Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sunic_Flames 12-09-06, 05:20 PM	Ok, here's what happened. Group of 5: 3 level 5s, 1 level 4, and 1 level 3. (the 2 lower ones joined at 3 when the group was 4 and one hasn't quite leveled yet) We're on the road, nearly at the next town where we know we will get our next objective for our mission. Trio of bandits attacks us, appearently there's some backstory between them and the town we'd find out about in character soon enough. We are told out of character the minions are level 8 each, and the leader 13. Don't ask, I dunno. I gently reminded him out of character that was way out of our league, and it seemed like he got it. It was clear in character they wanted to knock us out and take our stuff and basically leave us for dead due to a sense motive check + what they were saying. Tried to bluff em into backing off, rolled a modified 30. Techinically it worked, but they were more scared of the leader than us and they attacked anyways. The leader was gonna stay out of it. We agreed out of character that this was a very tough, but winnable fight with just us vs the minions, and that it was fair this way. ECL of party 5.1, vs cr 10 fight. And a few rounds of hard fighting later several of the party is badly wounded but alive, both the minions are weakened greatly and have already used a healing potion to recover from their wounds a bit, but it seems like we're gonna win. That's when Mr. Leader enters the fight and starts beating the crap out of the party with his fists. (monk) Now the encounter is CR 14... basically impossible for us. And sure enough, first one, then two of the party drops, with 2 more greatly weakened. The fifth is fine... for now. Mostly because he was the least threat. Granted, it was subdual damage that dropped us, and out of character we knew they were not going to rob us, they had... other plans, but that's not the point. The point is he willingly and willfully put us into a position where we'd basically have to fail, and did not allow us to avoid the battle due to the whole social skills failing and them drawing blades first at the start thing. And in character it seemed as if the downed party members were "breathing, but barely", aka near dead. Basically we believed they were trying to kill us in character. Now I tried to be reasonable with him, I gave it a chance, and then once it got to this point I suggested that the npcs that were secretly watching to assess our capabilities in a hard fight to see if we're worth bothering with (my idea before I knew anything OOC about their stats, but he went with it) decided hard =/= impossible and evened the odds by taking on the leader themselves, freeing us up to dispatch the other minion and then give him a hand with the leader, meanwhile his partner gets the downed party members back on their feet so we can better assist them, and then she'd help her partner. (cleric) As they were both level 7, this would make the ECL of the party 7.1 vs that CR 14... Which was also listed as "overwhelming" difficulty but was winnable... maybe. He outright refused immediately before I could even finish, then when I insisted called me a control freak or something to that effect. Right... I'm a control freak because I want winnable combats, even if the chances of success are low... :roll: And if he did plan to sic some high level on us we should have been well aware of it long in advance so we'd know we were dealing with something/someone out of our league. Or it would simply not be a combat encounter, I don't have a cha of 21 and max/near max social skills for nothing you know... I personally don't think I'm being at all unreasonable here... and the other players think they are dead/dying because they don't know what subdual damage is... Needless to say they aren't pleased with the situation either, and the group is near dissolving as a result. I have told him what he is doing is railroading, and he simply refuses to believe it, or admit to it. I enjoy the game and all, but I do feel he crossed the line that time. And the most he would do to make amends is have the leader run off if we can drop the other minion... which is possible and we are close to doing just that, but it feels cheap. Especially since he said out of character the leader guy would die anyways regardless of whether we killed him or not... So we couldn't even get revenge on him later, we'd just find his body... if that. Ultimately unsatisifing. Makes us feel like our actions don't matter, you know? Sure, a group of low levels shouldn't be saving the world... but they should be able to help (or hurt) it in meaningful ways by having an impact upon it via their actions... And if he's gonna die anyways, why bother? Ok, enough ranting from me for now. :P
IdleAltruism 12-09-06, 05:42 PM	My advice to you, suck it up. Losing to something thats way more powerful then you is in some ways better then losing because of the dice. If the DM decides to throw some crazy encounter at you for the story line thats fine, if hes just tyring to kill you its another story. You're not always going to win and sometimes your character will be captured. You just have to deal with it and move on. Personaly I only tell the PCs the CR and level of their encounter after its said and done, less stress for them. Instead of instantly going OOC "WHAT their level 8 OMGWTFBBQ" just trust your DM knows what hes doing and hopefuly has a motive for doing so. If he just kills you then you have something to rant about.
TheChilliGod 12-09-06, 06:04 PM	Well, the DMG recommends that a party should face up against an Overwhelming encounter about every 20th battle... And it seems as though you guys were due for one. So, I suppose fleeing wasn't much of an option, either. Was that a strategy that your party at least considered? Sometimes there is a time where you need to flee the scene instead of standing against diminutive odds, and you may not have taken advantage of that option. (Well, at least it makes for a decent tactic. Flee the scene, wait for the monk's lackeys to tire out while the monk catches up to you with ease, them pummel the S*** out of him when his lackeys are left behind in the dust) With these points in mind, it seems like a "suck it up" moment, yes. However, what I don't get is the DM's attitude over this. He told you the CR's of the guys while the battle was going on (which did nothing more than made you sweat), and told you that you were supposed to lose. Whoo, big motivator for the gaming table. This does seem like railroading, albeit with potential for the subtlety required for railroading (subtlety that your DM did not apparently take advantage of), and no doubt I would have been peeved off if my DM shoved our PC's through this same ordeal. So, you do have some cause for complaint there. The encounter itself you can let go, but the DM's attitude you shouldn't so easily. (I've had the same sort of DM with the same sort of encounter, actually. He told us the CR's of this entire bandit camp, which put the EL at Overwhelming, but he told us that we were supposed to win instead of lose. Surprisingly enough, a bunch of 4 7th-lvls pwned against 8 CR 3's, 3 CR 8's, 2 CR 10's and a CR 13! What do you think is better, winning or losing against unbeatable odds when the DM tells you you're going to win or lose?)
DarkRhystar 12-09-06, 06:26 PM	Sounds to me like a group that's too used to getting its way got itself in over its head. The DM threw something at you that you couldn't A) Talk your way out of and B) Fight your way out of but you were too used to solving problems those ways so you got hosed. Next time consider other options like running away. A DM who throws encounters at a party that can be solved with the exact same methods every time isn't exactly doing the party a favor.
Neutronium_Dragon 12-09-06, 09:10 PM	It's easy to tell someone that they should just run away. It's harder for a party to run away in practice. Most of the time the opponents are as fast or faster than the party, and if you're out in the open then there aren't a lot of tactical options to cut off their movement even if you run away with them beating on you every round until then. In this case, it doesn't sound like even that would work - the DM had set things up so that they'd be beaten down no matter what.
Sphyre 12-10-06, 12:47 AM	This is a Dichotomy. On one hand you have realism. You aren't the best person out there, if someone who is clearly better than you finds reason to beat you up, there's not much you can do to stop it. The other hand is railroading. It's going to happen no matter what is true. Although, I look at in a different light than the simple black and white dichotomy I represented. Sure, you may not be able to talk your way out of the encounter, sure you may not be able to fight your way out, but you sure could have made a choice that caused this to happen. For example: The party decides they want to go to a city they've never been before. This city is notorious for the gang of underground that control the city, unfortunately, few survive to tell others outside the city about it, so it's not quite as notorious as you would think. Well it's known in this town that you don't own magic weapons, otherwise the gang comes and gets you, and everyone lives in fear from it. Well you come on in with your 5th level party and you're full of magical items for your level. Even the 10th level wizard that resides in the town is under control of the gang. The gang is mostly 9th-13th level, and that's why they've survived for so long, not only do they have the connections they have power. Anyway, you go strolling in unaware and get jumped just like every other citizen. You're the scrub here, and it's not like you're going to be able to to much. This is when you leave when it's possible, or get the means to stop them through outside help or something. The point is, you chose to go there. In real life, you can't just go places and assume you're going to be "safe enough." There were things you may or may not have been able to properly prepare yourself or avoid the whole thing altogether. The point is you didn't. If the DM is taking this chance to TPK, that's not that great, but he shouldn't nerf the world simply because you're there. Being that you were called a control freak, he might have felt it was perfectly reasonable. You're not a god. Not everything is in your power. Not all encounters have a clear answer to them. As a DM you don't design an encounter with an intended way to defeat it (fighting, talking, bartering, etc) you simply present the encounter, and it responds as it would to the PCs actions as it normally would. Then again, your DM could be a control freak too, and feel like he has to reassert his powers, which isn't good then, it should be him wondering what he should change. Truth is, the best we can do is surmise what it is. It sounds to me, that you would prefer a less realistic approach to DMing, much like a video game. And you don't like those video games with cutscenes because you can't control the events as they are happening. Whatever the case, you need to adapt to the DMing style your DM has, get your DM to change his DMing style (which it seems like you've tried and failed) or find a new group. Those are the options you have. If you can't get one, you might have to choose another.
Toloran 12-10-06, 01:18 AM	It is my opinion that a DM should never resort to forcing players to lose. Run away, sure. But flat out lose? No (Having a spellcast on them that puts them to sleep or something is occasionally ok). The reason is that unless the DM OOC tells them whats going to happen, the players will spend far too many resources knocking them out (burning the last few uses of a wand, using potions they wouldn't have used otherwise, etc). The other reason is that I've played far too many videogames where was stuck at somepoint for a long time because I kept losing only to find out that I was supposed to lose :(
Always-Late 12-10-06, 01:20 AM	It's called... RUN AWAY. Every good adventurer does it sooner or later. The better adventurers do it sooner.
theotherdraxen 12-10-06, 01:40 AM	It's called... RUN AWAY. Every good adventurer does it sooner or later. The better adventurers do it sooner. Adventurers? Sure. Heroes? HELL NO! You're telling me that my righteous Paladin that has dedicated his life to the pursuit of justice is going to run? He never runs: that's the character concept, and it's quite an archetypical concept, too. Heroes aren't supposed to run. Why? Because it's heroic! :fight!: To the OP: What your DM did is known as railroading. I advise you shove that railroad up his :censored:. Edit: if you find this offensive, please let me know, and I'll pull it down. I'm not here to ruin anybody's day, just to make a point, and tell a joke on the side perhaps.
Kitaki 12-10-06, 02:14 AM	Since scripted losses like this are meant to progress the story then you need to suck it up, if the DM were simply trying to kill you then thats not cool.
Gahread 12-10-06, 02:59 AM	Heroes aren't supposed to run. Why? Because it's heroic! :fight!: What's that famous paladin quote? Ah yes... "My alignment is Lawful Good, not Lawful Stupid."
DarkRhystar 12-10-06, 03:05 AM	Adventurers? Sure. Tragic Heroes? HELL NO! You're telling me that my stupid Paladin that has dedicated his life to the pursuit of justice is going to run? He never runs: that's the character concept (read: tragic flaw), and it's quite a short-lived concept, too. Tragic heroes aren't supposed to run. Why? Because it's tragically heroic! :fight!: There, all fixed now. :P Edit: <...> please <...> know <...> I'll <...> ruin anybody's day <...> just to make a point <...> All done in good fun. :)
Sphyre 12-10-06, 04:22 AM	The other reason is that I've played far too many videogames where was stuck at somepoint for a long time because I kept losing only to find out that I was supposed to lose :( that's the difference between real life and a story. In real life you need to know when to run because you're dead if you don't. In a story, it's fate and you can't fight it. There are a few good video games that have been programmed to react to whether you win or lose, do this or that, etc. It is a preference. Some people much prefer when they create the story as opposed to the DM telling the story. That, though, requires very good players... I would love to have players like that someday, where it's very party centric and I'm merely putting a few things in, but what's really driving the story is the characters and their motivations, desires, and actions. More power to you if you're in that position!
angryman 12-10-06, 10:04 AM	Now the encounter is CR 14... basically impossible for us. The point is he willingly and willfully put us into a position where we'd basically have to fail, and did not allow us to avoid the battle due to the whole social skills failing and them drawing blades first at the start thing. I have told him what he is doing is railroading, and he simply refuses to believe it, or admit to it. Well, this is why you should never be afraid just to run. You can't win every battle. Yes, he was railroading, but you gotta suck that up now and again. The fact that the DM cheated by making your social skills fail is what would make me angry. And don't give me any crap about the DM being above the rules to weave a rich tapestry of intrigue, this is D&D, not Vampire the Masquerade.
