command had changed from 3rd to 3.5th ed... i only figured it out once i got home, checked over all the facts in more detail than could be taken during the session because of time constraints. * the affected player didnt 'storm out' so much as get up and leave after declaring (understandably, because his accomplishments of the past two sessions were now moot) that this session had been a waste of time for him. It was getting late, we would have ended the session after this encounter anyway, and we did, and all left about 10 minutes later. So, i wouldnt call it rash per-se... he was just leaving because with his character dead, and all apparant hopes of appeal exhausted so he had no reason to be here. He was in a grumpy mood, he was a little rude but i doubt i would have been serene if my character had suddenly dropped dead. * as I said, it is unclear when the DM paused whether he was simply taking a breath to continue the description, or whether he was waiting for the player to respond. Mind you, this particular player does tend to resolve attack and damage very quickly, he prefers to roll dice and then figure out if it does anything later. So, he did jump right into combat, but the DM did let him and didnt clue him into the presence of the gnolls untill after initiative was resolved and his attack had been made. Personally, I hope the DM will compromise by saying that the rouge is not dead, just at negative hitpoints, and provide a caution against impulsive descisions in future...
Nom 08-16-05, 12:11 AM	The DM is to blame here. I'm a sometimes DM, and I would blame myself if I had done as poorly in one of my games as he did in his.I think that's a rather harsh call. Let's assume that SwiftFox is a 3rd party observer, and thus relatively unbiased. Going purely on his description, here's a critique of what the events: #1: DM - misordered description. This is a common DM-ing mistake. Descriptions should follow what a person enterting the room would notice. It's usually misleading to describe the fancy scrollwork on the columns before describing the fire-breathing dragon that is diving at you. Similarly, it would have been better for the DM to note the presence of the gnolls before describing the woman's actions (which implicitly suggests that all "important" details have been noted). #2: player - impatient action. Before the DM has completely finished, the player not only declares an attack but begins resolving it. He doesn't wait for initiative. He doesn't even wait for the DM to shift into combat rounds. He's decided to attack this "enemy", and doesn't care what anybody else thinks. At this point, the DM fills in some missing details: the two gnolls. If the player wanted a takeback, now is the time to ask for it. FWIW, I've been in this situation once. We found a small room. The DM went into some detail about the contents, and it sounded like the room was devoid of life. So my character went for the treasure. He was attacked (and felled) by one of these "missing details". I didn't throw a tantrum and storm out. #3: DM - refuses to allow other party members to intervene initially. This is a good call. The rogue has pre-empted any other actions and charged recklessly into combat. #4: DM - The opposition steps back and casts a low-level save-or-disable effect. Due to an error, the effect applied is more potent than the listed effects. Ultimately, this isn't that relevant. The NPC might have been able to cast hold person. It might not even be command. A command to drop prone might have been just as effective anyway (average hp for a 4th level rogue is only 16.5 + 4*Con, which is less than the 17 damage taken from the 1st gnoll). As it happened, some mistakes were made, but it's not hard to imagine plausible (and completely fair) alternative scenarios that produced the same result. I'll also note that there was a discussion about the spell's descriptors and subtype. At this point, the player also needs to take some responsibility for missing that the command was inappropriate; it wasn't a "hidden DM mechanic". #5: player - throws a tantrum over the result. As far as we can tell, it's purely because he's angry that his character died, not because of any systematic mis-treatment by the DM, and not after attempting to reasonably discuss the issue. In technically parlance, this is known as "bad sportsmanship". #6: DM - "DM's verdict was that the player had been overconfident and that '**** happens', washing his hands of the matter." From everything said, this is exactly right. The player, playing a rogue, decided to be a glory-boy and engage an unknown (and possibly weak) enemy single-handedly, without evaluating the situation, waiting for the party, or planning. The expected result occurred, though perhaps a little faster than if no mistakes had been made. The likely result was that the rogue was a dead rogue. The mistakes only made it happen more quickly than it otherwise might have. I'm with Cambric on this. The real problem is the player's behaviour. I'd strongly recommend your DM not to attempt to "change" the IC resolution, unless the player first apologises to the entire group for his behaviour. Even if he does apologise, I feel that it would be best to give the PC a discount on being resurrected. Takebacks should be avoided as far as possible, and allowing a takeback because a player is reckless and glory-seeking doesn't teach the player to be a team player.
pres_man 08-16-05, 12:40 AM	Sorry, I got to agree that the DM is the one at major fault here. For one thing, he is the freaking DM. If he can't make the game enjoyable, then he is failing badly. #1: DM - misordered description. Here the DM failed, or perhaps he didn't. Perhaps he acted exactly as he wanted to, see #6. A DM is to be a fair and impartial (relatively) arbiter of the game. He should have finished describing the room and then asked for initiative rolls from everybody (since eventually the rest of the party is going to go in the room, or run). #2: player - impatient action. Players can say whatever they want, their characters are still bound by the rules of the game. If I say, "My fighter kills the gnoll." I still have to wait for my turn and roll my attack and roll my damage and see if he actually dies. I don't kill him just because I say I do. It is the DMs responsibility to make sure that the game flows within the rules. Player was being annoying perhaps, the DM is suppose to be above such things. #3: DM - refuses to allow other party members to intervene initially. Perhaps ok, what happens in the room can be dealt with as a surprise round, but the other PCs should get their initiative rolls at this point. One it is just good bookkeeping (which a DM needs to worry about), and two it shows that the DM is open to the PC getting help. #4: DM - The opposition steps back and casts a low-level save-or-disable effect. I agree this is perhaps not as big of an issue as it might seem. Easiest way is to say, that he wasn't coup-de-graced, he was just attacked and knocked unconscious. #5: player - throws a tantrum over the result. Whoa, where the heck did that come from. In the last post SwiftFox made it clear that the session was just about over and the player could have left because he wasn't going to be able to partipate in the final combat and the DM was not changing his mind. Also he did not storm out, but packed up and left. #6: DM - "DM's verdict was that the player had been overconfident and that '**** happens', Ahhh, now I think we have the real issue. My guess is that this player had in fact been hasty in the past and the DM used/abused this chance to put the player in his place. A DM that tells the other players, "He was overconfident", instead of saying, "Yeah, he had bad luck on that roll." Seems to me to be perhaps too interested in the downfall of his players' characters. Let's be honest, the rogue died due to one "bad" roll. His friends were right outside, it wasn't likely that he would be killed in a single attack. That isn't overconfidence. The DM screwed up, he should fix the problem with a little DM magic dust and have the PC still alive, but in bad shape. The player needs to apologize for jumping the gun, and allow the DM to finish describing the situations. The game requires mutual respect between the players and the DM. Right now, I don't think these two have it. And frankly the DM is the one who is going to have to prove it more, since he is the one with the power. I would fully expect the player (if he returns) to say when ever they enter a room, "Are sure that is it. There isn't anything else that is in sight that you haven't described. Because I don't want to be 'overconfident' and assume there isn't a red dragon in the middle of this tavern."
q'afuu 08-16-05, 08:09 AM	So, i wouldnt call it rash per-se... he was just leaving because with his character dead, and all apparant hopes of appeal exhausted so he had no reason to be here. All apparent hopes of appeal exhausted? I didn't hear of even one appeal having been made.
SwiftFox 08-16-05, 10:17 PM	All apparent hopes of appeal exhausted? I didn't hear of even one appeal having been made.Well no, there was nothing to appeal over... he was asked to make a save, checked to make sure he was applying all the relevant bonuses, failed, got coup-de-graced, failed a save he could have only passed on a roll of a 20, and knew that was it. It didnt occur to any of us at the time that something might have been amiss with 'command'. Should he have appealed furter when he knew the answer would be 'sorry, youre dead' ? the DM had made it clear that he wouldnt pull any punches in this campaign, and that characters could die. Thanks for your input, pres_man and nom.
Nom 08-16-05, 11:22 PM	* the affected player didnt 'storm out' so much as get up and leave after declaring (understandably, because his accomplishments of the past two sessions were now moot) that this session had been a waste of time for him. It was getting late, we would have ended the session after this encounter anyway, and we did, and all left about 10 minutes later. So, i wouldnt call it rash per-se... he was just leaving because with his character dead, and all apparant hopes of appeal exhausted so he had no reason to be here. He was in a grumpy mood, he was a little rude but i doubt i would have been serene if my character had suddenly dropped dead.Sorry. From your initial post it did look like he'd stormed out. That said, I don't think it changes things much. What would you think if you were playing a game of cards, and one player - when it became obvious he was out of the game near the end - declared "well, that was a waste of time" and left without waiting to see what happened? Implicitly, the player is saying that he has enjoyed none of the game up to this point, and that now his PC has died there is no reason for him to stay around. It's OK for him to be frustrated / disappointed, but to behave as he did is basically dismissing the entire adventure. Unless there was reason to think the DM was deliberately manipulating things against his character (which you've not even hinted at), it's actually a very rude thing to say. Particularly since he'd been warned that character death was a real possibility and (presumably) had accepted that. I can certainly understand the DM taking the line that "well, you brought it on yourself", and not feeling inclined to change things, especially in a declared "no pulled punches" environment. Under the circumstances, I don't see that resurrection is such an issue. It ain't pleasant to have your PC die, but it sets a bad precedent to start undoing deaths (possibly the first death?) in a "pull no punches" campaign just because the player doesn't like it that he bit off more than he could chew.
