Don't you hate when you have been doing something as PC(like a spell or ability) and all of sudden the DM says "that didn't work"
The really grinds my gear. When I hear a DM saying this I feel like he didn't plan for this and it would ruin his game.
My best memory of this is in a 3.5 game. Our minis were already set with atleast 50 skeltons on each side of us. We didn't know what to do we were despreate to get out.
We needed to run and we were all level 3. I decieded to turn undead. I rolled high enough and was more then double there levels to destory them
I would have destroied enough of them to make a path and run.
When I did it and was about to remove the monsters our dm says "that didn't happen"
We all went WHAT!?how
He just said it didn't work
After we all dead we found out it was a dream. It was fine, but I felt so mad. I finally got to use turn undead. I twould have been epic way to get out of it and I was denied for no reason(at the time)
I think I would have felt better if he would have role-played it bettter
"You turn undead seems to be powerful, but these undead don't seem effected almost not of this world"
I think I would have felt better.
Any stories like that(from both sides as PC or DM)
You crit the bad guy, roll damage etc... it is bloodied, you end your turn.
DM: Ah I forgot! last time he hit you, you were supposed to be dazed/stunned/whatever until the end of his next turn, so no damage.
Not a big deal really, but still annoying....
Edit: it can easily be applied the other way, the PC missed, but suddenly after his turn he realizes that he had +4 to hit from the leader.....
From your example, I would have prefereed that the undeade be turned and for whatever reason, 50 more come your way....
I'v almost completely lost all faith in DMs outside of my circle. Sounds like people just don't really know what the hell they're doing behind the DM screen, or they're just working out their own frustration on the players.
If this forum has done nothing else, it has made me appreciate the people I game with all the more.
If the PC in question wants to, say, Scorching Burst to melt the ice under that Frost Giant's feet, or attempt a Streetwise check to see if someone ever told him about some monster while they were getting wasted in the tavern, just set a high DC and let them go for it.
They'll generally know its a longshot whenever they attempt whatever it is they want to do, and it adds an element of dramatic tension if they succeed.
Don't you hate when you have been doing something as PC(like a spell or ability) and all of sudden the DM says "that didn't work"
The really grinds my gear. When I hear a DM saying this I feel like he didn't plan for this and it would ruin his game.
My best memory of this is in a 3.5 game. Our minis were already set with atleast 50 skeltons on each side of us. We didn't know what to do we were despreate to get out.
We needed to run and we were all level 3. I decieded to turn undead. I rolled high enough and was more then double there levels to destory them
I would have destroied enough of them to make a path and run.
When I did it and was about to remove the monsters our dm says "that didn't happen"
We all went WHAT!?how
He just said it didn't work
After we all dead we found out it was a dream. It was fine, but I felt so mad. I finally got to use turn undead. I twould have been epic way to get out of it and I was denied for no reason(at the time)
I think I would have felt better if he would have role-played it bettter
"You turn undead seems to be powerful, but these undead don't seem effected almost not of this world"
I think I would have felt better.
Any stories like that(from both sides as PC or DM)
That's a trap for DMs. I want to run a Kobayashi Maru scenario, myself, which is what that was in a way. Players are doomed to fail, but it's played off as a test of character. But there's a definite threat there that if they do well, and you still have them lose, it's hard to make it not seem arbitrary and jerkish.
Yeah, another scenario:
You crit the bad guy, roll damage etc... it is bloodied, you end your turn.
DM: Ah I forgot! last time he hit you, you were supposed to be dazed/stunned/whatever until the end of his next turn, so no damage.
Not a big deal really, but still annoying....
Edit: it can easily be applied the other way, the PC missed, but suddenly after his turn he realizes that he had +4 to hit from the leader.....
From your example, I would have prefereed that the undeade be turned and for whatever reason, 50 more come your way....
Unless forgetting something is causing the party to fail when they shouldn't be, i usually handwave either events unless someone remembers right away. Way too much backtracking can really drag combat down.
That's a trap for DMs. I want to run a Kobayashi Maru scenario, myself, which is what that was in a way. Players are doomed to fail, but it's played off as a test of character. But there's a definite threat there that if they do well, and you still have them lose, it's hard to make it not seem arbitrary and jerkish.
Do you want to test your players' character or their characters' character? (wow, that's confusing.)
I love Tomb of Horrors. That being said, I want to know at the start of the night that we're running Tomb of Horrors. I want to know that we're all supposed to die glorious deaths. When we pull out Paranoia, I know I'm going to die. I have a great time with that. But I don't want to sit down to a game of Settlers of Catan and discover I'm playing Avalon Hill's Civilization.