Sunic_Flames 12-10-06, 10:51 AM	Wow, I've gotten quite the earful here... The way I see it, there was absolutely no build up to this. No encountering some NPC mugged by the bandits (and according to the DM they commonly attacked people in this area and were known so this was not at all unreasonable), no hearing about them in character in some way, (one of the player's character was from this town, notepassing anyone?) no encountering lesser bandits first... We just ran right into the leader and his 2 best men with no build up. According to the DM if we had won we would have gotten to the town, heard about em, and then got a quest to fight em anyways... So he did definitely have a backup plan. Or an alternate railroading plan, depending on your perspective. Yes, CR 10 is overwhelming, 5% of all encounters. That's why we felt the 2 level 8 minions alone were fair. But with the level 13 leader helping it became CR 14, unbeatable. 0% of all encounters. As for retreating, by the time it became clear that it was not something we could win (the leader joining the fight) we were already beaten down to the point where retreating would result in several members going down... Basically what happened anyways, but still. If we retreated right off, that would be metagaming you see. Or could be easily called such at least. And leaving party members behind... well we may not be good aligned but we're still loyal to each other. :P We have retreated from battle before... ironically enough from a lower cr battle that appeared more dangerous. Enter 3 level 4s retreating from a single CR 5 troll. Pretty much the moment we saw it, we didn't even try to fight after seeing it tear up some trees. So it's not that we refuse to run, it's that by the time we even begun to see the need to run it was too late. And no, carrying the downed off isn't an option, only 2 of the party have a str higher than 14. This is not the first time we have been unable to use social skills, most encounters are designed to be hack and slash in this campaign. And the peaceful encounters are basically scripted, our skills don't really come into play and the NPCs don't really act "in character", in other words if they're supposed to give us information they'll do it even if some of the party is being rude to them or something. Well there was one time we bluffed our way out of a fight, but that just led to an even bigger fight in the near future when the guy rounded up his buddies to ambush us. (and then fleed again) Now I'm not expecting this to work every time, but 0/1 after practically begging for a chance to use these skills is not a good record. And as someone who is heavily focused on those cha based skills, not being able to use them means I am not able to use about oh... half my abilities. And I am not the only one with a character designed this way. The irony is the campaign type is supposed to be high rp by design... yet we might as well be weak fighter types instead of stealthy ones for all the use we get from bluff/diplo/etc... Oh and people keep mentioning video games... Well in those you at least get to avenge the scripted loss later. Here, not the case. And those are video games, regardless of what someone here said this is not what I want from my gaming sessions. Of course we are not the strongest out there, but those that are so far above us so as to be out of our league have bigger fish to fry. We should be beneath their notice and not worth their time, and therefore not fighting them. Everyone knows the DM can just smite us at any moment if he wants us dead, so there's no need to dance around that by putting us in an impossible fight. I enjoy hard fights. I sometimes end up running the encounters we face because the DM understats them (lower attack bonuses than they legally should have), over experiences them, and doesn't play them smart, whereas I make the enemies fight smart and use reasonable tactics according to their intelligence. Which results in a mechanically equivelent encounter becoming far more difficult... as it should be. But low chance to win and no chance to win are not the same thing. His encounters almost have to be "overwhelming" difficulty by CR to pose a threat as a result of their poor utiliziation, I can threaten the party with an equal CR encounter. Again, as it should be. Of course it's probably a good thing he has only partially learned tactics from my subbing in, or we'd really be screwed right now. :P
Lanky Ogre Baggy Pants 12-10-06, 11:17 AM	The fact that the DM cheated by making your social skills fail is what would make me angry. And don't give me any crap about the DM being above the rules to weave a rich tapestry of intrigue, this is D&D, not Vampire the Masquerade. Well how do we know that the DM cheated? Tried to bluff em into backing off, rolled a modified 30. Techinically it worked, but they were more scared of the leader than us and they attacked anyways. How do you know it "technically worked?" DId the DM tell you or do you just assume because it is that high it had to? Bluff (Cha) Check A Bluff check is opposed by the target’s Sense Motive check. See the accompanying table for examples of different kinds of bluffs and the modifier to the target’s Sense Motive check for each one. Favorable and unfavorable circumstances weigh heavily on the outcome of a bluff. Two circumstances can weigh against you: The bluff is hard to believe, or the action that the target is asked to take goes against its self-interest, nature, personality, orders, or the like. If it’s important, you can distinguish between a bluff that fails because the target doesn’t believe it and one that fails because it just asks too much of the target. For instance, if the target gets a +10 bonus on its Sense Motive check because the bluff demands something risky, and the Sense Motive check succeeds by 10 or less, then the target didn’t so much see through the bluff as prove reluctant to go along with it. A target that succeeds by 11 or more has seen through the bluff. A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell. ... Action Varies. A Bluff check made as part of general interaction always takes at least 1 round (and is at least a full-round action), but it can take much longer if you try something elaborate. A Bluff check made to feint in combat or create a diversion to hide is a standard action. A Bluff check made to deliver a secret message doesn’t take an action; it is part of normal communication. All the emphasis is mine and I deleted the irrelevant parts. First, I wonder what he was attmpting to do with the bluff check. There are 4 possible uses of bluff; telling a lie, feinting, sending a secret message, and creating a diversion to hide. I will assume that he was trying to tell a lie, though what lie would make the minions back off I don't know. (To me this may be a better time for diplomacy or intimidate, but thats just me.) Secondly, the target is allowed an opposed sese motive check. True, the npc most likely does not have enough ranks to beat the PC, but he does get the check, and this leads in to: Thirdly, The check gets a bonus based on how much the target wishes to believe the lie, how much believing the lie affects the target, and other such factors. It would in no way be unbelievable to give the target the +20 bonus for an outrageous lie that would drastically effect the target and he had no reason to believe. In my opinion the real problem is how much you feel that you need to tell the DM what to do. I would never tell any DM "that the npcs that were secretly watching to assess our capabilities in a hard fight to see if we're worth bothering with." In fact the only times I offer "advice" to any DM is if he asks for it and some specific rules stuff. Do you or have you DMed. This seems like someone who has DMed a lot having some trouble being the player again. I may be a minority, but I side with the DM and think you may have been the one "out of line" per se.
angryman 12-10-06, 11:41 AM	His tone implied that the DM fudged the social skill roll merely to railroad the PCs...if he didn't do that, then there's no problem from my view. If he did, that's bad DMing.
theotherdraxen 12-10-06, 12:11 PM	What's that famous paladin quote? Ah yes... "My alignment is Lawful Good, not Lawful Stupid." Charging down 20 angry soldiers is a stupid idea in real life, but an appropriate encounter for a 10th level adventurer. Lawful Good people can refuse to run and fight to the death: there is nothing wrong with that concept, and it isn't lawful stupid. Fighting when you would almost certainly lose is practically the definition of heroic. Personally, I'd rather have my character die and not show up again than be forced into a situation where retreat was my only option. I can't think of a single character that I'd really enjoy playing if he ran when he thought he was going to lose. There, all fixed now. :P All done in good fun. :) :heehee Well, this is why you should never be afraid just to run. You can't win every battle. Yes, he was railroading, but you gotta suck that up now and again. The fact that the DM cheated by making your social skills fail is what would make me angry. And don't give me any crap about the DM being above the rules to weave a rich tapestry of intrigue, this is D&D, not Vampire the Masquerade. Well, I'm a big fan of social skills, but for the way diplomacy and social skills work, the DM has to do that or allow charisma character to step in and take over entire kingdoms with their massively high modifiers.
Sunic_Flames 12-10-06, 12:31 PM	I used the bluff to say and I quote "Now's your last chance. Back down. You don't wanna mess with us." I asked if this was a bluff, diplomacy, or intimidate and the DM said "more like a beg but I will say bluff". Personally I'm inclined to think it's the least like a bluff and more like one of the others but whatever. At the time they were already advancing on us with their weapons drawn. I say it techinically worked because they actually did back down, stopping their advance and moving a step back uncertainly, but the leader yelled at em and made em advance again, DM saying they were more scared of him than us. Sure it kinda makes sense, but the whole inability to solve hostile encounters without fighting thing is bugging me. Nothing was rolled for sense motive on their part, or any dice at all for that matter. It was just a case of me rolling 18 with a +12 modifer and is told the above type deal. And I have never DMed. However sometimes he does take plot hooks from me as I have a fair number of ideas, and has asked me to do so as "he likes what I come up with". Because of the above I was not out of line for this. He said they were there when I casually mentioned that as a suggestion, basically he accepted it. Note the use of the word suggestion. As opposed to telling. Yes, I did become a bit more forceful in response to what was clearly railroading. However I believe I handled the matter calmly and rationally, and although he wasn't outwardly upset either he still insisted that we were unable to get out of this mess unless we can somehow take down a level 13 on our own... yeah right. And more recently he tried to bribe me into going along with the railroading... Wonderful. Still doesn't get the bad taste out of my mouth. And again, he didn't need this encounter to hook us if he planned on us finding out in 1 hour of game time when we get to the city anyways. I'm not sure what he was trying to accomplish, as I am not seeing any real goal. I asked him about it, and I was given a long explanation that basically involved meeting someone that would travel with us in the bandit camp... the problem being the circumstances behind it were way out of character for said character in many different ways. So... yeah. Edit: Here is the exact response to the bluff: The two wolves advancing on you stop and fall back slightly before the large one lets out a growl. "What are you two doing, attack them now!" He yells out in more of a growl. The two quickly turn back to face you, obvoiusly more afraid of the larger wolf than you. (This is an anthro game, thus the wolves.) And to the above poster that posted when I was posting: Understandable, but I'm not trying to do anything like that with it. If it seems unreasonable even if I can techinically do it I avoid doing it, because something like that just makes things too easy. Getting a pair of bandits to find easier pickings seems well within the realm of reason to me. Not like I'm trying to usurp the leader and take over... :P
Always-Late 12-10-06, 12:42 PM	You're telling me that my righteous Paladin that has dedicated his life to the pursuit of justice is going to run? He never runs: that's the character concept, and it's quite an archetypical concept, too. Heroes aren't supposed to run. Why? Because it's heroic! :fight!: Some character concepts are totally inviable. "My guy will never retreat. Ever. Not even when all common sense dictates it." "My character is so headstrong he will never check for traps, but rather charge right in." "My character is so pacifistic that if highway robbers approach him, the first thing he'll do, talking failing, is empty his pockets." "My character hates dragons so much that he will attempt to smite on sight no matter how much bigger the dragon is than he is." Don't run, don't check for traps, don't fight, and don't apply any sort of decent sense, and you're dead. What's that quote again... "Discretion is the better part of valor."
Always-Late 12-10-06, 12:43 PM	The two wolves advancing on you stop and fall back slightly before the large one lets out a growl. "What are you two doing, attack them now!" He yells out in more of a growl. The two quickly turn back to face you, obvoiusly more afraid of the larger wolf than you. Well, somebody succeeded on an opposed intimidate check, eh?
Sunic_Flames 12-10-06, 12:53 PM	Well, somebody succeeded on an opposed intimidate check, eh? Well, nothing was rolled, but yeah I guess. :rofl:
Lord_Varos 12-10-06, 12:53 PM	Heroes aren't supposed to run. Why? Because it's heroic! I can't think of a single character that I'd really enjoy playing if he ran when he thought he was going to lose. I agree. No hero should ever run away from a fight, even if he thinks he is going to win. With possible exceptions made for Indiana Jones, James Bond, Harry Potter, the heroes of Lord of the Rings and the Matrix, Zeratul, the Terminator, Luke Skywalker and Han Solo, every superhero ever created, Lara Croft, Gordon Freeman, Captain Jack Sparrow, Master Chief, Konoko, John Constantine, and all historical police forces, armies, navies, and guerrila militias ever. Some characters who didn't run away: Darth Vader (now deceased), that one chick in 24 (now deceased), and characters I play in video games (at least 1000+ now deceased). The only time heroes don't run away is when they know they will win - which is not the case in this instance - or when they have a death wish. The latter is usually fulfilled. And no, standing your ground to make time for your friends to escape is not losing heroically, it's winning tragically.