Deflare 08-17-05, 12:13 AM	I think it's mostly the DM's fault. The player was overconfident and hasty, yes; it seems that he had been doing well so far, so I think that's understandable. The DM didn't say that there were gnolls there. Think about that. Nom has a point here- you're going to notice a pair of big anthropomorphic hyenas long before you're going to notice that a little old lady is talking to you. Would it have been so hard for the DM to say, "You see a shrivelled old woman flanked by a pair of big gnoll bodyguards. She says..." And so on. From the player's perspective, the gnolls, which were in plain sight, appeared out of nowhere. Here, the player did mess up. It's only common sense that a rogue does not solo against somebody that obviously has some authority. However, he had no way of knowing that the woman was a spellcaster, except that she claimed to have control over the gnolls; for all he knew, she was just a senile old woman with delusions of grandeur being kept as lunch. And again, he did not know that bodyguards were present. When the DM paused, the player must have assumed that he was expecting an action (rule of thumb- put any dialogue at the end of your description). Perhaps he was hasty because he thought it was just another random room of the dungeon, and he was eager to try out his gnoll disguise. It would have been better to try to bluff, but people make mistakes. Here, the DM made two screwups. First, the DM used the spell in a manner that was wrong not only by the ruleset he was supposed to be using, but by the ruleset he was basing it on. Second, he didn't let the other characters get an initiative roll, even though they could easily hear the woman's question through an open door; even if they were surprised, it would have at least shown that the DM wasn't targeting just one player. Now, imagine the perspective of the player here. He spent several hours on his character (a good thing- most DMs would kill for this guy). He then played him well, fulfilling a vital role in the team while roleplaying an paranoid explorer well. He hit upon a nifty plan that could be very useful. In a moment of haste and overconfidence, he attacks a supposedly helpless target without thinking. Suddenly- oops!- two gnolls appear out of nowhere. Then, he gets hit with a save-or-sleep spell- always annoying, especially in this case, when it results in his death (the CDG isn't bad; it's the events leading up to it that are). OF COURSE he was mad! Considering the circumstances, I think he handled it well- deciding that, since the character that he had poured so much work into and had been doing so well with was dead, leaving him with nothing to do for the rest of a session that was about to end anyway, he left early, with some completely justified grumbling. The solution? Rewind to the point where the rogue entered the room, then have the encounter go properly- the DM describes the room, the player takes a prudent action, and, should it come to combat, the other players have a say and all the spells the DM uses are used properly. If your DM doesn't agree to this, then you may want to leave the group; how long before he starts killing off the other characters with his incompetence?
20goingon1232 08-17-05, 12:36 AM	DM's fault. Hands down. Seems like a sore DM with a grudge: "You attack? Ok. Did I mention the Great Wyrm Red Dragon that was hiding behind the woman? No? Sorry. You can't take it back. It kills you. Next round." A good DM will CHECK his spells before casting them. Know your PHB and DMG. Rule 0 of DM-ing (not the game). If you don't know the full effects of the spell, DON'T use it or LOOK it up. It is obvious this DM did NOT spend time (hours, even days, some claim) preparing his campaign. Even when I DM off the cuff I make sure I read the spell before casting it. That is why the Core books are ALWAYS at my side. Sorry. "It used to be like this in 3.0" is not a valid excuse for a DM. The player was angry and rightly so.
q'afuu 08-17-05, 01:36 AM	Well no, there was nothing to appeal over... He could have made an appeal on the grounds that if there were (visible) gnolls in the room, he wouldn't have done what he did. If he would have anyway, he neither has grounds for appeal nor any reason to be upset - then it's entirely on his own head.
Daldolin15 08-17-05, 10:58 AM	In the end you can argue that the DM screwed up till you are red in the face but one simple fact remains true. The player did not know that the DM messed up and for all intents and purposes THOUGHT that the PCs death was kosher. Knowing this he still got up, made his comment, and left the game. This is enough to get you banned from most gaming groups I've played in and will guarantee that the PC will not be re-done when the rules appeals DO come up. In every game I've played in, after the game is done we all go out and get drinks or food or something. We all hang out together afterwards. The dude just leaving seems rude to me. I understand that the character that died had a great backstory, but this not Whitewolf here but D&D and s*** happens. Also, the OP has not mentioned the invisbile gnolls as a point of concern which makes me believe it wasn't for that group. I honestly think that they might have been invisible in the first place.
pres_man 08-17-05, 11:12 AM	So many of you would ban a player for leaving, even though the session was almost over (lasted about 10 more minutes), and the guy didn't stick around to see how the session was resolved, despite the fact that his character was dead, and any additional information gotten from the session being resolved would be things his old character or his new character would have no idea of. Oh no, he didn't stick around and kiss the DM's rear, "Oh thank you great DM for smiting me. Oh you are the greatest, may I have a new character? I have to start with 1/2 the xp I had, wait no I have to start at 1st level. You are so powerful and wise." You know what, players are going to get p-ed off from time to time. They are going to think the DM is unfair sometimes, and sometimes they are right (as in this case) and sometimes they are not. If the DM cannot deal with some criticism, correct or not, then he shouldn't be the DM. The DM role is a hard one to do, and you got to have a thick skin and an open mind to do it. You have to be able to take someone being angry with you and not lose your cool (until they are gone), you have to be open to the fact that you might have messed up. That you might have acted immaturely. And that you might need to appologize. This doesn't mean that the player shouldn't also appologize, he should. But the DM is the one that abused his power (intentionally or not, we don't know). With great power comes great responsibility, the player has a lot less power so a lot less responsibility. Now if the player consistently throws tantrums when things don't go his way, then at that point the player might have to be removed. But at the end of a session where he could only gain metagaming information and he choose not to stick around to watch everybody else play. Please, that does not deserve getting expelled from a game. Unless your one of those DMs that doesn't allow anyone to talk to each other if it is not in character. They have to dress as their characters, and other silliness.
Bruunwald 08-17-05, 11:33 AM	What I want to know, because it was never made clear in the first couple of posts, is, did the DM ever describe the gnolls in the room with the woman? Because you did not, in your quote of what the DM said, and in fact, made a point of telling us that the DM was suddenly plunking down gnoll miniatures next to the miniature of the woman. The rogue's actions seem to indicate that he did not know they were there. If he had, he may have acted differently. The DM should have stopped the player and asked him to let him finish describing the room, including the gnolls. What we might have here is an old situation I am familiar with, where when we were kids, my friend's brother (the DM) would punish his brother for his impatience without realistic regard for what the CHARACTER, not the impetuous brother, might see and do in the situation. That's a kind of metagaming in itself. If the DM was going to play dirty and punish the PC for the player's simple mistake of thinking he was done with the description, he at least ought to allow a Spot check to see if the rogue notices the gnolls and pulls back. And if the gnolls somehow appeared magically, or through some other means, a description of the effect may have gone a long way to making the player feel better about the situation. As it is, it looks to me like the player thinks he got punished because the DM was mad at him for interrupting. That's metagaming and it would **** me off, too.
Nom 08-17-05, 07:52 PM	Bruunwald makes some good points. Having the gnolls just appear isn't good. That said, the player has a habit of pre-empting the DM. He had even made his attack roll before the DM had finished describing the encounter, checked initiative, or anything. Faced with consistent impatient play, a DM will eventually give up and assume that the metagame recklessness is an accurate in-game reflection of the character. One thing I've learned from competitive team sport is not to irritate the referee. A good referee will still rule "fairly" even while annoyed, but is likely to interpret your actions in a less favourable light and be less forgiving.
LordHell 08-17-05, 08:05 PM	Firstly to answer the question, the DM is mostly at fault. First of all, he didnt describe the two Gnolls originally. They cant just pop out of thin air. Second of all, everyone needs to have the same understanding of what ruleset they're using. The DM cant just arbitarily change systems of a spell without forwarning. Maybe he made an honest mistake, in which case he should 'rewind' and do the room again, or have the Rogue bought back to life at no cost via some sort of NPC. Now having said that, the Rogue player wasnt very mature about it. It sounds as if you're playing the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil module, in which case, the Rogue player better get used to dying.
