But it's in the module! [Archive] - Wizards Community

But it's in the module! [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Elessara
05-16-06, 04:15 PM Anyone have a problem where the DM justifies what he does because it's in the module?

Now, I understand that sometimes crappy things happen in the game and it's not supposed to be rainbows and light all the time. People die, crap happens, towns get burned down and you can't stop it - yeah I get that. But we had 2 new people join our party (PC's not NPC's). We're currently an all good group composed of a favored soul, a druid/sorcerer, a battle sorcerer/barbarian and a ranger/barbarian. The two new guys are some kind of fighter/rogue and some kind of cleric - I don't know specifically and I haven't asked. But we're in a forest and we're all on a mission for the Fey to dispatch an evil ranger who is slaughtering the fey. So we come across this clearing with two trees in the middle. Two dryads of course ... and they charm the two new guys who then start telling us we have to leave the clearing and leave the dryads alone - who we weren't bothering anyway and weren't going to bother. We try really really really hard to get our 2 new party members back through diplomacy. So then the threats come out - and a fight ensues. The dryads do nothing but send the 2 new guys to fight us - half the party ended up almost dying, to each other.

After the fight was over we were told that our only options were to either fight or leave the 2 new guys behind .. uhh what?

Somehow, I sincerely doubt that's a good way to introduce new people into a group. And all the DM says is, "It's in the module!" like the module is a holy book or something.

Ele~
Bruunwald
05-16-06, 04:35 PM It sounds like your DM was not being flexible enough. It may be true that the module has certain elements - story elements - that must be fulfilled in order for the adventure to unfold.

But in this case, he should have sensed the stubborness of the party and acted accordingly, before players started getting upset. The DM must always remain flexible and pay attention to the enjoyment of his group, even over his best laid plans.

On the other hand, there are some elements of the game that cannot be fixed with magic or some combat mechanic. They are integral to the story and need no mechanic behind them. Such as a princess who can not awaken until a specific ring is placed on her finger, or you get the right prince to kiss her. Those situations sometimes require a little player cooperation, a little intuition on the part of the players to help the story unfold.

There are some players who would complain bitterly about that sort of thing having no cure from their spellbooks or some feat they have, yet the adventure could not exist without it being "in the module!" as you say.

This was not that, exactly, but there might have been something like this behind the DM's motivations. It could have been important to the writer and to the unfolding of the plot. But I agree: when the DM saw this was not working he should have improvised a new tact.
Gargs454
05-16-06, 04:46 PM At the very least he should have allowed you to roll a diplomacy check against the Dryads. (It may even be that he in fact did this). I would think that if the diplomacy check fails, that would then limit the party's options a little bit. However, this does not sound like the type of situation wherein the only possible outcomes (at any time) would be either a) fight the new guys or b) leave the new guys behind.

The other question that needs to be asked of the DM is whether or not the new guys were allowed save attempts. If not, then it becomes a little bit more suspect as well.
Molitor
05-16-06, 09:11 PM What is the name of the module?
tiercel
05-16-06, 10:12 PM Uhhhhh.

First of all, you told the dryads something like "But we are on a mission to stop an evil hunter who slaughters your kind," and they came back with "Ugh we not care we want man-thing-toys?" (Yes, dryads presumably should sound more intelligent than that, but they should reason more intelligently than that too.)

Second of all, charm is NOT domination. Even if both the new guys (including a cleric, who should have a pretty good Will save) blew their DC 13 saving throws, they should only consider the dryads to be their new best friends... you know, kind of like they consider you presumably? At the dryads' urging they may very reasonably have tried to get the rest of you to go off for a while so they could be alone with the dryads. However, even if both of them blew their opposed Charisma checks against the dryads to avoid doing something they wouldn't normaly do, I can't imagine that the charm should have been able to get them to use deadly force against you (except in self defense).

Thirdly, just because a module only lists ways to deal with two player responses (players fight dryads or dryad victims, or, players say "eh you can have them" and abandon friends -- yeah right) doesn't mean the DM shouldn't accomodate reasonable other responses. Given your mission, it was kind of unreasonable for the dryads not to listen to you at all, even if your Diplomacy rolls weren't that stellar.