Chrono Nexus 12-10-06, 01:02 PM	I had a similar overwhelming encounter recently. It was 25 orc and 6 ogre to a 3rd level, 2nd level, and 7 1st level characters. Fortunately because of the my discretion, the remaining half of the group (that was still standing) managed to escape with the other half before we were totally overrun. Nobody died (although the 3rd level and the 2nd level were at -9, but stable). You should have fled in the face of impossible odds. There are sometimes situations in DnD where that is not possible, but this was not such a situation. The best thing you could have done was to grab one of your comrades and run.
Sunic_Flames 12-10-06, 01:14 PM	I had a similar overwhelming encounter recently. It was 25 orc and 6 ogre to a 3rd level, 2nd level, and 7 1st level characters. Fortunately because of the my discretion, the remaining half of the group (that was still standing) managed to escape with the other half before we were totally overrun. Nobody died (although the 3rd level and the 2nd level were at -9, but stable). You should have fled in the face of impossible odds. There are sometimes situations in DnD where that is not possible, but this was not such a situation. The best thing you could have done was to grab one of your comrades and run. Well, I was the first to get koed, so it woulda been someone grabbing me. And as I said before we were winning until the leader joined the fray, and by then it was kinda too late for that. Ironically if the leader joined the fight immediately we would have realized in character we were in over our heads and would have had an excuse to flee. I still feel there should have been some kinda build up to this. Knowing there were bandits about, an encounter with the lesser minions... perhaps even an encounter with the 2 best men who flee when heavily wounded to get reinforcements or even their leader. Remember, levels and hp are not written on one's forehead. It was 5v3, we were not clearly outmatched as one would be in a 9v31 example. To flee would have been metagaming unless we could somehow justify it in character, and we could not.
Lord_Varos 12-10-06, 01:29 PM	If we retreated right off, that would be metagaming you see. Or could be easily called such at least. Imagine: The PCs are in a large stone room with many, many, many hundreds of small boxes sitting around. There is a locked adamantine door to one side. The party has one hour to find the key in one of the boxes and escape before the leader's wife is assassinated in his absence. If a box is opened it zaps the opener for 1 acid damage. Now, before they begin looking, the DM says one of two things. 1. "By the way, before you start, you ought to know: it's impossible to find the key, and the door will open in 45 minutes." Would it be metagaming to not bother looking? 2. "By the way, before you start, you ought to know: the key's in the red box in the corner." Would it be metagaming to go to that box first? If the DM tells the players information, he or she expects them to use it. If my players were stuck in a dungeon and I gave them a hint to help move the game on and keep the characters alive, I would be darn frustrated if they ignored it because "that's metagaming" and kept pretending that they knew nothing. I think that "those guys looked mean and professional, not to mention that their equipment was expensive and extra-evil-looking, and his arrows were glowing magically" would not be pushing it as far as coming up with your own evidence on which to formulate the plan to escape.
Sunic_Flames 12-10-06, 01:55 PM	Imagine: The PCs are in a large stone room with many, many, many hundreds of small boxes sitting around. There is a locked adamantine door to one side. The party has one hour to find the key in one of the boxes and escape before the leader's wife is assassinated in his absence. If a box is opened it zaps the opener for 1 acid damage. Now, before they begin looking, the DM says one of two things. 1. "By the way, before you start, you ought to know: it's impossible to find the key, and the door will open in 45 minutes." Would it be metagaming to not bother looking? 2. "By the way, before you start, you ought to know: the key's in the red box in the corner." Would it be metagaming to go to that box first? If the DM tells the players information, he or she expects them to use it. If my players were stuck in a dungeon and I gave them a hint to help move the game on and keep the characters alive, I would be darn frustrated if they ignored it because "that's metagaming" and kept pretending that they knew nothing. I think that "those guys looked mean and professional, not to mention that their equipment was expensive and extra-evil-looking, and his arrows were glowing magically" would not be pushing it as far as coming up with your own evidence on which to formulate the plan to escape. Except it was not suggested that we flee by anyone in the game IC or OOC. That includes the DM. It has only been mentioned here on these forums, and by the time it crossed our minds it had reached this point. And both of those as written are metagaming, as you are acting on out of character knowledge in character. Now if they were reworded as follows: 1: Make a search/int/wis/something like that check, and on success gather some or all of that info. 2: As above. Then no it is not. There needs to be some in character reason to know this stuff. Of course that's a pretty open statement, and it could be something as obvious as writing on the wall, or perhaps a simple riddle. And don't forget locks are pickable, even an adamantine door could be broken down eventually... There are still ways out. Oh and the leader was a monk, what equipment? Anything he was using would not have been obvious as he would have been unarmed and unarmored. The other 2... *shrugs* We hit them about half the time and they hit us about half the time. *shrugs again*
Toloran 12-10-06, 02:12 PM	The biggest issue I have with the DM of the OP is that the DM told them (OOC) what level they were. The only time I've seen that kind of behavior in a DM is when he is railroading you and wants you to follow along. All his behaviour seems to be the classic railroading DM behavior: He has a plan for you, and heaven help you if you try to deal with it (arbitrarily adjusting DCs when things don't go his way, randomly adjust an enemies attack bonus so that they hit you more, sending enemies that are far to strong for you, etc). What's done is done though. I think you should talk to your DM about this though. Especially about how this was supposed to be an heavy RP-ing campaign and yet he isn't allowing you to RP your way out of situations.
theotherdraxen 12-10-06, 02:27 PM	Some character concepts are totally inviable. Which is what PrCs are for. What's that quote again... "Discretion is the better part of valor." Which leads to valiantly hiding in the closet. The only time heroes don't run away is when they know they will win Or if it's considered a dishonorable thing to do: this means that suddenly the knight is no longer a viable concept, as well as the Samurai, oh and the Ghulam, and people who place morality above their own lives, or their religion, or their allies, ect.. Sometimes, choosing not to fight is fine. But fleeing shouldn't be the only option. It's as bad as forcing a paladin to fall by putting him in a situation where he simply cannot make a good decision. Every once in a while I would accept (after all, if he's willing to die rather than retreat, what good does it do me it that credo isn't put up to the test?), but I don't think that makes it stupid.
IdleAltruism 12-10-06, 02:40 PM	Ok look at it this way. **** happens ok? Tell your dm you didn't like it and whoever else didn't like it, tell him how you think he should have approached it and then leave it alone. If you want to run your own game go for it all the power to ya. DMs screw up all the time we all have so what? Just deal with it and continue on, its nothing to get huffy about.
albinomonkeyking 12-10-06, 03:10 PM	Wow, there are a lot of opinions here that seem to be 'don't mess with the Dm'. Well, I am a DM, so here is my advise. First, are you friends? Did you meet outside of the game and decide to game together, or did gaming bring you together? Some people play with strangers because the game is fun, some play with friends because their friends are fun, as far as I am concerned my job is to make sure everyone is having fun because usually if a few aren't, no one is. It will just cause arguments and all sorts of shiz no one wants to deal with. So here is my take on it. I don't like running in my games. Should I have to? I dunno, that's the DM calls, not yours, whoever is DMing my game. Usually, I have fun if my character is cool and what my definition of cool is. A player in one of my games recently has lost...probably the last 3-4 fights, just disappointment after disappointment and I feel terrible about it. He isn't having fun because every session is just a beatdown on him. I am fixing that because nobody wants to be the guy getting his ass kicked. I mean, in LoTR most people would rather be Legolas, Gimli, or Aragorn, very few want to be Sam and Frodo who aren't nearly as badass and hide or flee all the time. I can hide and flee in real life, wait, I DO hide and flee in real life, can I please be the badass because this is a fictional game? So, in conclusion, I think it is BS. Anytime the DM throws something at you you can't win he wants something to happen, like you to run, and I don't play like that. The players determine where the story goes, I just supply the details. Yes, if I told them about an ancient crazy dragon they shouldn't roll up on him at lvl 10, but the scenario described was far from leading them to believe they would lose. And spending an entire session (or even an hour or more) of having your character get pounded sucks. I would recommend your DM changes his play style to yours, or, you change yours, or, you find a new guy. All depends on the friend situation.
DarkRhystar 12-10-06, 03:23 PM	It was clear in character they wanted to knock us out and take our stuff We agreed out of character that this was a very tough, but winnable fight with just us vs the minions We are told out of character the minions are level 8 each, and the leader 13. I used the bluff to say and I quote "Now's your last chance. Back down. You don't wanna mess with us." I asked if this was a bluff, diplomacy, or intimidate and the DM said "more like a beg but I will say bluff". Except it was not suggested that we flee by anyone in the game IC or OOC. That includes the DM. It has only been mentioned here on these forums, and by the time it crossed our minds it had reached this point. How did this really go down (as imagined by DarkRhystar)? DM: You're attacked by a trio of bandits. They indicate they only want your items. PCs: Social skills failed, let's kick the crap out of them. DM: They look really tough and have really powerful looking weapons. PCs: We can kick the crap out of them. If we can't talk to them we can kill them. Obviously all encounters are designed that way. DM: The minions are level 8 and the boss is 13. PCs: We can still take them. Let's roll! DM: :twitch: *Two minutes later* PCs: Aaaah, we're dying. You're a bastard. This is too hard! Why didn't you tell us to run away!? DM: My players are :looloo:
theotherdraxen 12-10-06, 04:27 PM	Wow, there are a lot of opinions here that seem to be 'don't mess with the Dm'. Well, I am a DM, so here is my advise. First, are you friends? Did you meet outside of the game and decide to game together, or did gaming bring you together? Some people play with strangers because the game is fun, some play with friends because their friends are fun, as far as I am concerned my job is to make sure everyone is having fun because usually if a few aren't, no one is. It will just cause arguments and all sorts of shiz no one wants to deal with. So here is my take on it. I don't like running in my games. Should I have to? I dunno, that's the DM calls, not yours, whoever is DMing my game. Usually, I have fun if my character is cool and what my definition of cool is. A player in one of my games recently has lost...probably the last 3-4 fights, just disappointment after disappointment and I feel terrible about it. He isn't having fun because every session is just a beatdown on him. I am fixing that because nobody wants to be the guy getting his ass kicked. I mean, in LoTR most people would rather be Legolas, Gimli, or Aragorn, very few want to be Sam and Frodo who aren't nearly as badass and hide or flee all the time. I can hide and flee in real life, wait, I DO hide and flee in real life, can I please be the badass because this is a fictional game? So, in conclusion, I think it is BS. Anytime the DM throws something at you you can't win he wants something to happen, like you to run, and I don't play like that. The players determine where the story goes, I just supply the details. Yes, if I told them about an ancient crazy dragon they shouldn't roll up on him at lvl 10, but the scenario described was far from leading them to believe they would lose. And spending an entire session (or even an hour or more) of having your character get pounded sucks. I would recommend your DM changes his play style to yours, or, you change yours, or, you find a new guy. All depends on the friend situation. I'm with this guy. It is also important to note that the bandit leader was a monk, so running wasn't a good option either. The players were pretty much helpless to the bandits, and had to be captured or forfeit their stuff.