SwiftFox 08-17-05, 09:46 PM	It sounds as if you're playing the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil module, in which case, the Rogue player better get used to dying.Looks like you rolled a 20 on your sense motive check :D Yes the campaign is RTTOEE, but with action points and practically every printed source book used for making characters.. the DM suggested we powergame, 'cause we wont survive otherwise. Honestly though, that baby blue dragon was a cinche earlier this session, and it came as a big surprise for someone to get killed by a gnoll inside the moathouse :P
LordHell 08-17-05, 09:53 PM	Looks like you rolled a 20 on your sense motive check :D Yes the campaign is RTTOEE, but with action points and practically every printed source book used for making characters.. the DM suggested we powergame, 'cause we wont survive otherwise. Honestly though, that baby blue dragon was a cinche earlier this session, and it came as a big surprise for someone to get killed by a gnoll inside the moathouse :P Good idea for the DM, Im running a group through it now and have opened up a wide source of material for the group to use also (for similiar reasons). Id be surprized however if you dont go through at least 10-20 character deaths, probably more if party memebers run off on their own a lot. The Ratio is about 1 death per 2 or 3 sessions. RTTOEE punishes you if you use good tactics, it slaughters you if you use bad tactics. It sounds like your DM is being nice though. That Young Blue Dragon can really punish a 4th level party if it gets outside with room to move, and starts breathing on everyone. Also you were lucky that the Cleric and her Gnoll bodyguards didnt hear your earlier combat and call in reinforcements.
RavanVarr 08-18-05, 09:39 AM	Hi Guys i happen to be the PC in question here...... a. To start Thankyou fox for even starting this :) b. Yes it was my bad for walking out when i did... but there is history here One thing fox did get wrong when i left i what i said was "your wrong GM". To which he responed "no you are" My complaint a. where did the gnolls come from... b. it was a cheap way to kill a my toon. The campain has had a "fast pace" set to it, which means if we don't act when things happen ie. the Cleric talking to my char. Then turns pass and stuff happens like my surprise dissappears and bad guys jump out i get attacked etc. This was the reason for the 1 on 1. Thinking about it yes i should have pointed and lured said cleric into next room for a quick death. But that is the bonus of hind sight. The reason for my bad mood, well that was it seemed there were 2 kind of situations for me that day, 1 i'm left alone while the party takes the beatings. ie i look like a gnoll and was left alone even in combat 2, "Oh of course the rogue takes in the head again" examples... (there where more) I turn into a gnoll and start to check rooms (sounds like a good idea yes?) the 1st room i check a good wizard who is in hiding nukes me as i open the door. I walk down the stairs trying to be "as quite as a mouse" but instead sound like an ogre dragging chains (not good) I then spot 2 gnolls WHICH I then mistake for dragons. This could be bad luck which is how i viewed it but it did not raise my spirts... Now i find it quite funny, and with rolls like that i lucky i lived that long. The reason for my leaving was we had that encounter left and we had to go. With my char dead, i did not see much point in staying so i left rather than have to deal with the dm. (who again there is history with not all of it good). It also seemed better that the rest of the party be able to "finish" the game rather than me and the DM argueing about something that was not going to change. (In my book GM=GOD hence he says i'm dead well i'm dead, if i don't like then i don't have to play hence me not playing) My question is this if this be the case: Id be surprized however if you dont go through at least 10-20 character deaths, probably more if party memebers run off on their own a lot. The Ratio is about 1 death per 2 or 3 sessions. Why would any sane GM ask ppl to write a 3 page min history for your chars? Why would you want to be attached to them, if they are going to die over and over and over agin? My biggest mistake by far was not taking the warnings of "mass death" seriously, I love playing but not to have chartacters that i have put time and enough into go down in cheap and pointless ways. At the end of the day i think we were both at fault. I'm still unsure if i even want to continue playing in said campain. Call me what you want, when i write a history for a Char i get attached to it. I will not be rolling a Char and writing another 3 page history for this campain (not when death come too easy). The idea of rezing and dropping a level does not appeal either. The DM (who is well with in his rights) will if i know him will demand one or other. Mores the pity really i was funning a lot of fun.
Fort deadly kick 08-18-05, 10:20 AM	Sorry, I got to agree that the DM is the one at major fault here. For one thing, he is the freaking DM. If he can't make the game enjoyable, then he is failing badly. I play in a game with: An Entirely new player, learning as he goes along and seems to be enjoying it. A very cynical player who Metagames like he's on fire for $9.99, tries to get hold or guess the material the DM is using, usually gives away secrets for other players who don't appreciate it, but seems to be calming down gradually. A (lets's face it) Complete retard, plays the game like neverwinter nights, complains about other peoples characters, complains about his character, gets presteige classes FROM NEVERWINTER NIGHTS WEBSITES and demands to be them because he has filled the requirements,complains about players actions, complains if he doesn't get to be the first in every room, never roleplays, but seems to e slowing down a bit at least (or is slowly dying). Me, who persistantly drops hints asing for exp for roleplaying, exp for overcoming monsters with diplomacy or subduing magical effects, rarely casts any of my tranmutational or illusion magic because the others want EXP, hates playing in dungeons, loves ebberon style of play (most of the other players seem to prefer a hack and slash black and white dungeon crawl). I have to say I think my DM's getting better very quickly (read: he panders to my taste) And a person who is almost impossible to keep interested at the best of times, not to mention Me, The cynic and The NWN lover 'debating' the best course of action. He manages to juggle all of those players. Sure, there are sessions when one or more of us don't entirely enjoy the session, but usually, it was because one of us was being an ass. Does he fail? So what should this DM do? Lamely fudge the rolls and set the ball rolling for a wash of metagaming? If jumped off a building, Died (duh) and then gotten hissy, is that the DM's fault? No. And it wasn't his fault here. Far from it. If the rogue was playing anything like the NWN lover over in my games, he should be fired from a cannon. (sorry to get so emotional, but I would relish a moment like that over here on the metagamer or NWN lover, and I don't think it's really fair to blame the DM for the outcome of the players actions. especially on something as flimsy as the fact that it's his "job" to make sure the players are having fun :rolleyes: . If anything, it's the groups responsibility.)
Keenath 08-18-05, 11:08 AM	I wasn't there, of course, but if I had been entering combat with a single individual when two additional attackers suddenly appear, I would've stopped everything right there. "Wait! There's two other gnolls in here, too!? You didn't mention that! I'm not attacking her with THESE odds!" If the DM refuses that and kills the player, then a player is totally justified in leaving in a huff -- it's the DM's job to inform him of what he sees and what threats exist, and not doing that is a huge mistake. However, if the player didn't protest, he must have considered the extra gnolls to be a non-issue, or simply assumed the party would telepathically know that he'd just hit somebody with a mace. Let me tell you, that's NOT a good assumption to make when you're scouting. I have to say that the blame is on the player unless the DM actually refused a take-back when the gnolls appeared out of thin air. (That said, had it been me, I wouldn't have attacked anyway. Infiltration is so much more fun. "Sorry to interrupt, but we just killed a couple of intruders. We have wounded -- do you think you can do anything for them?") So many of you would ban a player for leaving, even though the session was almost over (lasted about 10 more minutes), and the guy didn't stick around to see how the session was resolved...It is extremely rude to leave early just because you had something bad happen in-game. If the session is practically over anyway, you can afford to wait five minutes and watch your FRIENDS play. D&D is a social game; packing up and leaving early says, "I don't care about you guys; I just care about the game, and since I'm out of the game, I'm leaving now." That's a terrible way to treat your friends. Furthermore, if he really did comment that the game was a "waste of time", then that's even worse. Now not only are you telling the other players that you couldn't care less about them, you're insulting the DM and saying that his time and effort weren't worth your attention. You don't denigrate the worth of a person's work. That's hurtful and insulting, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a DM eject a player who thinks so little of the people he's playing with. By the way -- yes, I can understand being upset due to character death. Being upset is not an excuse for rudeness. That's why some people questioned whether this player was 12 -- small children don't have moderators on their emotions, and try to hurt other people when they feel angry. Grown men (or even teenagers) should know better.
Phaylan the Drow 08-18-05, 11:27 AM	as above and 'here here' buy the person a pint for stating the bloody obvious and the acutality that they shouldn't play together if they can't talk about it otherwise do what ive done; give the two involved to mages exactly the same and say they can only cast fireballs and not even move, last mage standing (which might take a while) wins, if they still can't talk give them too too's and handbags and tell them to go down to the local supermarket and 'duke it out'. if anything it should be a laugh to whatch them to make up to the other members of the group for being so rude. Manners are what sepperate us from uncivilized barbarians who don't communicate. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
pres_man 08-18-05, 12:26 PM	Dude, I have no idea what that post just said.
Fort deadly kick 08-18-05, 12:32 PM	Yeah, this isn't the first time verbal diahorrea has ruined me. I was trying to say that I don't think it is very fair to lump the DM with the 'job' of making sure everyone has fun, even less that he has 'failed' as a DM if he cannot please everyone. I think you are being a bit harsh on DMs. They go to alot of trouble making all this stuff, if someone isn't happy with the consequinces of their own actions, I think it is a may be a case of hard cheese.