Finally, a DM should realize he has to adapt the module to the situation at hand. Bringing in two new players only have to their characters fight the other players' characters almost to the death in Encounter #1 is not a good way of party-building. At the very least, the DM could have swapped around the order of the encounters a little or thrown in a random encounter or two so you all could gel as a party before throwing a POTENTIALLY (but not necessarily) divisive sort of encounter such as this.
Gilean
05-17-06, 10:12 AM That is the equivalent of killing other PCs "because you are evil" or "because that is what my character would do". In other words, lame excuse.
Players should not make characters taht will kill the enjoyment of other players.
GMs should not make/run adventures that kill the enjoyment of other players.

Ask the GM if running that module is such a good idea, you not liking it and all. Be reasonable and polite. Talk privately to not cause reflexive defense arguments.
jasper
05-17-06, 12:07 PM sorry if the dm hit all the rules correctly the play stands. Some times the monster win. Some times the newbie is the hero other times he at zero hp and falling.
But I would suggest to the dm since it sounds like a lot of you are new. Bring in clones of dead pcs and just new names.
Lincoln Hills
05-17-06, 12:28 PM Modules are inherently limited. That's why the DM doesn't get to "take the week off" when running a module.

I think in this case the players were being just a LITTLE bull-headed. A shade too much "leave no man behind". Dryads aren't orcs. Their unnatural defensiveness was probably out of fear. In fact, a sign that your target (the fey-slaying ranger) was in the area.

As one notion, if you'd withdrawn as requested, given them a chance to question their new charmed friends until they knew your group meant no harm, and then sent one messenger back, you could probably have opened a dialogue. (Although I'm saying this without knowing how experienced your DM is: 'It's in the module' is not an entirely encouraging sign.)
Balor von Balorvitch
05-17-06, 01:53 PM I think in this case the players were being just a LITTLE bull-headed. A shade too much "leave no man behind". Dryads aren't orcs. Their unnatural defensiveness was probably out of fear. In fact, a sign that your target (the fey-slaying ranger) was in the area.