Sunic_Flames 12-10-06, 04:42 PM	Toloran: Did talk to him, appearently he's gonna do something else now. (but we will still be captured) IdleAltruism: I'm not huffy, I'm being calm about it. You sound pretty frustrated though. :P albinomonkeyking: We were friends before gaming together, everyone in the group has known at least 2 other people there for at least a few months prior. And appearently he wants us to be captured, then fight our way out or something... Which leads right back to the question of how do we take a level 13? I highly doubt we'll be at full resources and stuff in such a situation, and we were the first time. DarkRhystar: Negative. DM: It doesn't take long for the camp to get packed up and everyone ready. After a light meal the group heads out. After nearly 10 minutes of walking the group comes to a fork in the road. A sign placed in the road points the direction towards Exposure. (the next town) As the group starts to move down that road a group of three Wolven jump out ahead of the group. "Well well what do we have here? Looks like some poor adventureres are on their way to Exploding." The largest of the group says, obviously their leader. "They've even got a Valpine (homebrew race) with them, haven't had one of them in awhile." The one to his left says with a wicked grin on his face. "Now now, don't want our guests to feel unwelcome. It's pretty simple. If you lot surrender and come peacefully we'll be sure to treat you real nice, otherwise..." The leader says as the other two draw their swords. Notice their first reaction was to draw steel. Pretty obvious they weren't exactly gonna be peaceful. The response? Me: *rolls 4+10 sense motive while reflexively drawing my own weapon, and gets the following result* DM: From what you can tell they seem to not want to kill the party right now. More than that you're not really sure. It seems that they more of plan to rob you then leave you unarmed and unarmored. Ok, maybe drawing my own weapon was not the smartest response. But it was definitely what my character would do as he (and the rest of the party) were in a foul mood in character and everyone knew it. Note also the way it is worded: Right now. For all we knew they coulda just killed us later. And noone was exactly happy with the thought of being robbed blind, especially as we had found a number of treasures en route. At this point I tried to bluff em, the results have already been posted here. And as they were approaching all this time, there really wasn't much to do but to fight (Or to flee I guess, but we knew IC they were as fast as us because one of the PCs is the same race... so then we get attacked anyways and don't fight back. Although we did not know IC the monk was faster than us we could have easily derived that he was from the speed of that initial charge he did once things commenced for a bit..) Fight starts, and even though we knew OOC they had a power advantage IC it didn't seem that way. We were both hitting and being hit by each other roughly half the time so we seemed equal individually, but we outnumbered them 3 to 1 counting the druid's animal companion who made good use of that trip ability on multiple occasions. Also helped the ranger did a 3x damage crit... which really put the hurt on em. The leader meanwhile was having a conversation with some woman "off screen" (meaning the players heard it, the characters did not). After a few turns of this, the guy charges the ranger and starts beating the crap out of her. She had no chance of getting away, and instead called for help while backing away and trying to take out at least one of the 2 minions to free up her allies so they could help. To her credit, it took 4 rounds to drop her. Unfortuntely 2 of those rounds involved no roll above 5 on her part. Not much more to say here other than the fact that 0% of encounters are supposed to be "unbeatable" for a reason, and powerful foes should be identified as such in some way in character before it comes to blows so that can be avoided. And again, why is such a powerful bandit leader wasting his time with us? Now if we defeated some of his minions prior we should have his attention... But chances are he has personal goals against targets more on his level powerwise and should not be bothering with such trifling matters, aka us.
DarkRhystar 12-10-06, 04:54 PM	And again, why is such a powerful bandit leader wasting his time with us? Now if we defeated some of his minions prior we should have his attention... But chances are he has personal goals against targets more on his level powerwise and should not be bothering with such trifling matters, aka us. There's always the "wrong place, wrong time" scenario, but even so... Why does such a powerful bandit leader only have 2 minions with him? Why was he talking to some random woman while his minions were fighting? Some of this raises more than a few questions. Any chances of your DM coming to answer a few of them? :)
Sunic_Flames 12-10-06, 05:04 PM	There's always the "wrong place, wrong time" scenario, but even so... Why does such a powerful bandit leader only have 2 minions with him? Why was he talking to some random woman while his minions were fighting? Some of this raises more than a few questions. Any chances of your DM coming to answer a few of them? :) Appearently the woman was from the same camp, the other minions got lost in the woods, and the woman wanted my character for... Can't really say here, not the mature forums. Let's just say a certain r word is involved and leave it at that. Though we only knew this out of character. If we/I had known in character, this would not have happened. I would have said something like "Why the hell didn't you just ask?" and problem solved. :P And I dunno if he will or not, chances are he'd be mad at me for seeking an outside opinion. :P Of course he does view these forums, he'd notice eventually.
theotherdraxen 12-10-06, 05:09 PM	And noone was exactly happy with the thought of being robbed blind, especially as we had found a number of treasures en route. Sounds like your DM was trying to get the group's power level under control. Compare the value of your equipment to pg. 135 of the DMG to see if you've overly exceeded the loot-limit.
Lanky Ogre Baggy Pants 12-10-06, 05:10 PM	And I dunno if he will or not, chances are he'd be mad at me for seeking an outside opinion. :P Of course he does view these forums, he'd notice eventually. This makes me wonder if there are more problems then you let on. If your DM would get mad about you talking on the forums then I would wonder how well your friendship really is. On the other hand, if your DM would be mad at how you misrepresented him then I would think even more reason for him to show up, but your friendship may still not be that great.
Sunic_Flames 12-10-06, 05:26 PM	Sounds like your DM was trying to get the group's power level under control. Compare the value of your equipment to pg. 135 of the DMG to see if you've overly exceeded the loot-limit. It's possible, but I kinda doubt it. Group's equipment is a mix of MW and +1 stuff, with very few miscellanous items. Also are various unidentified weapons (likely +1) that we were just gonna sell off because none of us wanted to use em. By the book that's about 200 gold per party member per weapon... combined with the 2-3k in actively used equipment and stuff and about 2k gold on hand I'd say it's about right, but I have not done the exact math. Lanky Ogre Baggy Pants: Maybe, maybe not. I said that because he seemed mad at me/us for confronting him peaceably about this, though aside from one comment it did not obviously show, it was clear anyways. It didn't help 1 of the players had no idea what subdual damage was and thought he was working on killing off the entire party... :rolleyes: And based on the fact he's trying to make it right now by doing stuff like giving us a chance to get revenge by killing the leader ourselves... I'd say the matter is now resolved. That, and I am working on a plan to do just that... Let's see how Mr. Level 13 monk handles about oh... 30 alchemist's fires in a bag thrown at him while he sleeps. :D
CryoSilver 12-10-06, 05:30 PM	I've just skimmed most of the thread, so I'll just comment on the OP's point. I tend to run very hard, gritty horror games. The average EL of an encounter is probably average party level + 2. I make it very clear when people join my games that sometimes they will have to run, and the fight will be unwinnable save by a string of nat 20s. The players learn to identify these fights after a few sessions (and maybe the occasional dead PC, which is another possibility I make very clear early on). This was not intended to be a battle so much as a plot point, and you should not always expect to win. There seems to be a camp that says that the DM should exists solely to cater to the whims of the players and do nothing but create a world filled with easily winnable battles and solveable puzzles. I'm in the camp that says that while the players should have a lot of freedom, that their characters nonetheless exist within the framework of a pre-existing world, wherein some people and creatures are simply more powerful, smarter or more influential than them. I do my best to avoid railroading, and I would probbaly have handled this fight somewhat differently. I would have had the EL been about party level +3, to make it a fight they'd barely have lost, probably after taking down both minions and badly wounding the leader, but still failing, and just barely. It would have been more fun, and more satisfying. That said, sometimes the PCs die. Sometimes there's a TPK. But I don't plan for it. I expect my PCs to have "run away fast"on their list of tactics right under "fight" and above "fight to the death"
Norhg 12-10-06, 06:34 PM	DnD doesn't deal well with its run away mechanic As soon as you have gauged the enemy, it will often be too late to get out What's more? A single round of combat can be fatal, if everyone wants to try at least two rounds of combat (12 seconds) before getting the hell out it is quite like that at least one character will be dead That said, I'm suprised the DM told you what levels the opponents were :confused: An attempt at intimidation?
CryoSilver 12-10-06, 06:42 PM	At low levels (pre-teleportation effects) running away is often as simple as dropping an Obscuring Mist and booking.
nastynate 12-10-06, 07:54 PM	Is anything really wrong with encounters that cannot be won? I certainly don't think so. As a DM, I use three basic types of encounters: A: Winnable Encounters: those designed to be overcome by the PCs either through role-play, combat, or ingenuity. (Basically encounters of the appropriate CR) B: Unwinnable Encounters: those designed to be avoided, or to set the stage for later events. [Like the example given by the OP; I suspect the PCs were supposed to either surrender (and be captured) or run away here, setting the stage for some sort of jail break scenario (where they retrieve their possessions and get away), or for some stealthy infiltration (to find out more about the bandits). There are players out there however, that simply won't take a hint or play along when things are set up like this. Some players will suicidally fight to the death, even when the DM throws out obvious hints (like stating the overwhelming CR). I don't even consider this railroading...the PCs have to be smart enough to recognize when they can't win, and act accordingly; clearly not all gaming groups can handle these kinds of encounters without crying DM foul.] C: Set Encounters. It might be common knowledge that a dangerous green dragon lives in the forest, but that doesn't mean the PCs should go hunting it at 2nd level. Conversely there might be some hills controlled by goblin highwaymen, but if the PCs don't pass through them until they reach 12th level, they will crush the little buggers. [Set encounters have nothing to do with the PCs at all; they are designed to give the campaign setting some verisimilitude. Usually these types of encounters are simply noted in the description of the area in the campaign, and not planned out like the previous two types. Set encounters should be tackled by the PCs only when they are ready to do so, and the players have to be smart enough to know their own limitations, and not charge headlong into a situation that will get them killed.] I summation, I think its silly for the heroes to defeat everything they ever face off against. When victory is a forgone conclusion there is no satisfaction in winning. Running away does not make you less of a hero; living to fight another day is far wiser than throwing your life away without accomplishing your objectives (wisdom is heroic too). Similarly, it is also possible to get beat up, lose the fight, and still have fun; being captured, or smacked around by the BBEG only adds more opportunity for adventures, be it revenge, escape, investigation, and so on. When combat solves everything, the game is very shallow in depth; I like more imersive interesting games, and sometimes unbeatable opponents go hand in hand with that.
hreslingozer 12-10-06, 09:34 PM	My party recently fought an unwinnable fight, one that is scripted in a published adventure. The important thing about the setup was: a. They had multiple options to avoid the fight entirely, even before it began. b. They had prior, in-character knowledge that this might be an unwinnable fight. The clues built over several days as the fight approached. c. They were given good retreat options once the fight began. Only after one character dropped and their henchmen fled did they finally turn tail. d. Had the characters surprised me and pulled it out somehow, with some crazy diplomacy or somesuch, I would have allowed it instead of forcing the action. Seems to me there are some major differences here. Yes, it sounded a little like railroading. But had you ever just considered going with it anyway? Stuff like that happens in movies all the time, and often gets built into good plots. I've "railroaded" my characters into capture, but only after discussing if they would like to do a gladiator campaign (hence, they soon surmized my intent and laughed it off). Railroading can be frustrating for characters, but it can also drive a good plot. Discuss it openly. Don't let it ruin a good campaign.
trapspringer 12-10-06, 09:38 PM	Adventurers? Sure. Heroes? HELL NO! ... Aladdin, Indiana Jones, and James F'n Bond all ran away on multiple occasions over the course of even a single movie and/or TV show. So did Han Solo, Captain Kirk, and even John McLane. These characters are all heroes, at least in my opinion.
theotherdraxen 12-10-06, 10:18 PM	... Aladdin, Indiana Jones, and James F'n Bond all ran away on multiple occasions over the course of even a single movie and/or TV show. So did Han Solo, Captain Kirk, and even John McLane. These characters are all heroes, at least in my opinion. Not the kind of heroes I play. I'm fine losing and dying over retreat, in fact, dying rather than run kind of suits the character concept. I RP over powergame, so a level loss is worth the sheer glory of holding my own against impossible odds. If the DM expects me to run, then he's got another thing coming for him. I try to always play fearless characters whenever I can. Plus, I'd kind of like to see fearlessness made into a feat, so fighters with low will saves aren't peeing their pants when they have to fight dragons. In short, I'd sooner take defeat than retreat.