Karlcullinane 08-18-05, 01:00 PM	The command spell, even in 3.0, cannot put anyone to sleep. In 3.0, a command of Die, if given, causes the target to feign death. Not fall asleep, feign death. Not even in second edition would Command put someone to sleep. >SNIP< Actually, in 1st and 2nd editions of AD&D, Command would actually do just that. A Command spell made a one action verb reality for one round. A command of Die! simply put the person to sleep for one round, as did the command of Sleep! As for the rule for 3.5 Command, I had no idea they had changed it from 3.0 and was very surprised when I called up the SRD definition; I rarely play clerics and I dont have enough room in my already crowded-with-facts brain to start re-memorizing the entire 3.5 spell list and its changes from previous editions. Bully to those that do. I am sure that your DM is in a similar position...it was a fundamental change to a spell that is well over 30 years old, DM's are human too. As to the player, I think he needs a serious reality check. Anyone that expends that much effort on a backstory to a character deserves either applause or a psych evaluation, possibly both. The game itself focuses on combat. Monsters die. Players die. I understand the player is upset over losing that much time and effort creating a backstory, the character itself, and possibly all its good rolls (or bad :) ), but thats the nature of the game. In 20 years of playing, I cannot even begin to list all the characters that I have killed as a DM or had die as a player. I have seen players and DM's alike behave in a similar manner, and in my earlier days behaved that way myself, but you really have to step back and look at it as a game, not as a personal insult when something you created gets killed or defeated. You don't stomp and scream like a 2 year old when you get to eat the Queen of Spades in a Hearts game do you? Now that being all said, DM's and players need to reach some sort of middle ground. In my rather small community of gamers, if we were to lose a player, it might seriously hamper our game play, I am sure thats the case for a lot of other groups, not so much for others. The best way to fix this problem is that both parties involved need to sit and talk it out and admit they both made mistakes, and resolve the issue in a manner that is acceptable to all parties, including the other players.
Nodles 08-18-05, 03:56 PM	While the DM is to blame for misusing the command spell and for the lack of patience, that kind of player is completely inappropriate for a rogue!! When i do play a rogue, i like scouting because i feel im constantly on my toes, not knowing what i might expect and really risking my life. It takes a lot of patience and care. If that person plays again, tell him to seriously reconsider his class.
pres_man 08-18-05, 05:27 PM	Yeah, this isn't the first time verbal diahorrea has ruined me. I was trying to say that I don't think it is very fair to lump the DM with the 'job' of making sure everyone has fun, even less that he has 'failed' as a DM if he cannot please everyone. I think you are being a bit harsh on DMs. They go to alot of trouble making all this stuff, if someone isn't happy with the consequinces of their own actions, I think it is a may be a case of hard cheese. Sorry dude, wasn't meaning you. Though I think you are confusing the DM making the game fun for the DM pandering to the players. I never said the DM should pander to all of the players' whims. In fact that usually leads to a very boring game. There is no challenge. From my experience there are two things that all DMs should do to at least give a chance of the game being fun for all. That is the DM needs to be consistent and fair. In this case the DM was neither. He wasn't consistent in that he was using some mutated version of a spell that wasn't in fact either version 3 or 3.5. He wasn't fair in that he suddenly introduced 2 extra enemies into a combat. He appear to be acting unfairly by not allowing all of the PCs initiative rolls, even though they were just outside the door. Now why I say the lack of rolls for initiative gives the appearance of unfairness, is because we have no idea when he would have allowed the rest of the party get involved if the rogue had not died in that first round. By not showing that the rest of the party would be in play in a short period of time it gives the impression that they might have been delayed until the rogue either died or ran away. That is poor DMing. Now I'm not saying that was the DM's intention, I'm merely saying this is a logical conclusion that can be drawn. But it is the DM's role to make the game enjoyable, within the reasonable rules they have set up. Does this mean that even the best DM might have a player who is intent on not having fun no matter what. Sure that can happen, but does anyone really believe that is what happened here? I don't think so. No, we have a game where the DM requires at least 3 pages of backstory for characters he might haphazardly kill off because he can't be bothered to look up the spells he is going to use. And please, how much work is he doing, it sounds like he is running a module. Sounds like he has to make a total of jack and squat, he just read the material. Maybe he stopped because he had to read the description of the room, and then let the guy attack and then saw, "Oh there are gnolls in here, ok I'll put them down now." If that is what happen my respect for this DM has fallen even farther. Sounds like the rogue acted in a way that was promoted by the DM in this game due to the rest of the sessions. In this case the DM did the old, "Surprise! Extra Monsters!" trick and got him. Personally, all the bad things I heard about this module make me question why anyone would want to waste their time with it.
LordHell 08-18-05, 05:27 PM	My question is this if this be the case: Id be surprized however if you dont go through at least 10-20 character deaths, probably more if party memebers run off on their own a lot. The Ratio is about 1 death per 2 or 3 sessions. Why would any sane GM ask ppl to write a 3 page min history for your chars? Why would you want to be attached to them, if they are going to die over and over and over agin? My biggest mistake by far was not taking the warnings of "mass death" seriously, I love playing but not to have chartacters that i have put time and enough into go down in cheap and pointless ways. At the end of the day i think we were both at fault. I'm still unsure if i even want to continue playing in said campain. Call me what you want, when i write a history for a Char i get attached to it. I will not be rolling a Char and writing another 3 page history for this campain (not when death come too easy). The idea of rezing and dropping a level does not appeal either. The DM (who is well with in his rights) will if i know him will demand one or other. Mores the pity really i was funning a lot of fun. 1. Your DM doesnt sound terribly experianced 2. Your DM doesnt sound terribly experianced with the RTToEE either. Ive told all my characters to make one or two 'backup' characters, and backgrounds need not be more than a paragraph. Combine factors 1 & 2 together, and you're going to have to exercise a little more patience than usual with him. I can understand you're angry, but you could have talked about it. No one is perfect however, one DM I played under once made me wait an entire session to introduce me, then introduced my character about 6 hours into the next session. So, after waiting over 12 hours to play, he introduces my 2nd level Rogue by having him SURROUNDED by 8 Zombies. What the ? Unsurprizingly my Rogue prompty died in the first round (rolled low for initiative also), and the DM told me to make a new character and he might introduce me next session. I told him to not-so-politely F off and left. Yeah, I probably could have had a chat about it with him and come to some reasonable conclusion, but I was pretty mad at the time. We're all Human after all.
Molitor 08-18-05, 07:44 PM	As a troll sized critter did the rogue gets his attack of opportunity on the woman. I don't think I read that he did.
20goingon1232 08-18-05, 07:53 PM	Yeah, this isn't the first time verbal diahorrea has ruined me. I was trying to say that I don't think it is very fair to lump the DM with the 'job' of making sure everyone has fun, even less that he has 'failed' as a DM if he cannot please everyone. I think you are being a bit harsh on DMs. They go to alot of trouble making all this stuff, if someone isn't happy with the consequinces of their own actions, I think it is a may be a case of hard cheese. Being harsh? I'd hardly think so. 1) The DM required a detailed history for a FAMOUSLY meat grinder module. 2) The DM did not even bother to read up on the spells even though it is a MODULE. What was his excuse? It is a MODULE! It is all written there in black and white! 3) The DM set an extreme pace ("Whoops, you blinked. Sorry, you missed it.") which, in and of itself, is not bad, but when coupled by his OBVIOUS inexperience, was a recipe for disaster. 4) The DM did not allow for take back, as was evidenced by the player in question's post when he asked where they came from. He did not fully describe the scene and proceded to punish the player because of it. This is EXTREMELY BAD DM-ing. 5) The DM thinks he is always right (which he is NOT particularly with regards to Command) and stated it. Hello! The OP described them as being older edition players trying out the "new" 3.5...! It is not shameful to say you don't know but you will look it up. It's new stuff. It is human to not know everything immediately! Let us look at the DM in question here: From 1), I question his intellect and suspect him of having an attitude that states "I want this and I don't care if it totally waste your time. It ain't mine." That is immaturity. From 2), he is lazy. From 3) and 5), he exhibited a "DM knows all" attitude, which is arrogant, and this is made worse by his inexperience, which he refuses to acknowledge, and again, this is arrogance. From 4) he exhibited incomplete description and refused to allow for takeback and then proceded to punish a player for it, which makes me suspect a DM vs Player mentality. The conclusion is that the player in question (RavanVarr) acted correctly. The DM-ing was crap, the DM was an arrogant brat, and playing with such people should not be inflicted on oneself unless one is a masochist.
SwiftFox 08-18-05, 08:51 PM	As a troll sized critter did the rogue gets his attack of opportunity on the woman. I don't think I read that he did.I dont know where you pulled the word 'troll' from... the character in question was a changling, diguised as a gnoll, both medium creatures.