Hmm i object to the orc bashing. If the dyrads had the Pcs for selfish reasons then they are no better than orcs taking hostages. If PCs tred on orc land they rarely give respect to the orcs (They usually plow right through them) with the dyrads givin the situation they should have subdued the dyrads & party memebers with non lethal to recover their friends. A bloody nose is a small price to pay for attempted kid napping.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Elessara 05-16-06, 04:15 PM	Anyone have a problem where the DM justifies what he does because it's in the module? Now, I understand that sometimes crappy things happen in the game and it's not supposed to be rainbows and light all the time. People die, crap happens, towns get burned down and you can't stop it - yeah I get that. But we had 2 new people join our party (PC's not NPC's). We're currently an all good group composed of a favored soul, a druid/sorcerer, a battle sorcerer/barbarian and a ranger/barbarian. The two new guys are some kind of fighter/rogue and some kind of cleric - I don't know specifically and I haven't asked. But we're in a forest and we're all on a mission for the Fey to dispatch an evil ranger who is slaughtering the fey. So we come across this clearing with two trees in the middle. Two dryads of course ... and they charm the two new guys who then start telling us we have to leave the clearing and leave the dryads alone - who we weren't bothering anyway and weren't going to bother. We try really really really hard to get our 2 new party members back through diplomacy. So then the threats come out - and a fight ensues. The dryads do nothing but send the 2 new guys to fight us - half the party ended up almost dying, to each other. After the fight was over we were told that our only options were to either fight or leave the 2 new guys behind .. uhh what? Somehow, I sincerely doubt that's a good way to introduce new people into a group. And all the DM says is, "It's in the module!" like the module is a holy book or something. Ele~
Bruunwald 05-16-06, 04:35 PM	It sounds like your DM was not being flexible enough. It may be true that the module has certain elements - story elements - that must be fulfilled in order for the adventure to unfold. But in this case, he should have sensed the stubborness of the party and acted accordingly, before players started getting upset. The DM must always remain flexible and pay attention to the enjoyment of his group, even over his best laid plans. On the other hand, there are some elements of the game that cannot be fixed with magic or some combat mechanic. They are integral to the story and need no mechanic behind them. Such as a princess who can not awaken until a specific ring is placed on her finger, or you get the right prince to kiss her. Those situations sometimes require a little player cooperation, a little intuition on the part of the players to help the story unfold. There are some players who would complain bitterly about that sort of thing having no cure from their spellbooks or some feat they have, yet the adventure could not exist without it being "in the module!" as you say. This was not that, exactly, but there might have been something like this behind the DM's motivations. It could have been important to the writer and to the unfolding of the plot. But I agree: when the DM saw this was not working he should have improvised a new tact.
Gargs454 05-16-06, 04:46 PM	At the very least he should have allowed you to roll a diplomacy check against the Dryads. (It may even be that he in fact did this). I would think that if the diplomacy check fails, that would then limit the party's options a little bit. However, this does not sound like the type of situation wherein the only possible outcomes (at any time) would be either a) fight the new guys or b) leave the new guys behind. The other question that needs to be asked of the DM is whether or not the new guys were allowed save attempts. If not, then it becomes a little bit more suspect as well.
Molitor 05-16-06, 09:11 PM	What is the name of the module?
tiercel 05-16-06, 10:12 PM	Uhhhhh. First of all, you told the dryads something like "But we are on a mission to stop an evil hunter who slaughters your kind," and they came back with "Ugh we not care we want man-thing-toys?" (Yes, dryads presumably should sound more intelligent than that, but they should reason more intelligently than that too.) Second of all, charm is NOT domination. Even if both the new guys (including a cleric, who should have a pretty good Will save) blew their DC 13 saving throws, they should only consider the dryads to be their new best friends... you know, kind of like they consider you presumably? At the dryads' urging they may very reasonably have tried to get the rest of you to go off for a while so they could be alone with the dryads. However, even if both of them blew their opposed Charisma checks against the dryads to avoid doing something they wouldn't normaly do, I can't imagine that the charm should have been able to get them to use deadly force against you (except in self defense). Thirdly, just because a module only lists ways to deal with two player responses (players fight dryads or dryad victims, or, players say "eh you can have them" and abandon friends -- yeah right) doesn't mean the DM shouldn't accomodate reasonable other responses. Given your mission, it was kind of unreasonable for the dryads not to listen to you at all, even if your Diplomacy rolls weren't that stellar. Finally, a DM should realize he has to adapt the module to the situation at hand. Bringing in two new players only have to their characters fight the other players' characters almost to the death in Encounter #1 is not a good way of party-building. At the very least, the DM could have swapped around the order of the encounters a little or thrown in a random encounter or two so you all could gel as a party before throwing a POTENTIALLY (but not necessarily) divisive sort of encounter such as this.
Gilean 05-17-06, 10:12 AM	That is the equivalent of killing other PCs "because you are evil" or "because that is what my character would do". In other words, lame excuse. Players should not make characters taht will kill the enjoyment of other players. GMs should not make/run adventures that kill the enjoyment of other players. Ask the GM if running that module is such a good idea, you not liking it and all. Be reasonable and polite. Talk privately to not cause reflexive defense arguments.
jasper 05-17-06, 12:07 PM	sorry if the dm hit all the rules correctly the play stands. Some times the monster win. Some times the newbie is the hero other times he at zero hp and falling. But I would suggest to the dm since it sounds like a lot of you are new. Bring in clones of dead pcs and just new names.
Lincoln Hills 05-17-06, 12:28 PM	Modules are inherently limited. That's why the DM doesn't get to "take the week off" when running a module. I think in this case the players were being just a LITTLE bull-headed. A shade too much "leave no man behind". Dryads aren't orcs. Their unnatural defensiveness was probably out of fear. In fact, a sign that your target (the fey-slaying ranger) was in the area. As one notion, if you'd withdrawn as requested, given them a chance to question their new charmed friends until they knew your group meant no harm, and then sent one messenger back, you could probably have opened a dialogue. (Although I'm saying this without knowing how experienced your DM is: 'It's in the module' is not an entirely encouraging sign.)
Balor von Balorvitch 05-17-06, 01:53 PM	I think in this case the players were being just a LITTLE bull-headed. A shade too much "leave no man behind". Dryads aren't orcs. Their unnatural defensiveness was probably out of fear. In fact, a sign that your target (the fey-slaying ranger) was in the area. Hmm i object to the orc bashing. If the dyrads had the Pcs for selfish reasons then they are no better than orcs taking hostages. If PCs tred on orc land they rarely give respect to the orcs (They usually plow right through them) with the dyrads givin the situation they should have subdued the dyrads & party memebers with non lethal to recover their friends. A bloody nose is a small price to pay for attempted kid napping.