Always-Late 12-10-06, 11:01 PM	I RP over powergame, so a level loss is worth the sheer glory of dying ingloriously and totally in vain in the face of obviously and completely impossible odds.Fixed. [[[EDIT]]] New Feat: Completely Fearless Benefit: You are totally fearless. You automatically succeed on all fear checks. Special: You are incapable, however, of judging when you are about to be completely creamed. Thus, you treat all threats as conquerable until everyone else in your party informs you otherwise and drags you away. Normal: You are sane, have to check for fear, and have a much longer life expectancy.
nastynate 12-11-06, 12:23 AM	Not the kind of heroes I play. I'm fine losing and dying over retreat, in fact, dying rather than run kind of suits the character concept. I RP over powergame, so a level loss is worth the sheer glory of holding my own against impossible odds. If the DM expects me to run, then he's got another thing coming for him. I try to always play fearless characters whenever I can. Plus, I'd kind of like to see fearlessness made into a feat, so fighters with low will saves aren't peeing their pants when they have to fight dragons. In short, I'd sooner take defeat than retreat. This is a poor attitude to bring to the gaming table. If you were really focused on role-playing you would run away when facing certain threats...you know even Conan ran from some of his enemies (and he was pretty darned fearless). How can your hack and slash, kick in the door, never run attitude have anything to do with role-playing? Sounds to me like you think with your dice. Not to mention you have all but professed to playing the same exact personality in all your characters, at least (to paraphrase), "whenever you can." Again I can't see how this is role-playing. To me your characters sound like suicidally illogical brutes. Throwing your life away against insurmountable odds, and expecting the DM or your party to resurrect you, is about as reckless as it can get, and puts needless pressure on your fellow gamers. D&D is a team effort, and it has no reset button or save spots to do things over...thinking, planning, and yes, even running away or avoiding fights are good options for heroes; death by arrogance is not heroic; that's how the bad guys get killed. :)
theotherdraxen 12-11-06, 12:33 AM	Fixed. [[[EDIT]]] New Feat: Completely Fearless Benefit: You are totally fearless. You automatically succeed on all fear checks. Special: You are incapable, however, of judging when you are about to be completely creamed. Thus, you treat all threats as conquerable until everyone else in your party informs you otherwise and drags you away. Normal: You are sane, have to check for fear, and have a much longer life expectancy. I'm a member of the TWF. You do realize that what you have done is akin to walking into a buddhist temple and punching one of the monks in the face, right? And besides, when did it become 'uncool' to play a character that was willing to give his life for honor?
theotherdraxen 12-11-06, 12:40 AM	This is a poor attitude to bring to the gaming table. If you were really focused on role-playing you would run away when facing certain threats...you know even Conan ran from some of his enemies (and he was pretty darned fearless). How can your hack and slash, kick in the door, never run attitude have anything to do with role-playing? Sounds to me like you think with your dice. Not to mention you have all but professed to playing the same exact personality in all your characters, at least (to paraphrase), "whenever you can." Again I can't see how this is role-playing. To me your characters sound like suicidally illogical brutes. Throwing your life away against insurmountable odds, and expecting the DM or your party to resurrect you, is about as reckless as it can get, and puts needless pressure on your fellow gamers. D&D is a team effort, and it has no reset button or save spots to do things over...thinking, planning, and yes, even running away or avoiding fights are good options for heroes; death by arrogance is not heroic; that's how the bad guys get killed. :) Like I said, this is as bad as throwing a paladin into a situation where evil was his only option. Believing in honor is not arrogant. I take your point about it being a team game, but I've never had a problem playing such a character. People have respect for someone who's willing to die for what they believe, and it is often this honorable sacrifice that keeps the party alive. "I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live." - Martin Luther King Jr.
Chrono Nexus 12-11-06, 12:56 AM	I'm a member of the TWF. You do realize that what you have done is akin to walking into a buddhist temple and punching one of the monks in the face, right? And besides, when did it become 'uncool' to play a character that was willing to give his life for honor? Whenever dying became uncool. Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of a few hundred billion years ago. Just what is the TWF. I can't think of anything but two weapon fighting. People have respect for someone who's willing to die for what they believe, and it is often this honorable sacrifice that keeps the party alive. "I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live." - Martin Luther King Jr. I have respect for people that throw their lives away for a good reason. Someone that has no respect for themselves and unthinkingly casts themselves aside in the pursuit of a 'good cause' that only exists in their fantasies is a fool though. Meaning- pick your battles. Defeating a few powerful thieves at the present can't measure up to a lifetime of progressing the mission of good. If the player wants to play a character that throws himself in the fire every time he gets an opportunity to, let him. But I wouldn't feel sorry for him, because it's just ritualized suicide unless he really has something worth dying for.
theotherdraxen 12-11-06, 01:08 AM	Whenever dying became uncool. Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of a few hundred billion years ago. Just what is the TWF. I can't think of anything but two weapon fighting. Tame War Foundation. In sig. My question was: when did dying for honor become uncool? I have respect for people that throw their lives away for a good reason. Someone that has no respect for themselves and unthinkingly casts themselves aside in the pursuit of a 'good cause' that only exists in their fantasies is a fool though. Meaning- pick your battles. Defeating a few powerful thieves at the present can't measure up to a lifetime of progressing the mission of good. If the player wants to play a character that throws himself in the fire every time he gets an opportunity to, let him. But I wouldn't feel sorry for him, because it's just ritualized suicide unless he really has something worth dying for. Code of Chivalry. Never recoil from a foe. Also, Bushido. Japanese Warriors would, by themselves, charge down impossible odds. I do believe in picking your battles, but running from combat simply isn't an option for a truly honorable being. This kind of philosophy encourages the fleeing soldier, when the rest of the men stood bravely before the enemy horde. I think that this culture has distanced itself from honor so much that people are having a hard time wrapping their minds around it. Why would you fight knowing you are going to lose? Honor.
nastynate 12-11-06, 01:25 AM	Code of Chivalry. Never recoil from a foe. Also, Bushido. Japanese Warriors would, by themselves, charge down impossible odds. I do believe in picking your battles, but running from combat simply isn't an option for a truly honorable being. This kind of philosophy encourages the fleeing soldier, when the rest of the men stood bravely before the enemy horde. I think that this culture has distanced itself from honor so much that people are having a hard time wrapping their minds around it. Why would you fight knowing you are going to lose? Honor. You have no grasp of Bushido or honor. Samurai sacrificed themselves for a reason (whether they fought to defend their family name, their lord, or because they were obediant soldiers). Samurai would not needlessly throw themselves into a frothing rage over a spilled cup of saki, or get killed in a meaningless fight; if they truly honored the code of Bushido (which very few truly did), they would go out of their way to avoid a meaningless confrontation. You seem to be describing the play of frenzied berserkers, and yet you mistakenly perceive them as knights or samurai. Recklessness and arrogance are not honorable; charging into every combat situation with guns blazing is both reckless and arrogant. In short, I'd sooner take defeat than retreat.Like I said, this is as bad as throwing a paladin into a situation where evil was his only option. Believing in honor is not arrogant. I take your point about it being a team game, but I've never had a problem playing such a character. People have respect for someone who's willing to die for what they believe, and it is often this honorable sacrifice that keeps the party alive. "I submit to you that if a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live." - Martin Luther King Jr. Dying for what you believe in, as Martin Luther King Junior spoke of, is completely different than dying for nothing. Since you refuse to run from any combat, it is clear that you have no regard for your own life, or for the cause you supposedly fight for. Martin Luther King Junior was not advocating getting yourself killed in a barfight; its sad, but you seemed to have completely missed his message (and probably killed your credibility with this terrible comparison).
Lanky Ogre Baggy Pants 12-11-06, 01:36 AM	...The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other poor bastard die for his. I agree with dying for a cause, but many times its living for a cause that is much harder. While honor is all well and good, there are many ways to have honor and still live to fight another day. Back to the topic at hand. I still feel that this is a severe case of a player wishing to run the show and the DM letting himself get walked all over. Every time you (sunic_Flames) post how your DM changed his mind makes me think it was b/c of pressure from you.
nastynate 12-11-06, 01:58 AM	Back to the topic at hand. I still feel that this is a severe case of a layer wishing to run the show and the DM letting himself get walked all over. Every time you (sunic_Flames) post how your DM changed his mind makes me think it was b/c of pressure from you. While I agree with you, I don't believe Sunic_Flames had ill intentions. I think he perceived something in his game that seemed unfair, but didn't actually think it through. His DM obviously had something in mind, and the players didn't get the message and reacted differently than expected; these miscommunications are the root cause of 99% of the issues both DMs and players have. As I mentioned earlier, sometimes losing is OK, and scripted losses often lead to better games in the long run. Sunic_Flame's DM was unable to convey this message to his players (though it seems as though both the DM and the players are at least partially at fault), and the players clearly felt like they got the crap-end of the stick. I say trust the DM until he does something that actually warrants a rant, and try not to strong arm him at the gaming table when things don't go your way. If for example, the next four encounters are all this difficult then the DM really is the problem, but I don't believe that is the case here. I just think Sunic_Flames jumped to conclusions too early. -Peace- P.S. Sunic_Flames, does this DM do this kind of thing regularly, or is this the first time he has thrown you up against insurmountable foes unexpectedly?
OravennasBrother 12-11-06, 02:07 AM	Adventurers? Sure. Heroes? HELL NO! You're telling me that my righteous Paladin that has dedicated his life to the pursuit of justice is going to run? He never runs: that's the character concept, and it's quite an archetypical concept, too. Heroes aren't supposed to run. Perhaps you should broaden your choices in fiction. Song of Roland - Had Roland retreated the massacer at Roncevalles might have been averted. Deed of Paksenarrion (Elisabeth Moon) - has Paladins being trained to gague the opposition so they know when they need to retreat - otherwise there would be NO paladins. Lord of the Rings (JRR Tolkien) - the fellowship runs away from Moria. The White Company (Arthur Conan Doyle - yeah Sherlock's creator) - Sir Nigel's company gets boxed in and anihilated because they failed to keep their line of retreat open. Njal's Saga - Kraji Gunnarson runs from the burnig of Njal's House. There seem to be lots of stories where the Hero runs away from overwhelming force. D&D sometimes makes it arbitrarily difficult to escape pursuit, but not attempting to evade a superior foe is hard to justify.
Always-Late 12-11-06, 02:18 AM	I'm a member of the TWF. You do realize that what you have done is akin to walking into a buddhist temple and punching one of the monks in the face, right? And besides, when did it become 'uncool' to play a character that was willing to give his life for honor?I'm sorry you interpret that as a flame. In most arguments I participate in, I give cheesy examples of whatever it is that we're discussing to prove a point. (There's one I like about how Detect Evil ruins epic campaigns by invoking a parody of Lord of the Rings which comes out looking dumb, but it's all in good humor.) In any case, I have never rejected "dying for honor," although I would have some questions about it. I definitely do not reject dying for a greater cause. I do reject, "never backing down," because you could be in a bar fight surrounded by drunken men with broken bottles who aim to kill you. There, you have died for absolutely zilch. Your statements don't make this qualification. (Plus, haven't you always wanted to punch a monk?)
Newpaintbrush 12-11-06, 02:41 AM	Fighting when you would almost certainly lose is practically the definition of heroic. Main Entry: 1he·ro·ic Pronunciation: hi-'rO-ik also her-'O- or hE-'rO- Variant(s): also he·ro·ical /-i-k&l/ Function: adjective 1 : of, relating to, resembling, or suggesting heroes especially of antiquity 2 a : exhibiting or marked by courage and daring b : supremely noble or self-sacrificing 3 a : of impressive size, power, extent, or effect <heroic doses> <a heroic voice> b (1) : of great intensity : EXTREME, DRASTIC <heroic effort> (2) : of a kind that is likely only to be undertaken to save a life <heroic surgery> 4 : of, relating to, or constituting drama written during the Restoration in heroic couplets and concerned with a conflict between love and honor - he·ro·ical Main Entry: 1stu·pid Pronunciation: 'stü-p&d, 'styü- Function: adjective Etymology: Middle French stupide, from Latin stupidus, from stupEre to be numb, be astonished -- more at TYPE 1 a : slow of mind : OBTUSE b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason : BRUTISH 2 : dulled in feeling or sensation : TORPID <still stupid from the sedative> 3 : marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : SENSELESS <a stupid decision> 4 a : lacking interest or point <a stupid event> b : VEXATIOUS, EXASPERATING <the stupid car won't start> - stu·pid·ly adverb - stu·pid·ness noun synonyms STUPID, DULL, DENSE, CRASS, DUMB mean lacking in power to absorb ideas or impressions. STUPID implies a slow-witted or dazed state of mind that may be either congenital or temporary <stupid students just keeping the seats warm> <stupid with drink>. DULL suggests a slow or sluggish mind such as results from disease, depression, or shock <monotonous work that leaves the mind dull>. DENSE implies a thickheaded imperviousness to ideas <too dense to take a hint>. CRASS suggests a grossness of mind precluding discrimination or delicacy <a crass, materialistic people>. DUMB applies to an exasperating obtuseness or lack of comprehension <too dumb to figure out what's going on>. Being heroic often involves being stupid. But being stupid does not define heroism. If I stand under a piano and gape up at it while people are shouting "It's gonna fall!", is that HEROIC? You can bet it's a fight I'm going to lose . . .