SwiftFox 08-18-05, 09:34 PM	-and suspect him of having an attitude that states "I want this and I don't care if it totally waste your time. It ain't mine." That is immaturity.I think he mentioned his thinking behind this at some point... he said something along the lines of "I want you as players to put as much effort into the stuff that comes before a session (ie. character history) as I have to in preparing to run this session for you", which yes, does come off as a bit arrogant as he is running a pre-written module, not something he has put hours and hours into writing himself.
Nom 08-18-05, 10:04 PM	Hi Guys i happen to be the PC in question here...... a. To start Thankyou fox for even starting this :) b. Yes it was my bad for walking out when i did... but there is history here ... At the end of the day i think we were both at fault. A pleasantly mature response, to which I have only two comments: (1) Losing a level isn't that bad. And in that game, you certainly won't be the last. (2) Sounds like you and your DM need to talk about differing expectations. I can certainly sympathise with where you're coming from, but what's the DM's perspective on this?
LordHell 08-18-05, 10:33 PM	I think he mentioned his thinking behind this at some point... he said something along the lines of "I want you as players to put as much effort into the stuff that comes before a session (ie. character history) as I have to in preparing to run this session for you", which yes, does come off as a bit arrogant as he is running a pre-written module, not something he has put hours and hours into writing himself. In all fairness to your DM, RTTOEE is a complex and huge module that requires many hours reading and reading, Its fricken ~220 pages to start with. Its really misleading calling it a module , it's a campaign all by itself. He may also be converting it to 3.5 himself. There is an errata for a 3.5 conversation on the Monte Cook forums which will save him a lot of work. But having said that, he should know better than to have your characters make such a detailed history in module with such a high attrition rate.
Daldolin15 08-19-05, 03:37 AM	I would just like to chime in and say that using a module still requires a lot of work from a good DM. A good DM usually has to come up with their own plot-hooks to get their party into the module and has to re-shape it to fit the specifics of their campaign. They also have to read and often times memorize huge chunks of information which does not stem from their own mind but rather that of the module writer. I often read modules a week before game and over the course of the week highlight important tactics text and make notes on each room. Sometimes prepping module can be harder than prepping a homebrew adventure. In the homebrew many aspects of the adventure are in your head already, but the module is some body else's blueprint. Hope this made sense. Goodnight.
Fort deadly kick 08-19-05, 06:50 AM	Okay, I think I misunderstood most of what was being said. Can someone help get me down from this? This is a very High horse I am sitting on.
20goingon1232 08-19-05, 07:22 AM	Okay, I think I misunderstood most of what was being said. Can someone help get me down from this? This is a very High horse I am sitting on. *smacks the horse* :D
q'afuu 08-19-05, 07:52 AM	1) The DM required a detailed history for a FAMOUSLY meat grinder module. 2) The DM did not even bother to read up on the spells even though it is a MODULE. What was his excuse? It is a MODULE! It is all written there in black and white! 3) The DM set an extreme pace ("Whoops, you blinked. Sorry, you missed it.") which, in and of itself, is not bad, but when coupled by his OBVIOUS inexperience, was a recipe for disaster. 4) The DM did not allow for take back, as was evidenced by the player in question's post when he asked where they came from. He did not fully describe the scene and proceded to punish the player because of it. This is EXTREMELY BAD DM-ing. 5) The DM thinks he is always right (which he is NOT particularly with regards to Command) and stated it. Hello! The OP described them as being older edition players trying out the "new" 3.5...! It is not shameful to say you don't know but you will look it up. It's new stuff. It is human to not know everything immediately!1) Which he might not have known. FAMOUSLY or not. 2) The spells are not in the module. Heck, as someone already said, it's not even really a module, it's a 'super-adventure'. I can prep a normal module in an hour and be thorough. RttToEE takes a wee bit more time. 3) Where did you read that? From what read, it was the player jumping the gun (and having done so repeatedly). 4) The player didn't ask for a takeback. 5) The DM is *always* right. ;) Ok, maybe not always. But the player couldn't know that. If the spell had been another one (and correctly used) and the gnolls had been invisible, hiding or otherwise concealed, he'd have had no reason to complain. Does that mean the DM is absolved of all blame here? Of course not. But with a more reasonable attitude on both sides, this would have been resolved in two minutes without bad feelings for either.
20goingon1232 08-19-05, 08:02 AM	1) Which he might not have known. FAMOUSLY or not. 2) The spells are not in the module. Heck, as someone already said, it's not even really a module, it's a 'super-adventure'. I can prep a normal module in an hour and be thorough. RttToEE takes a wee bit more time. 3) Where did you read that? From what read, it was the player jumping the gun (and having done so repeatedly). 4) The player didn't ask for a takeback. 5) The DM is *always* right. ;) Ok, maybe not always. But the player couldn't know that. If the spell had been another one (and correctly used) and the gnolls had been invisible, hiding or otherwise concealed, he'd have had no reason to complain. Does that mean the DM is absolved of all blame here? Of course not. But with a more reasonable attitude on both sides, this would have been resolved in two minutes without bad feelings for either. 1) Does not excuse his stupidity. Hell, I have never even SEEN the module and I know it is a killer. 2) The spells are suggested. All creatures that casts spells and have a stat block dedicated to them have their regularly used spells written down in their descriptions/stat blocks. In every single book I have seen. From Celestial Chargers to Elminster. He didn't bother to read up on the effects of those spells and used it. He malfed up. He made a guy write THREE PAGES of background. That is a hell of a lot more than 1 hour. Any way you cut it, the DM is a lazy, arrogant moron. 3) It is in the post by the player. You know, the one a few posts back? 4) He tried. He asked where the gnolls came from, a prelude to that. The DM told him to shut up (although in not so many words). 5) Only in the fevered dreams and imaginations of power-hungry dirtbags. Good DMs know otherwise. Invisible gnolls would have forced a listen check. However, this is irrelevant, as the DM plonked the miniatures down BEFORE the combat truly started, indicating that the player can see them. This is 100% DM fault. It is his stupidity, laziness, arrogance, ignorance and pig-headedness that led DIRECTLY to the confrontation.
runestar 08-19-05, 08:36 AM	I blame society. Who governs society? So who should you ultimately blame?
loaba 08-19-05, 08:38 AM	The conclusion is that the player in question (RavanVarr) acted correctly. The DM-ing was crap, the DM was an arrogant brat, and playing with such people should not be inflicted on oneself unless one is a masochist. I think the DM should give the player 1cp, you know, to make up for it...
20goingon1232 08-19-05, 08:41 AM	I think the DM should give the player 1cp, you know, to make up for it... Judging from what has been said about the DM, that is beyond his mental faculties as it would require that he admit he was in the wrong to begin with. That just brings up syntax errors in some people, of which that DM is obviously one.
q'afuu 08-19-05, 08:42 AM	1) Does not excuse his stupidity. Hell, I have never even SEEN the module and I know it is a killer. 2) The spells are suggested. 3) It is in the post by the player. You know, the one a few posts back? 4) He tried. He asked where the gnolls came from, a prelude to that. The DM told him to shut up (although in not so many words). 5) Only in the fevered dreams and imaginations of power-hungry dirtbags. Good DMs know otherwise. Invisible gnolls would have forced a listen check. However, this is irrelevant, as the DM plonked the miniatures down BEFORE the combat truly started, indicating that the player can see them.1) That still doesn't mean he knew as much. 2) But their descriptions aren't given. 3) Fast-paced doesn't mean crazy pace. It certainly doesn't mean resolving your actions without running by the DM if what you want to do is even possible. 4) Again, not the way I read it. The player didn't say whether he actually made his arguments or just said the DM was wrong. He didn't say what the DM responded, leading me to believe he didn't ask about the gnolls. 5) Whatever. The assumption should always be that he might just be right. A player can always ask something if he thinks the DM could be wrong, but in this case from the player's POV nothing happened that might not have been right. How could the DM plonk down anything before combat started when it's the player who started it? The player announced his action and even resolved it before anything was put on the table. If the invisible gnolls' reaction was to attack, they became visible. As simple as that. I assume Listen checks had been made outside the door already, and I don't see anything wrong with ruling that a second check wasn't called for since the player decided to act immediately upon entering the room. Besides, if the invisible gnolls don't do anything that'd make a noise, there'd be nothing to hear in the first place.
loaba 08-19-05, 08:47 AM	Overall, the player acted rashly, and the DM got himself a dead rogue. Doncha just hate dirtbag DM's like that? :)
Molitor 08-20-05, 04:22 AM	I dont know where you pulled the word 'troll' from... the character in question was a changling, diguised as a gnoll, both medium creatures. I guess I pulled the word "troll" out of my butt. Sorry about that. I had been playing NWN and was fighting a gang of trolls, so that's probably why I thought I read that.
Molitor 08-20-05, 04:29 AM	Maybe you can console the player and remind them that it is just a game. A game with dice, pencils, paper, little lead figures and *make believe*. :P
20goingon1232 08-20-05, 04:30 AM	1) That still doesn't mean he knew as much. 2) But their descriptions aren't given. 3) Fast-paced doesn't mean crazy pace. It certainly doesn't mean resolving your actions without running by the DM if what you want to do is even possible. 4) Again, not the way I read it. The player didn't say whether he actually made his arguments or just said the DM was wrong. He didn't say what the DM responded, leading me to believe he didn't ask about the gnolls. 5) Whatever. The assumption should always be that he might just be right. A player can always ask something if he thinks the DM could be wrong, but in this case from the player's POV nothing happened that might not have been right. How could the DM plonk down anything before combat started when it's the player who started it? The player announced his action and even resolved it before anything was put on the table. If the invisible gnolls' reaction was to attack, they became visible. As simple as that. I assume Listen checks had been made outside the door already, and I don't see anything wrong with ruling that a second check wasn't called for since the player decided to act immediately upon entering the room. Besides, if the invisible gnolls don't do anything that'd make a noise, there'd be nothing to hear in the first place. 1) Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law. 2) In other words, the DM was too lazy to look it up before hand and FUBARed the encounter. This does NOT raise my estimation of him. In fact, it just confirms it. 3) When DMs mess around with player time perceptions by usuing the hurry or die meter, he was BEGGING for players to do things hastily. And then he punishes them for it. Not only is this bad DM-ing, this is bad leadership in general. You cannot hurry people and expect them to do as good a job as when they are doing things at their own pace. That is just plain arrogance on your part, which is consistent with this DM. 4) Your views don't matter. The truth has been stated by the player in question. The DM told him that he was wrong to question where the gnolls came from. That is, again, bad DM-ing. 5) Yes, whatever. ANYONE that presumes that he knows everything and is God deserves to be slapped across the face several times. That sort of arrogance should be removed from the genepool. I am all for retroactive abortion in these cases. The player started the fight. HOWEVER, it is also plain that the CHARACTER would have seen the gnolls that the DM did not described. That information SHOULD have been relayed to the player for him to make an informed decision BEFORE the DM accepted his actions as fact. The DM was METAGAMING and was out to punish his players. This is a classic DM vs Player scenario. You presuming that the gnolls were invisible is putting the best spin doctors in the world (like the ones that advised Reagan) to shame...
q'afuu 08-20-05, 07:27 AM	1) Ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law. 2) In other words, the DM was too lazy to look it up before hand and FUBARed the encounter. This does NOT raise my estimation of him. In fact, it just confirms it. 3) When DMs mess around with player time perceptions by usuing the hurry or die meter, he was BEGGING for players to do things hastily. And then he punishes them for it. Not only is this bad DM-ing, this is bad leadership in general. You cannot hurry people and expect them to do as good a job as when they are doing things at their own pace. That is just plain arrogance on your part, which is consistent with this DM. 4) Your views don't matter. The truth has been stated by the player in question. The DM told him that he was wrong to question where the gnolls came from. That is, again, bad DM-ing. 5) Yes, whatever. ANYONE that presumes that he knows everything and is God deserves to be slapped across the face several times. That sort of arrogance should be removed from the genepool. I am all for retroactive abortion in these cases. The player started the fight. HOWEVER, it is also plain that the CHARACTER would have seen the gnolls that the DM did not described. That information SHOULD have been relayed to the player for him to make an informed decision BEFORE the DM accepted his actions as fact. The DM was METAGAMING and was out to punish his players. This is a classic DM vs Player scenario. You presuming that the gnolls were invisible is putting the best spin doctors in the world (like the ones that advised Reagan) to shame... 1) Because, by law, you are supposed to know the law. There's no law that says you have to know a D&D module's kill factor. 2) Accidents happen. DMs don't always have time to prepare thoroughly, regardless of their intentions. That doesn't mean he wasn't in the wrong, but it does mean you can't automatically assume laziness. 3) There is no hurry or die meter. All there is, as far as I can see, is the risk of missing a turn if you take too long to decide what to do with it, and because of that losing out on surprise. There should have been no risk of that in this case though, because as long as the cleric was convinced she was talking with one of her gnoll underlings, combat hadn't started yet. 4) That's not what the player said. The only conversation attested to is the rather childish 'you're wrong' - 'no, you are'. The player had arguments (one of which not meaning much, IMO, but he's free to try it), but as far as I know he didn't present them. If he did, he failed to mention the DM's response. 5) In this case, it's the player who presumes to know everything. Again, from his POV nothing happened that was outside the realm of the possible. The gnolls could conceivably have been there without him noticing them, the cleric could conceivably have cast a save-or-die, which he could conceivably have failed to save against. The gnolss could conceivably CdG him. End of story. Yes, there could equally conceivably have been mistakes made (evidently, there were), but the player can only assume so, not know so. You mean the gnolls the player didn't give the DM a chance to describe? In a room he didn't get to finish describing? My first assumption as a player would have been that it makes no sense for that cleric to be there all on her lonesome to begin with.
Darkhearted 08-20-05, 10:40 AM	I think everyone is forgetting something here. first of all, it's both Dm and players fault. one for not reading rules right, the other for being a baby. Big Deal, get over it. as to "My character is Dead" thing, just use a freakin resurrection spell. and final, Get all players and Dm to sit down and discuss what happened and come to a compromise It's not that freakin hard. You got to remeber, the Dm comes up with the lay out of the scenerio then has to play by ear regarding players choices. Suck it and be a gamer, not a spoiled sport about it.
pres_man 08-20-05, 02:11 PM	So despite it being both the player's and the DM's fault, it is actually the player's fault. Because that is what your post seems to be saying.
Daldolin15 08-21-05, 12:26 AM	His post was saying that both were in the wrong. But at this point it seems as if the DMs mistake is being blown out of proportion and the player's is being ignored. While we argue over this though I'm betting they have already met up and gotten over this and so should we. Case closed.
WizardlyFriend 08-21-05, 12:57 AM	I'd say both of them need to think things through. The DM was bad for not knowing the updated rules, and not mentioning the gnolls. From the player's PoV, it's like they just materialized out of thin air. The woman shot him with what was essentially a save or die spell, and those tend to leave players feeling bad. It's okay when it's NPCs, because nobody cares, but when you distil a character's whole existance down to hinging on one die roll, it starts to feel like you got ripped off. On the other hand, the player shoulden't have gotten so mad, though I see where he's coming from on it. i hate that too. i always feel like a jerk when the LE guy wants to cast deathknell on a PC
Wellby the Fountain 08-21-05, 01:51 AM	maybe i missed it ( i didnt read the entire thread either, someone may have mentioned this already), but did the rogue get an AoO when the wentch casted command? and yeah, dropping the two other Npc's out of no where was a jerk move as well... it sounds to me that the DM had it out for the rogue, maybe because he interupted the DM's description (dont know if this was the case or if the DM just pulled the two gnolls out of thin air), or maybe the rogue had a tendency of walking up and whacking everything he saw with that mace of his before assessing situations... hey, what kind of rogue uses a mace anyway? i take it all back, any rogue who uses a mace deserves to get killed :P
20goingon1232 08-21-05, 05:28 AM	1) Because, by law, you are supposed to know the law. There's no law that says you have to know a D&D module's kill factor. 2) Accidents happen. DMs don't always have time to prepare thoroughly, regardless of their intentions. That doesn't mean he wasn't in the wrong, but it does mean you can't automatically assume laziness. 3) There is no hurry or die meter. All there is, as far as I can see, is the risk of missing a turn if you take too long to decide what to do with it, and because of that losing out on surprise. There should have been no risk of that in this case though, because as long as the cleric was convinced she was talking with one of her gnoll underlings, combat hadn't started yet. 4) That's not what the player said. The only conversation attested to is the rather childish 'you're wrong' - 'no, you are'. The player had arguments (one of which not meaning much, IMO, but he's free to try it), but as far as I know he didn't present them. If he did, he failed to mention the DM's response. 5) In this case, it's the player who presumes to know everything. Again, from his POV nothing happened that was outside the realm of the possible. The gnolls could conceivably have been there without him noticing them, the cleric could conceivably have cast a save-or-die, which he could conceivably have failed to save against. The gnolss could conceivably CdG him. End of story. Yes, there could equally conceivably have been mistakes made (evidently, there were), but the player can only assume so, not know so. You mean the gnolls the player didn't give the DM a chance to describe? In a room he didn't get to finish describing? My first assumption as a player would have been that it makes no sense for that cleric to be there all on her lonesome to begin with. 1) A DM that does not even VAGUELY know the kill rating of a scenario is by DEFINITION a bad DM. Unless you are saying that it is ok for a DM to send a Great Wyrm Red Dragon vs a level 1 party for kicks? 2) It is a spell. If he doesn't know what it does exactly, he has the option to to NOT use it. If he planned of using it and didn't bother to look it up, he was being lazy. At worst, he could have suspended the game while he look it up. It would have taken all of 2 minutes tops. It seems like he was eagerly waiting at the edge of his seat to jump at the players when they make a mistake, probably with a mental "woohoo!!!!" in the mix. 3) Read the player's post again. There is a definite hurry or die meter in that game. 4) Plunking down undescribed gnolls that was standing in plain sight is not wrong? It is not childish to tell someone they are wrong WHEN THEY ARE. 5) Yes, and the WTC attack was an American plot to invade Iraq... :rolleyes: Which means nothing. A good DM would have told the player that there were more things in there and asked him again if he really want to let loose with a swing. He would REALISE that the COMPLETE description might cause a change in the player's plans. This sounds like a case of "I forgot to mention that the person you are smiting is 2 years old and is innocent. Muahahahaha! Lose all your Paladin abilities! Hahahahahaha! Die, die, die!!!!" Oh yeah, note the exaggeration and sarcasm. Some deliberately obtuse people like to miss it. Not saying you are one, of course, but there are some out there...