Puritan13 12-11-06, 03:14 AM	Your DM is only at fault for the OOC information he gave you. I am deliberately enigmatic with my players.
TarlSS 12-11-06, 05:17 AM	So this is an anthropomorphic game, with women being raped and monks and crap? I think there's alot more going on here than meets the eye. Level 8 wolf fighters and level 14 wolf monks take a buttload of time to make, and it seems there were other events occuring that might go around. As for scripted losses, yeah, you just have to eat them. Lose as best you can, which includes running away. As for all this non-sense about 'when did dying with honor go out of fashion?" Well, historical accounts say it went out of fashion during World War I. You can read about it in Ernest Hemingway's novels, or All Quiet on the Western Front. This was when mass media pertaining to war was actually available and the start of alot of the 'battlefront reporting' we all know and love today. Before in the Crimean era/Colonial era, wars were highly propagandacized by national governments, and before that in the Medieval era. The Medieval government was based on the fighting man, and the reason why chivalry was embraced was due to morale- A bunch of peasants armed with sticks COULD defeat a knight if they bucked up and stayed on the field. This idea stopped being popular once mass infantry elimination techniques- such as the machine gun or the artillery cannon- were introduced. Suddenly, no, 100 poorly armed men could NOT stand up in the face of 10 well armed and trained men, no matter how bravely they fought. The idea of honor in battle is a direct result of the fact that in medieval melee combat, a brave, battlecrazed man was a force to be reckoned with. We see this in the modern era too. Where? Terrorism. Standing your ground IS incredibly effective and fearsome. Doing it without bombs? Not so much. Dispute my arguments? Look it up. Many historian, military and otherwise who have probably done a great many more brave and worthwhile things than yourself have written several articles on the subject, and most of them agree that generally, no, there is little honor in dying for what you believe in, if you could have LIVED for what you believe in. George Washington believed in surrendering and retreating to fight another day. Osama Bin Laden believes that his men should die for what they believe in. Hitler believed that his SS and the German people should have fought to the bitter end agains the invading Soviets. There are VERY few heroes in REAL LIFE history that stood up and died when running away was a much more appealing option. Learn. You can't be a martyr unless you're a politician. Who's the guy that stood up to the tank in Tian An Men? Dunno. What'd he do? Nada. His precise legacy in history, heroic, but anonymous and stupid. Is that what you want your legacy to be? Your children ain't gonna remember you, so you better hope there's a god in heaven that will.
Sunic_Flames 12-11-06, 08:54 AM	While I agree with you, I don't believe Sunic_Flames had ill intentions. I think he perceived something in his game that seemed unfair, but didn't actually think it through. His DM obviously had something in mind, and the players didn't get the message and reacted differently than expected; these miscommunications are the root cause of 99% of the issues both DMs and players have. As I mentioned earlier, sometimes losing is OK, and scripted losses often lead to better games in the long run. Sunic_Flame's DM was unable to convey this message to his players (though it seems as though both the DM and the players are at least partially at fault), and the players clearly felt like they got the crap-end of the stick. I say trust the DM until he does something that actually warrants a rant, and try not to strong arm him at the gaming table when things don't go your way. If for example, the next four encounters are all this difficult then the DM really is the problem, but I don't believe that is the case here. I just think Sunic_Flames jumped to conclusions too early. -Peace- P.S. Sunic_Flames, does this DM do this kind of thing regularly, or is this the first time he has thrown you up against insurmountable foes unexpectedly? This is the first time something like this has happened. I admit I was a little too hasty in posting, but I wanted outside opinions on this. 90% of fights are our CR or higher, but this is not a problem for that reason. Actually it's not a problem at all, we like hard fights. It is a problem because the reason why they are superior in that aspect is because they are understatted (level 1 martial types with a total of +1 to hit for example, when they would have at least +3 between BAB and their revelent stat and more likely +4 or even +5 with other factors... and this isn't even taking into consideration flanking, aid another, and so on) and are not played smart. Whereas encounters that are of our CR but do have correct stats and are played smart pose the same or sometimes greater threat. In other words we'd rather face accurate equal CR fights than CR+3 fights that are neutrered. Which is why the level 4 sorcerer he let me run against the then 3 level 4s party posed a greater threat to us than encounters up to 3 CRs higher that had encounted the party prior. I actually argue with the DM to make smart and suitable opponents instead of siccing these... shells for lack of a better word on us that have a CR advantage by the books but are underscored so that they aren't. And when as a result of the illegal understatting of the enemies they get stomped and he quotes off some high sounding amount of experience we end up getting him to lower it by 50% or more because we don't feel it is justified given the (lack of) effort involved. And to the guy that mentioned rape... the woman in question would be forcing herself on a male character (mine)... don't ask me why. Now some people are still making comments like you should have run and knew it, it's our fault for not running, that we don't know how to run... Here's a previous encounter we ran into: Back to the previous day in game, we're on the road to that town. We know IC that there's a cave ahead that we're supposed to go through, on the other end is a camp area we can spend the night, and then it's an hour's travel to the town in the morning. We know this because one of the PCs used to live there. Anyways, we come to the cave and there are a buncha kobolds outside it. Short encounter, some flee. So we go into the cave with our guards up, expecting more of em. We see 2 paths, 1 left and 1 right. According to that PC there was only supposed to be 1 path. The left path looks fine, the right path looks like there was a cave in which was partially cleared. There's writing floating in the air in many different languages including Common, saying something to the effect of Danger: Keep out. Kobolds flee into that cave, because they didn't read it or didn't care or something. We see some tendril thing grab one and drag it shrieking to a "rock". Then we hear a crunch and blood drips down the "rock". This is a roper, but none of us knew that IC, only I knew that OOC, and I did not know how powerful it was. However all of us knew IC that whatever that was, it was pretty powerful and noone was particularly eager to mess with it. Now, here's the important part. We had the chance to avoid the encounter as it had not noticed us yet. And you know what we did? We made a point of going down that left path and getting the hell out of that cave ASAP! We were later informed ropers were CR 11... good call. Note in the above example it was clear that it was something very dangerous, scary, and most likely out of our league. And we had a chance to avoid the encounter entirely. It need not be quite this obvious, but it gets the point across. Now had we chosen to engage under such IC circumstances anyways as DarkRhystar and others have implied... yes, we deserve what we get. But we had no IC reason to believe we were in over our heads before we were. When the monk charged the ranger for example it's not like he one shotted her, she lasted 4 rounds alone against him. (she kept moving away, but he was faster) It seemed like we were facing 3 individually equal opponents, that we outnumbered 2v1 (counting the animal companion). In other words an intense, but winnable fight. Now let's take the above logic and apply it to this encounter. Let's say we encounter the bandits, but they are otherwise occupied. Perhaps they ran afoul of a security patrol, perhaps they are attacking some merchants... Regardless though the point is that they have not noticed us yet. At this point we the PCs have at least 3 options: Stealth: Slip into the woods on the sides and go around, basically avoiding the bandits and whoever they're troubling. Chances are bandits eventually overcome NPCs and do their thing. Neither side noticed us, so we just go about our business. Not very heroic, but safe. Ignore: Simply keep walking, past the fight or whatever. Chances are the outmatched side (the victims) call for aid, bandits are too busy to bother with us. They may choose to pursue, but at this point we have a huge headstart... so unless the monk chooses to run after us and leave his slower minions behind, not happening. And that would be foolish of him as he'd have no idea how strong we were and would be fighting against 5v1 odds. Again not very heroic, and a bit more well... evil as we'd be actively ignoring those in need (more so than the first example), but still mostly safe. Heroic: PCs choose to help the NPCs. Now if it were me, I'd make the NPCs about as strong as the PCs and have them occupy the leader, freeing up the PCs to defeat the minions and then join in... or perhaps do it the other way around. Alone, neither group is strong enough, but together they might have a chance. A low chance granted, but a chance. In this case since we would be helping the town with a long standing bandit problem and we just helped the patrolling guard or some merchant guess what? We're now town heroes. And if we lose... at least it wasn't akin to the DM saying rocks fall everyone dies, aka unwinnable. Not so safe, potentially doable, and much to be gained if it works. Note: The entire party is neutral aligned. Note in the above example options exist to the players, and the scene is being presented to them but they choose how to react and they need not get involved at all if they do not choose to. Oh and to whoever said make it CR of party +3... Yes, a well played CR 8 encounter would have served the desired purpose. Unfortuntely this would almost require I run them, as techinically the 2 minions are CR 10 together and we dropped them both as they weren't smartly played. With 2 of the party KOed and 2 more at low hp granted, but we took em out. And to be fair, if they were using lethal damage my character would have dropped to -9 from 11, and then had a 10% chance of stabalizing or die as he was not healed until next round... which I believe was after his next action. Now the funny thing is I came up with a very detailed plan that would give us a better than average chance of dropping this guy without any sort of outside help... Yes, a average party level 5.1 dropping a 13. It has a chance to fail of course, but not a very high one, all things considered. It simply requires some cooperation and teamwork, along with a few key abilities. I told the DM exactly what plan I designed with all players present to hear as it was one of those types of plans that needed everyone to work. His response was to mumble something about how he was supposed to meet up with his lost unit and regroup... basically he's supposed to get away now? :confused: Neat thing is although the plan can legitimately fail it is set in such a way so that if he attempts to fudge an escape everyone will know. I told him this. He got all quiet... :rolleyes: And this DMs, is why you should not have your players encounter important plot characters before you are willing for them to die. Especially when you have a clever bastard like me in the game, who will find a way if you force my hand. :P
Lanky Ogre Baggy Pants 12-11-06, 09:16 AM	This is the first time something like this has happened. I admit I was a little too hasty in posting, but I wanted outside opinions on this. 90% of fights are our CR or higher, but this is not a problem for that reason. Actually it's not a problem at all, we like hard fights. It is a problem because the reason why they are superior in that aspect is because they are understatted (level 1 martial types with a total of +1 to hit for example, when they would have at least +3 between BAB and their revelent stat and more likely +4 or even +5 with other factors... and this isn't even taking into consideration flanking, aid another, and so on) and are not played smart. Whereas encounters that are of our CR but do have correct stats and are played smart pose the same or sometimes greater threat. In other words we'd rather face accurate equal CR fights than CR+3 fights that are neutrered. I think the real problem for the campaign as a whole is right here. Why does he make these mistakes so often? Does he enjoy DMing, does he understand the rules, etc?
Sunic_Flames 12-11-06, 09:24 AM	I think the real problem for the campaign as a whole is right here. Why does he make these mistakes so often? Does he enjoy DMing, does he understand the rules, etc? I think so on both counts, but he cuts corners in npc creation which leads to stuff like this. Most of his D&D experience is from NWN, even though he does have the core rulebooks and various supplements. I made sure of that personally. Edit: An update... Plan failed because one of the PCs outright refused to cooperate (the rest thought it was a great idea and were fully cooperative) on the grounds that he hated one of the players IC and OOC and refused to heal her when she was near KOed... Appearently his hatred for her superseces the hatred for the guy who's been pounding his face in the past few rounds... and no he didn't pass on healing her to heal himself, that would have actually made sense. He also said we should go along with the DM... Did I mention he was the DM? :rolleyes: Yes, I said the dread word that must not be named. Between that and a long series of sub 5 rolls after trying and failing to get the fallen allies up (techinically we got em up... he knocked em right back down) everyone dropped. The DMs words on the last turn before the wipe out? "Wow, so our party was weaker than I thought." :banghead: :headexplo :nonono: :noway: :rant: :raincloud His logic? "I thought the druid was one level higher and had access to the next spell level." Oh well, time to vote with our feet. No big loss. Consider this matter resolved... though I wish it did not need to be resolved like this, my hand was forced. This is not the first style conflict, just the first I felt like posting about.
trapspringer 12-11-06, 02:34 PM	Fine. But don't ***** when your character dies during the the inevitable unbeatable encounter, which is what this thread is about.