Fort deadly kick 08-21-05, 01:33 PM	Um... 20goingon1312? Your entire post seems to be massive exageration and conclusion jumping. No-one has a flawless knowelege of what happened, heck, the people involved only posted about three times, and didn't really explain everything when they did. Like the other guy said, they've probably madde up or split by now, so the point is slightly moot. I wouldn't worry about it that much.
q'afuu 08-21-05, 04:07 PM	1) A DM that does not even VAGUELY know the kill rating of a scenario is by DEFINITION a bad DM. Unless you are saying that it is ok for a DM to send a Great Wyrm Red Dragon vs a level 1 party for kicks? 2) It is a spell. If he doesn't know what it does exactly, he has the option to to NOT use it. If he planned of using it and didn't bother to look it up, he was being lazy. At worst, he could have suspended the game while he look it up. It would have taken all of 2 minutes tops. It seems like he was eagerly waiting at the edge of his seat to jump at the players when they make a mistake, probably with a mental "woohoo!!!!" in the mix. 3) Read the player's post again. There is a definite hurry or die meter in that game. 4) Plunking down undescribed gnolls that was standing in plain sight is not wrong? It is not childish to tell someone they are wrong WHEN THEY ARE. 5) Yes, and the WTC attack was an American plot to invade Iraq... :rolleyes: Which means nothing. A good DM would have told the player that there were more things in there and asked him again if he really want to let loose with a swing. He would REALISE that the COMPLETE description might cause a change in the player's plans. This sounds like a case of "I forgot to mention that the person you are smiting is 2 years old and is innocent. Muahahahaha! Lose all your Paladin abilities! Hahahahahaha! Die, die, die!!!!" Oh yeah, note the exaggeration and sarcasm. Some deliberately obtuse people like to miss it. Not saying you are one, of course, but there are some out there... 1) If this would be a self-made adventure, the DM would have CRs to tell him that 'Great Wyrm vs 1st level party' is a bad idea. However, this is an official, published adventure. The normal assumption is that those are balanced for the party level mentioned as appropriate in the module. 2) They're all earlier edition players. It wasn't a case of not knoing the spell, it was a case of being mistaken about the 3rd edition version of the spell. Mistakes happen, not necessarily because of laziness. The DM is only human, as you like to point out. 3) No, there isn't. Re-read the post yourself: what happens is that you might lose out on a surprise round if you're not fast enough. That's not hurry-or-die. 4) Who said they were standing in plain sight? 5) And this is relevant how? The DM might well have allowed a redo if the player had given him a chance to do so, by reacting a bit less rashly and rudely. I did note the exaggerations and the sarcasm. People that have no real arguments like to use them. Not saying you are one, of course, but there are some out there...
RavanVarr 08-21-05, 07:38 PM	Update from pc again in question. After all has cooled down the dm has decied that my character is not dead. 0 hp but not dead. I believe he thought at the time "killing blow" only drop you to zero. The main issue (IMO) and was the reason he missed putting the gnolls on the board was because as this was the last room for the day he did not want to have to wipe off the map and re-map the area...... (we had ran out of room). Originally Posted by q'afuu 3) There is no hurry or die meter. All there is, as far as I can see, is the risk of missing a turn if you take too long to decide what to do with it, and because of that losing out on surprise. There should have been no risk of that in this case though, because as long as the cleric was convinced she was talking with one of her gnoll underlings, combat hadn't started yet. Small point, UM ROGUE HERE if i miss the suprise i miss Sneak attack (ie L2 cleric dies in one sling), that had already happened due to my waiting. I didn't want to hear the words "GUARDS GUARDS" Also i would have loved to be able to talk back, but even though i looked like a gnoll i couldn't not speak gnoll, talking common would have lead to above. Hence i took option 2. hit cleric till she stops moving, my mistake should have taken option 3. lure preist out with non-verbal movements (ie pointing etc) and then hit till she stops moving One last thing on after talking to said DM he believes that with the current party no one should really die in the adventure (RTTOEE) so we shall see i guess
RavanVarr 08-21-05, 07:42 PM	4) Who said they were standing in plain sight? I thought i did
pres_man 08-22-05, 12:52 AM	Glad to hear that you and your DM were able to work it out. This gives me hope that your DM might grow into a very good DM. Now let me say to all players, Never, Ever, Challenge your DM in front of other people. DMs like most people will usually react defensively. They will often make bad decisions in order to protect themselves emotionally. This is something very hard to realize and to overcome, and even experienced DMs can fall into this trap (at least initially). Instead wait to get your DM alone and discuss the issue. Ask for the DM to explain it to you. Make it clear that you don't understand the ruling, not that the ruling is necessarily wrong. By the way this holds true for bosses and teachers as well.
Man in the Funny Hat 08-22-05, 01:56 AM	Who was to blame here? what should be done? and advice would be appreciated.Well for starters assigning blame won't actually fix the situation and could possibly just result in more accusations along the lines of, "See! It's YOUR fault, not mine so pucker up Buttercup." But, you DO have to understand where things went wrong and why... The DM gave a description of the room to the rogue which went something like this : "before you is a 30x30ft room with two doors in the east wall... there are a number of stange objects laid out on a rug in the center of the room, next to which is seated a human woman who appears to be dusting one of them as you enter. Upon seeing you she stands and says 'what are you doing here? get back to your post at once!' " then he paused (perhaps for breath, it is unclear) and the rogue announced : "I walk up to her and bash her with my mace!", rolled his attack dice and asked if he had hit... the DM made him roll initiative first, but he won so he got to do just as he had said... the rest of the party was in the previous room waiting to enter, but were not allowed to roll our initiatives this round. When it came time for the monster initiatives, the DM placed a minature for the woman next to the rogue's, and also a pair of gnolls, one of which was standing nearby the woman.Now at this point I may be confused. Did the DM's description indicate that there was only the woman, or the woman and two gnolls, one right next to her? he woman took a 5ft step back, cast a command spell at the rogue with the command "die!", the rogue then failed his save, fell over asleep, and the nearby gnoll took a 5ft step and performed a coup-de-grace with his battleaxe doing 17 points of damage, the rogue failed his fortitude save (DC 27) and died for real this time. Okay, this is only the 2nd session of a new campaign, the DM has set before you what is effectively a save-or-die tactic from the monsters and his attitude is, "Stuff happens?" when a PC hasn't even had time to be properly established in the game? I hope the DM made it clear that the entire campaign was going to be run with the philosophy that "Stuff happens" so that the players wouldn't storm out in a huff the first time a PC goes irrevocable on round 1. The rogue's player stood up, announced that this session had been "a total waste of time" and left immediately in a foul mood.It is, of course, immature and bad form to storm out of a game like that unless it was manifestly evident that the DM was actually being vindictive. The proper response should have been something like, "Okay, this is only the second session, I've put a lot of effort into this character, I don't see any compelling reason to COUP DE GRACE my character which immediately prompts me to think you're simply being vindictive (and that is supported by your rather heartless response), so consider this a formal complaint. And far be it for me to be disruptive and bring the game to a screeching halt, but I think I'm going to need a little more explanation from your end before I just swallow this crap." Now, there are a few additional facts worth considering... it turns out the DM was using the 3rd ed. version of the command spell which allows the command 'die' to be issued... the 3.5th ed. version of this spell does not, and we were using 3.5th ed. rules where possible. It is likely that the DM did not realise the spell had changed since 3 and 3.5.Not that I find that as relevant as all that, but should the issue come up then the proper response is, "Pardon me, but as I read the way that spell functions in my PH I don't think that particular use is correct." At the time the spell was cast, there was some question as to whether it counted as a charm or sleep spell, because the rogue, as a changeling gets a +2 bonus to saves against charms and sleeps,As you indicated, on p 291 of the DMG it draws a clear difference between charm and compulsion in a specific section on the subject. in hindsight the rogue could have just used an action point (eberron) to make absolutely sure he passed, but we were all a bit new to the whole actions points system so this got overlooked in the confusion.All the more reason for the player not to have stormed out and for the DM to be less dismissive of the outcome. The rest of the players (myself included) are a bit uncertain as to who is truly to blame for this unfortunate turn of events...As I said, you're not going to do much for the problem by assigning blame - although again it's worth noting at this point that there's plenty of it to go around. The only thing I can think to do is call up the player and DM, let them know about the rules confusion with 'command' and see if some compromise cant be negotiated. COMMUNICATE. Say it with me... COMMUNICATE. TELL the DM if you have a problem with his tactics, rules, attitude, personal hygiene, or taste in music. TALK to the players and tell them how things will be; why things are the way they are, and do it BEFORE it becomes a problem. And most of all - LIGHTEN THE HELL UP.
Man in the Funny Hat 08-22-05, 02:22 AM	So many of you would ban a player for leaving, even though the session was almost over (lasted about 10 more minutes), and the guy didn't stick around to see how the session was resolved, despite the fact that his character was dead, and any additional information gotten from the session being resolved would be things his old character or his new character would have no idea of. Oh no, he didn't stick around and kiss the DM's rear, "Oh thank you great DM for smiting me. Oh you are the greatest, may I have a new character? I have to start with 1/2 the xp I had, wait no I have to start at 1st level. You are so powerful and wise."It's not a matter of the player kissing the DM's rear. It's not a matter of the session being almost over and that further events wouldn't be relevant to the dead PC or a new replacement. And while I wouldn't BAN a player for it, I would certainly let that player know that stating, "This was a waste of time" and walking out at ANY POINT is NOT acceptable behavior at my game table. If he has a problem with my rulings, etc. he's more than free to have a seat after the session is over, or perhaps even ending the session at that point to spend the remainder in discussion. But, "This sucks, I'm leaving," kind of response leaves me little to say in return except, "Okay then. I'm sorry as well to have wasted my time and effort to help entertain you all night. Don't let the screen door hit you on the way out." You know what, players are going to get p-ed off from time to time. They are going to think the DM is unfair sometimes, and sometimes they are right (as in this case) and sometimes they are not. If the DM cannot deal with some criticism, correct or not, then he shouldn't be the DM.As noted the player didn't bother to exercise that right (or so it would seem.) But at the end of a session where he could only gain metagaming information and he choose not to stick around to watch everybody else play.In the MIDDLE of a game session, at the BEGINNING, or at the END... it isn't a question of when. That doesn't matter. What matters is that just because one player may not have a direct impact or input upon the game at ANY given point does not mean the player has cause to BLOW OFF the DM, the other players and the unfolding game. For the same reason that I will expect players to pay attention to the game even if their PC gets knocked unconscious in the middle of a combat and has no hope of waking before it's over, I expect the player of a DEAD PC to pay attention to the game until such time as the session is over, or the player has NON-game related, and compelling reasons to leave early. Exceptions granted in specific cases such as if a SIZEABLE portion of the game session will likely be conducted without the player being able to have his PC participate. I don't demand that they GET OUT when they can't participate, I don't expect them to WALK OUT just because they can't have their PC participate RIGHT THIS SECOND. It's called COURTESY and you tend to get back of it what you give.
Man in the Funny Hat 08-22-05, 03:09 AM	Hi Guys i happen to be the PC in question here...Always more interesting and MUCH more useful to hear views of multiple actual participants in these sorts of things. Yes it was my bad for walking out when i did... but there is history hereThen I'd suggest you deal with that before you go back to that game. My complaint a. where did the gnolls come from... b. it was a cheap way to kill a my toon.Kinda wondered about the suddenly appearing gnolls. It wasn't really clear in the OP. I am of the solid opinion that, regardless of whether as DM I percieve the players statements of actions to be rash, even intentionally disruptive of the game, or whether they've now interrupted me for the umpteenth time in reading descriptions, their very first response to "Why do Gnolls suddenly appear, every time, you are near..." is going to be, "But you never SAID they were there!" Always, always, ALWAYS tell the player EVERYTHING their character sees or rightfully should know. ONLY THEN, if they insist on doing something stupid do you have any kind of legitimate right to be callously merciless. However, I also mentioned just above something about the DM warning players beforehand that the entire campaign would be run with the philosphy that, "stuff happens". The time to object to that kind of thing is BEFORE the DM intentionally kills your PC irrevocably when it's not needed or required by his prepared materials. The time to talk to the DM about PC life expectancy is BEFORE you write 4 pages of background. Communication. Say it with me... Communication. The campain has had a "fast pace" set to it, which means if we don't act when things happen ie. the Cleric talking to my char. Then turns pass and stuff happens like my surprise dissappears and bad guys jump out i get attacked etc. This was the reason for the 1 on 1. Thinking about it yes i should have pointed and lured said cleric into next room for a quick death. But that is the bonus of hind sight.What you should have done is tell the DM that there is a REASON this is a turn-based game, and that a great many of its rules are there for NO OTHER reason than to clarify and more firmly establish that things happen one thing at a time, and in a carefully specified order. The reason for my leaving was we had that encounter left and we had to go. With my char dead, i did not see much point in staying so i left rather than have to deal with the dm. (who again there is history with not all of it good).As you yourself admitted, it was your bad for walking out when you did. The rest is just excuses. Harsh, but true. You may have "history" with the DM, but you CHOSE to be there and to participate in his game anyway, and that means you accepted certain obligations of polite behavior DESPITE your "history". Why would any sane GM ask ppl to write a 3 page min history for your chars? Why would you want to be attached to them, if they are going to die over and over and over agin?And again - who is the person you really need to be asking those questions? It AIN'T anyone here. I will not be rolling a Char and writing another 3 page history for this campain (not when death come too easy). The idea of rezing and dropping a level does not appeal either. The DM (who is well with in his rights) will if i know him will demand one or other. Mores the pity really i was funning a lot of fun.Noone can take advantage of you without your permission. Don't quit the campaign on the ASSUMPTION that you know what the DM will demand. ASK HIM. Give him your side of the story. THEN consider quitting if his response is wholly unsuitable to you.
SwiftFox 08-23-05, 12:22 AM	MITFH : While I appreciate you have an opinion on this topic you wanted to share, given the lateness of your replies perhaps you should have read what the other posters had to say... because if you had, it might have occured to you that the situation has been resolved and your input no longer desired. In future, please submit your responses in a timely fashion and show a bit of common courtesy to the other posters by reading what they have written.
q'afuu 08-23-05, 01:48 AM	Who says his input is no longer desired? Not by you perhaps, or by any of the others involved, but that doesn't mean his advice can't be useful for others in a similar situation. It's exactly this kind of reaction that started the problem your group had. There's no real problem here, just several differing views on a situation. As long as people don't start laying blame left and right or going defensive for what is no more than an opinion after all, there's nothing going on.
SwiftFox 08-23-05, 03:31 AM	Unfocused ranting based upon a series of false assumptions wont be useful to anyone. This problem was solved long before MITFH chose to join in, by people who had a much clearer understanding of the situation.
20goingon1232 08-23-05, 05:39 AM	Glad to hear that you and your DM were able to work it out. This gives me hope that your DM might grow into a very good DM. Now let me say to all players, Never, Ever, Challenge your DM in front of other people. DMs like most people will usually react defensively. They will often make bad decisions in order to protect themselves emotionally. This is something very hard to realize and to overcome, and even experienced DMs can fall into this trap (at least initially). Instead wait to get your DM alone and discuss the issue. Ask for the DM to explain it to you. Make it clear that you don't understand the ruling, not that the ruling is necessarily wrong. By the way this holds true for bosses and teachers as well. A lot of DMs never go past this defensive stage. All that rumours of DnD being the province of nerds, geeks and losers had to have come from somewhere... Particularly that last descriptor. Q'afuu - Good Lord, man! Take a couple of chill pills, dude! Don't tear the OP a new one just because your entire little premises in your little rebuttal to me was torn down around your ears by the player involved because you made STUPID and FALSE assumptions. Just chill, man! It is all good.
Fort deadly kick 08-23-05, 05:54 AM	20goingon1312, that was one of the most childish things I've seen in a long while. Get over yourself.
q'afuu 08-23-05, 07:46 AM	Q'afuu - Good Lord, man! Take a couple of chill pills, dude! Don't tear the OP a new one just because your entire little premises in your little rebuttal to me was torn down around your ears by the player involved because you made STUPID and FALSE assumptions. Just chill, man! It is all good. Let's just say I don't quite see it that way and leave it at that. I have no reason to 'tear the OP a new one' (and I certainly wouldn't qualify my post as such) other than his own comments.
20goingon1232 08-23-05, 05:02 PM	20goingon1312, that was one of the most childish things I've seen in a long while. Get over yourself. Sure it is. Mmmhmm. I think the appropriate response to that is "Yeah, yeah. Whatever..." :rolleyes: Q'afuu - Of course you don't. Of course, of course.