Grand Theft Otto 12-11-06, 03:21 PM	It's easy to tell someone that they should just run away. It's harder for a party to run away in practice. Most of the time the opponents are as fast or faster than the party, and if you're out in the open then there aren't a lot of tactical options to cut off their movement even if you run away with them beating on you every round until then. In this case, it doesn't sound like even that would work - the DM had set things up so that they'd be beaten down no matter what. Yep. Theres little point in trying to run, particularly from a 14th level monk, when you're about 5th level. People dont run away in D&D because its usually pointless to try unless you can teleport. That 20 speed in medium or heavy armor or for small characters means you'll just get some arrows in the back for your effort. Any dumbass DM can teleport the tarrasque on you while you're character is taking a dump and kill you. It doesnt make them a good DM. Sounds like that's right up this guy's alley. "Rocks fall, everyone dies" Chooo-chooo!
theotherdraxen 12-11-06, 03:45 PM	Being heroic often involves being stupid. But being stupid does not define heroism. If I stand under a piano and gape up at it while people are shouting "It's gonna fall!", is that HEROIC? You can bet it's a fight I'm going to lose . . . http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l207/theotherdraxen/300px-Tianasquare.jpg These are the kinds of characters I play. Like it or not, stupid or not, this guy is heroic. This is why my characters don't back down: because they believe in something more.
trapspringer 12-11-06, 03:56 PM	Again, that's great, but the issue here isn't "my character died 'cause I didn't run away," it's "I don't want to have to run away to stay alive." Mechanical considerations aside, that is the issue. Regardless of whether or not a retreat was possible, regardless of any other factors, the issue is "I don't want to run away." The fact is you will have to run away to survive at times.
Morrowner 12-11-06, 04:33 PM	Anybody else have the problem have having difficulty retreating? At low levels when you don't have Haste and Fly and all of that stuff mobilizing 4+ people against multiple foes that are almost always faster than the party average and significantly faster than the slowest member is really freaking hard "Ooh, you were told that they were level 13, you should have run away." Outrunning a 13th level werewolf monk isn't really an option at level 5.
IdleAltruism 12-11-06, 04:37 PM	How many characters walk everywhere? Where are the horses? Theres a reason they're only 25 gp.....Most encounters you don't wanna face can easily be ridden away from(if they can catch a horse then the dm is just wrong).
Always-Late 12-11-06, 04:38 PM	These are the kinds of characters I play. Like it or not, stupid or not, this guy is heroic. This is why my characters don't back down: because they believe in something more.Stand up and resist, I agree. But if the world isn't watching and the tanks are trying to kill you (and they will show no remorse), everything changes. mose
Morrowner 12-11-06, 05:11 PM	How many characters walk everywhere? Where are the horses? Theres a reason they're only 25 gp.....Most encounters you don't wanna face can easily be ridden away from(if they can catch a horse then the dm is just wrong). I suppose the DM was just wrong because a 13th level monk could win the Triple Crown.
trapspringer 12-11-06, 05:15 PM	But expeditious retreat would shift things a bit, I imagine, as would any of the numerous movement-hindering spells available to a fifth level party, or just a simple tanglefoot bag. Getting away in D&D isn't as hard as it is being made out to be.
Grand Theft Otto 12-11-06, 05:47 PM	But expeditious retreat would shift things a bit, I imagine, as would any of the numerous movement-hindering spells available to a fifth level party, or just a simple tanglefoot bag. Getting away in D&D isn't as hard as it is being made out to be. ONE guy getting away isnt hard. Getting a party away, some of whom are likely moving at 20' or less, IS hard. Thats great the wizard can cast expeditios retreat, this helps Sir Slow Ass the fighter in full plate how again? Tanglefoot bag vs a 14th level monk? His base speed is 70, even halved (assuming you hit w the bag), he'll catch an unarmored medium sized character. And thats assuming he hasnt used his 680' dimension door.
Sunic_Flames 12-11-06, 05:57 PM	But expeditious retreat would shift things a bit, I imagine, as would any of the numerous movement-hindering spells available to a fifth level party, or just a simple tanglefoot bag. Getting away in D&D isn't as hard as it is being made out to be. One of the first things I thought of. Used it in some previous encounter. Noone else had one either. Also, the only spellcaster didn't have that spell. He had bless, mage armor, burning hands, and bull's strength... Dunno what else as he never used anything else. (cleric/sorc) For the record, our party movement: 40 feet. One guy can fly 80 feet... I guess he could get away even though he probably couldn't fly up very far due to the tree cover that was likely there. Minions: 40 feet. Leader: 70 feet. So we run, they keep up (minions) or move around in front to block our way. (monk) We either run forward (after somehow getting past them and likely taking multiple hits in the process), run back the way we came (even if it works... we eventually end up at a dead end, or forced to go back into the roper cave), or run into the woods to the sides of the road where given our luck we find the other bandits, or a grizzly bear, or something. And as the DM kept insisting we were "supposed to be" captured, even an otherwise successful plan would probably be handwaved off. Another thing. Monk runs around us, guess what? We have to get past him to keep going, and the road was 15 feet wide. He stands in the middle... Can you say AoOs against us? How many times would it take of that? The town is 50 minutes away after all... given our travel time, that equates to 20,000 feet... almost 4 miles. Do you really think we can play keep away for 4 miles under such conditions? And we were told we would frequently encounter terrain unsuited for mounts, which is why noone had one. Well actually one character did, but he got mauled by a bear and died. And didn't bring said horse with him anyways... :rolleyes: Techinically this was not the case, but we didn't really realize this until it was too late. Hindsight is like that. As I said before, this was not the only style conflict between me and him, nor was this just between me and him. The other players just don't post about it here. End result was I said I was starting a campaign without the things we all regarded as mistakes, everyone but him jumped on it and almost immediately called me the better DM when I expressed my plans and goals to them. Go figure. Also for the record, the monk was 11th level. The 13 was from LA being factored in.
TarlSS 12-11-06, 06:03 PM	Yay. You like to play stupidly heroic characters. Like I said, read any treatise by politicians, generals or soldiers, the -real- life heroes and you're not going to get anything but some nice words and a fancy funeral. MAYBE. To get a good start on things look up "The Lost Generation" in wikipedia. Start there, continue. Why should you expect anything more from the DM? The DM, because we can only assume he is an average person from society, will probably have viewpoints that fall in line with the MAJORITY OF THE MODERN POLITICAL AND LITERARY WORLD and frankly, would really have little impetus to grant you your little fantasy. You might as well be asking to level every five minutes. This kind of philosphy I hope you don't expouse in your real life affairs, because man, you're gonna have some problems. Everyone likes a bird-dog, but you're not going to find being one a pleasant experiance.
Sunic_Flames 12-11-06, 06:23 PM	Yay. You like to play stupidly heroic characters. Like I said, read any treatise by politicians, generals or soldiers, the -real- life heroes and you're not going to get anything but some nice words and a fancy funeral. MAYBE. To get a good start on things look up "The Lost Generation" in wikipedia. Start there, continue. Why should you expect anything more from the DM? The DM, because we can only assume he is an average person from society, will probably have viewpoints that fall in line with the MAJORITY OF THE MODERN POLITICAL AND LITERARY WORLD and frankly, would really have little impetus to grant you your little fantasy. You might as well be asking to level every five minutes. This kind of philosphy I hope you don't expouse in your real life affairs, because man, you're gonna have some problems. Everyone likes a bird-dog, but you're not going to find being one a pleasant experiance. Because I didn't get the point across the first few times... The encounter was deliberately designed so as to seem within our abilities until it was too late, and therefore we would not have thought of that. If we did think of it, it was legally impossible for the reasons discovered in hindsight, and if we found a way the DM would have thwarted it as that would mean ruining his plan. When we actually tried it it was deliberately thwarted by the monk knocking out again the 2 who got up that round almost immediately. We stood and fought because we did not have a choice in the matter, it was either fight and be KOed, or run and be KOed anyways. We weren't being heroic, we were just figuring if we were gonna be :censored: anyways we might as well try and give em hell along the way. Heroic would be standing and fighting even when escape is an option. Are cornered animals who fight their trappers because it's the only way out heroic? Because that is what we were... in more ways than one. Furthermore... I have already mentioned the DM is also a player. *insert mental images here* He had some grand scheme in mind involving promoting his character to the exclusion of the others... Basically some long involved quest for him that we have some undefined reason for helping him on and some NPCs have some reason to help him that is OOC for them. This is mostly because he wanted to change deities and alignments which he said wasn't possible otherwise... even though an alignment change wasn't even necessary. (He was changing from a CN deity to a LN deity, and he's TN.) So we get our ass kicked, just so a level or 2 down the line he has a seemingly unrelated quest for himself... wonderful. Funny you should mention the level per 5 minutes comment... In a single game day we went from nearly level 4, to recently turned level 5. DM decided to throw like 12 encounters at us in one day, shaved off their stats to make em super easy, and then gave disproportional amounts of experience which got argued down to half or a quarter that. This was entirely his idea, and we told him to chill. Several times. We could handle it, but that wasn't the point. The point is that it was coming across as some kinda non video game version of "grinding experience", and we weren't looking for that many conflicts in 1 day. He even handwaved away some rping between characters, saying it didn't happen. Or if we try and talk, we get attacked. Or he growls in character and tries to make us keep going. I think he was just trying to level himself... :rolleyes:
theotherdraxen 12-11-06, 07:40 PM	It occurs to me now that I have been seriously derailing the OPs thread, and for this, I am sorry.
Kemaratu 12-11-06, 07:42 PM	Hello! Yeah... So this whole DM situation, I'm one of the other people who play with Sunic (Theres one other, and the DM himself) and I cna tell you from first hand experiance the DM has always played a bit... odd. Sunic actually knows the rules far better than the DM for one, and usualy the DM checks with him to make sure he's doing everything right ¬_¬. This cna be a bit confusing. Anyway back on track When I got home on the first day of this incident, I find that the DM has actually moved FOR me, meaning that Sunic was the only player to actually had the opportunity to KNOW about the situation untill we were all drawn in. That means me and the other guy (Zeps) had NO choice but to go along. The DM made the choice that we would fight, and rolled our attacks and such. I think that's a step too far, don't you? Now, I'm used to being crapped on (The DM seems to REALLY dislike me. Every misfortune before this has happened to my character.) but the fact that he's taking the party, putting them through hell, just so HIS character can benefit, really isn't too cool. I;m not complaining, I just don't think we should be moved like PUPPETS for the DM's Character's benefit. ¬_¬
Novabomb 12-11-06, 08:32 PM	Mr Sunic, correct me if I'm wrong but my according to my understanding your dm is fulfilling the dual role of pc and DM. This is not viable. It is not unreasonable for the dm to have an npc travel with you, but it sounds like your "dm" is really just another player that does dming on the side. You did the right thing by starting your own campaign, perhaps your friend will decide to join the game and learn from you. Depending on the game, railroading might be useful, however it should never be made apparant as it just creates frustration for the players.
Mandarbgrim 12-11-06, 09:55 PM	I think the DM made a mistake. I say so because I did something similiar awhile back..when I posted about it I had most people take my side, but a few hammered me on it. I ended up deciding I was wrong more than the players simply because I was the DM. <Encounter was pulled from a module> I had 2 1st lvl characters encounter a troll's lair while traveling to a Kobold mine. They stopped to take a drink of water & looked up to notice a footman hanging upside down with his blood draining out, similiar to a deer. Then a Troll comes out of a lair 30 ft away. They attempt to Hide. This fails because..their donkey isn't hiding & the Troll has scent. The face off against him. Talking to him & the troll says they owe him some money for drinking out of his stream. Then the Dwarven Priest attempts an intimidation check. It fails. The troll laughs at them & slaps its thigh. The Dwarf tells the Rogue to sneak around & sneak attack it out of character, because the Rogue doesn't know what to do. The Rogue attempts to Sneak attack it & misses. The Troll walks over & cuffs him upside the head & knocks him out. The Dwarve uses Enlarge person & I allow another intimidate. He fails again<He has the better modifier>. The Troll eats them. From my point of view this was ridiculous. It was supposed to be a roleplaying encounter. Hiding wouldn't have worked, but the only way the Troll would have actually attacked them is if they attacked it. It wasn't hungry & had several bodies to eat. Too lazy & old to pursue them if they ran away. Gullible & stupid enough to beat out in any social skill use except for Intimidate..& even then they had a 50/50 chance. The players ended up ****** off & so did I. What did I learn: *Even if an encounter has many possabilities in which to solve it you have to foreshadow those choices so the PC's are aware of them to some degree. *Major encounters <One's in which the PC's may die easily.> should be foreshadowed ahead of time so the PC's are making the choice to go into "dangerous" territory. *Encounter's should not be one hit kills, yet they should be obvious enough that the players need to avoid combat once initiated. *Choices to get around an encounter have to be feasible. I had the Troll demand 100 gp <Straight out of module> but I didn't think them not having close to 100 gp between them. *Sometimes you have to take away player choices by foreshadowing so heavily that the way to solve it is obvious...I dislike this, but I should have done it at the end. *Always leave yourself a way out to avoid a TPK in the case the PC's do something incredibly stupid. On hindsight the Troll could have sold them into slavery for some barrels of Ale, but I didn't think of that on the spur of the moment. *Don't let players play character's with Tragic Flaws without talking to them beforehand. The Dwarven Cleric of Kord's backstory involved never having lost a wrestling match & not backing down from any challenge. This resulted in him claiming it was "Out of character" to run away even besides the Dwarf knowing he moved slowly & couldn't outrun such a big creature.
Amon_WinterfallIV 12-12-06, 04:06 AM	Look. You can't win every battle. As the proud architecht who used a CR 11 Sahugain Prince to take out a whole ship, the PCs should occasionally find themselves in a situation where they have to run. My character runs away when things get too hot; I expect the same things from the PCs. There is something to be said for trying to knuckle down something at the limits of your power; but this is clearly beyond it. You've got three bandits, and they're CR is all way greater than yours. Plus they've got a leader who's that dangerous on his own. Combined, you've got a cream machine. I recognize that running represents defeat, but what's important is keeping your player character alive. And you've touched on something else. THE DMPC. Well, now you've got a screwed campaign. This is not going to turn out well--the DM is very clearly interested in his own IC agenda. You need to have a serious talk with him about this, as this is a bad sign. You're DM is railroading the party; I know enough to know that the railroad only has one station--Sucksville. I'd rather leave the campaign without direction than heavily railroad it. But I think that your DM enjoys RRing, and he needs to stop.
Sunic_Flames 12-12-06, 10:23 AM	Mr Sunic, correct me if I'm wrong but my according to my understanding your dm is fulfilling the dual role of pc and DM. This is not viable. It is not unreasonable for the dm to have an npc travel with you, but it sounds like your "dm" is really just another player that does dming on the side. You did the right thing by starting your own campaign, perhaps your friend will decide to join the game and learn from you. Depending on the game, railroading might be useful, however it should never be made apparant as it just creates frustration for the players. He is indeed a dreaded DMPC. And for some reason he seems to be anti rp... every time we try and talk in character to each other either A: He growls at us IC and says to keep moving or something along those lines, especially if the conversation involves Kemaratu's character. B: We get attacked by something. C: DM handwaves the rp away, saying it didn't happen. (The last one only happened once.) "*Choices to get around an encounter have to be feasible. I had the Troll demand 100 gp <Straight out of module> but I didn't think them not having close to 100 gp between them. " I agree. That's why I revised things a bit when I "took over". "And you've touched on something else. THE DMPC. Well, now you've got a screwed campaign. This is not going to turn out well--the DM is very clearly interested in his own IC agenda. You need to have a serious talk with him about this, as this is a bad sign. You're DM is railroading the party; I know enough to know that the railroad only has one station--Sucksville. I'd rather leave the campaign without direction than heavily railroad it. But I think that your DM enjoys RRing, and he needs to stop." We talked to him, it went nowhere but continuing down that path. I don't even want to know where he was going with his last move... I decided that if the first 3 dozen or so attempts to reason with him would not work none ever would, and voted with my feet. He is now a playerless DM, and the rehabitiated players are immediately enjoying the greatly increased RP, storyline, and so on... As well as the friendlier attitude at the game due to the IC and OOC strain being removed. What I decided to do is take the current game as it was when we woke up that morning IC, as in before the bandit encounter so we're still at full health, have all resources we used in that fight, and so on. Then take it from there, taking the good ideas the DM had but putting a drastically different spin on them to make them unique and more interesting story wise as well as create completely unique situations on my own. Not to mention... not weird. I'd rather not go into detail as to what some (ok almost all) of his ideas involved, but let's just say there is one type of RP he is not adverse to and leave it at that. It was funny at first, but quickly grew annoying. Once that aspect is stripped out if possible though they aren't so bad, just need some polishing. I can't say too much about my plans as at least 1 player reads this thread but suffice it to say there are at least 2 and ideally 3 or more options at any such key juncture, in other words the players are not forced to fight, or do _________. Way I see it DM is there to weave a world, up to the players to decide how they react to it. And that is now where I come in. For the record, my character has slipped into the background a bit, NPCish like. Which since he was designed to be a supporting role character anyways this is not a stretch at all. Speak when spoken to, and sometimes offer advice, but it's about the PCs mainly. :D
Zemyla 12-12-06, 12:52 PM	The only time heroes don't run away is when they know they will win - which is not the case in this instance - or when they have a death wish. Or when they can't. If someone is vastly more powerful than you and wants you dead bad enough, he's more than likely more mobile than you. A 5th level party is being attacked by a 10th level wizard. They are hit with an empowered fireball and decide, "You know, it would be a good idea to retreat!" So they run away, but the wizard dimension doors there ahead of them. Or drops an Evard's Black Tentacles on them. Something that even a low-level foe can do to prevent retreat is to grab one of the party members. Will the rest run away and leave their friend behind?
nastynate 12-12-06, 06:18 PM	This is not facing down the tank in Tianamen Square. The players were not standing up for what they believe in or being heroic. They were fighting enemies they could not defeat for no good reason...surrender for crying out loud! Live to fight another day. The DM wasn't going to execute the PCs if they lost (he clearly planned on them losing). These constant comparisons to self-sacrifices and martyrs are totally unrelated to the circumstances...what was it you were standing up for? Oh that's right...you were standing up to the DM in order to sabotage his plans because you don't like the game....bravo! That isn't heroism in my book, but you can call it that if you want to. You could have backed down and surrendered. Is this metagaming? yep. But the DM opened that door when he told the players the CR of the opponents...he expected you to heed this warning...you didn't. That is bad DMing (because he chose to metagame instead of doing the work to provide in game clues as to what he wanted you to do) and bad playing (because it was arrogant and defiant to disregard his warnings). This whole game sounds like a mess. The DM is inexperienced and making many of the classic mistakes and the players are unwilling to back down even when logic dicates that they are outgunned. There is a clash of styles (low RP verses high RP), rules disputes, and a genuine feelings of contempt stemming from out of game circumstances. The gaming group is doomed. I cannot see any way for a bunch of people who do not get along, do not listen to one another, and do not enjoy the game to make this work. Time to find new games guys. This is no longer an issue about "scripted losses." This boat has so many holes poked in it I can't even believe you are trying to set to sea in the first place. -Peace- P.S. I hope that didn't come across as too harsh.
Sunic_Flames 12-13-06, 08:49 AM	These constant comparisons to self-sacrifices and martyrs are totally unrelated to the circumstances...what was it you were standing up for? Oh that's right...you were standing up to the DM in order to sabotage his plans because you don't like the game....bravo! That isn't heroism in my book, but you can call it that if you want to. I never did. Others did, I didn't. Neither did Kemaratu. You could have backed down and surrendered. Is this metagaming? yep. But the DM opened that door when he told the players the CR of the opponents...he expected you to heed this warning...you didn't. That is bad DMing (because he chose to metagame instead of doing the work to provide in game clues as to what he wanted you to do) and bad playing (because it was arrogant and defiant to disregard his warnings). DM: Hi, you're going to lose. PCs: :confused: DM: Yup, you're all gonna lose. And there's nothing you can do but go along with it. PCs: :uh-huh: DM: And I think I'll repeatedly rub it in your faces too. PCs: :nonono: ...I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make with that, other than I don't see it as at all arrogant to refuse to go along with such a thing given the circumstances. Defiant yes, but given the circumstances this is not a bad thing. This whole game sounds like a mess. The DM is inexperienced and making many of the classic mistakes and the players are unwilling to back down even when logic dicates that they are outgunned. There is a clash of styles (low RP verses high RP), rules disputes, and a genuine feelings of contempt stemming from out of game circumstances. Ok, I'll bite. Let's say we back down based on OOC knowledge. We get captured, taken to bandit's place. A female NPC forces herself on my male character... in great detail. This is the only rp the DM does do, and it was funny the first time... but got annoying fast. He takes it way too far, far enough to annoy even my extremely tolerant sensabilities. After that we look sideways and the bandit leader dies? :confused: And then we genocide out the rest of the bandits as only adventurers can and get like 4,000 experience + whatever the bandits give + some quest bonus? :confused: And this somehow leads to some long deity changing quest for the DMPC that (presumably) offers us some motivation to assist with? :confused: Actually I'm not sure what he was planning anymore... he kept changing it at least once an hour even when we didn't say anything to try and get him to. Thus all the confused smilies. :P The gaming group is doomed. I cannot see any way for a bunch of people who do not get along, do not listen to one another, and do not enjoy the game to make this work. Time to find new games guys. This is no longer an issue about "scripted losses." This boat has so many holes poked in it I can't even believe you are trying to set to sea in the first place. Yes, yes it is. That's why we left that DM a day or two ago and started again with me as DM. As all conflicts were between the old DM and someone else and not between each other, this effectively resolved them all. P.S. I hope that didn't come across as too harsh. Nah.
Morrowner 12-13-06, 01:20 PM	As a DM there are many, many important things to remember and rules to follow but I think chief amongst them is... "Run a game, don't direct a movie" So many things can go "wrong" from a scripting point of view, especially in Dungeons and Dragons, that having plans is insane. What if that Bandit's sword would have cut deep enough, scored and confirmed a crit, and it was just enough to kill a character? The whole campaign could have been bombed! What if the players would have gone on a crit frenzy or the bad guy would have botched a save? What then? Good to see that the DM is hanging it up for the time being. Anybody else notice that people with the true horror stories make the best DMs?:D
Sunic_Flames 12-13-06, 05:20 PM	As a DM there are many, many important things to remember and rules to follow but I think chief amongst them is... "Run a game, don't direct a movie" So many things can go "wrong" from a scripting point of view, especially in Dungeons and Dragons, that having plans is insane. What if that Bandit's sword would have cut deep enough, scored and confirmed a crit, and it was just enough to kill a character? The whole campaign could have been bombed! What if the players would have gone on a crit frenzy or the bad guy would have botched a save? What then? Good to see that the DM is hanging it up for the time being. Anybody else notice that people with the true horror stories make the best DMs?:D That is an excellent point, they were using lethal damage at first. Took a few below half with swords, then switched to saps for the KO. Speaking of crit frenzy, while noone was rolling very well in this encounter for the last 2 encounters under my DMing one PC was rolling 17 or higher 90% of the time and threatening a crit at least once a round. And it always occured at a cinamatic moment too, and wasn't cheated. I gave the guy extra xp for that, and made sure the description emphized the dramatic flair. He was half a level behind the next lowest who is in turn half a level behind the other two due to circumstance, so this also catches him up to the rest of the party.