I got sick of the indulgent grin the GM wore every time I asked him if the hit seemed to be having any effect. My next character is designed to slice through encounters like this like butter (6d6 vitriolic chain blast FTW, and Shadow Weave caster so he can't nerf me in the antimagic zone part of the campaign), just to wipe that thing off his face.
That's a trap for DMs. I want to run a Kobayashi Maru scenario, myself, which is what that was in a way. Players are doomed to fail, but it's played off as a test of character. But there's a definite threat there that if they do well, and you still have them lose, it's hard to make it not seem arbitrary and jerkish.
Do you want to test your players' character or their characters' character? (wow, that's confusing.)
I just think it's good to know if the players can accept their characters' dying with dignity. And without flinging dice.
Ah, the whole "you're standing naked, on a narrow bridge suspended above a volcanic lake of magma, surrounded by 12 red dragons and trapped within an anti magic zone. You're dazed and slowed and you have one round to defeat the dragons and escape before the volcano erupts, killing you."
That's no test of character; you don't have any choices to make. Your only option is to burn to death.
Ah, the whole "you're standing naked, on a narrow bridge suspended above a volcanic lake of magma, surrounded by 12 red dragons and trapped within an anti magic zone. You're dazed and slowed and you have one round to defeat the dragons and escape before the volcano erupts, killing you."
That's no test of character; you don't have any choices to make. Your only option is to burn to death.
My response to that situation? "I charge the volcano, because I'll be damned if it's gonna take me without a fight."
That's a trap for DMs. I want to run a Kobayashi Maru scenario, myself, which is what that was in a way. Players are doomed to fail, but it's played off as a test of character. But there's a definite threat there that if they do well, and you still have them lose, it's hard to make it not seem arbitrary and jerkish.
Do you want to test your players' character or their characters' character? (wow, that's confusing.)
I just think it's good to know if the players can accept their characters' dying with dignity. And without flinging dice.
I like my DMs to be straight up with me, and not try to bury obnoxious character tests into the game.
Character death is one thing. Being tricked or forced into a situation that is unwinnable when the standard agreement between DMs and players is that encounters are winnable unless noted otherwise is annoying. If my character got dumped into an unwinnable situation by a DM, which I then went on to win against all odds, and the DM killed my character anyway, damn right I would be upset, but it wouldn't be because my character died. It would be because of the crappy DMing.
If my DM then tried to play it off like I just failed some test of character, I would be doubly irritated. Imagine if a player brought weighted dice to the table, and then when everybody got annoyed at him when they figured it out, he tried to suggest that everybody had failed his little test of character. What test of character? Is it really a sign of poor character to be irritated at somebody who rigs the game so you can't win?
Yeah, another scenario:
You crit the bad guy, roll damage etc... it is bloodied, you end your turn.
DM: Ah I forgot! last time he hit you, you were supposed to be dazed/stunned/whatever until the end of his next turn, so no damage.
Not a big deal really, but still annoying....
I always err on the side of the players. If I forget to add an effect from a monsters, then it doesn't happen. However, if a player forgets to add an effect, I try to apply it.
In my last game, I forgot to add a Nightmare to the initiative (I use MapTools to keep track of it and didn't realize it right away). Once I realized it, I added the Nightmare to the END of the initiative order.
Our joke was that the Nightmare was in labor and was about to produce a mare.
Being tricked or forced into a situation that is unwinnable when the standard agreement between DMs and players is that encounters are winnable unless noted otherwise is annoying. If my character got dumped into an unwinnable situation by a DM, which I then went on to win against all odds, and the DM killed my character anyway, damn right I would be upset, but it wouldn't be because my character died. It would be because of the crappy DMing.
Note: I don't mind being told or saying, "There are encounters in here that you're not expected to win. If you decide to risk it, come up with a plan, implement it, and win, there will be some really nice rewards, but running away may well be the right choice.". I don't consider that crappy DMing. That's being told up front what to expect as far as challenge is concerned.
If my DM then tried to play it off like I just failed some test of character,
I think I get the core of your misunderstanding. Dying isn't "failing." Flinging dice, whining, or a Paladin of Bahamut tripping up the other PCs in order to make sure only their character survives is.
If my DM then tried to play it off like I just failed some test of character,
I think I get the core of your misunderstanding. Dying isn't "failing." Flinging dice, whining, or a Paladin of Bahamut tripping up the other PCs in order to make sure only their character survives is.
Yeah sometimes the dice are against you and your entire party. Our dm regularly rolls nat 20s we had a fight in the scales of war that was a total party kill, since it was early enough in and the dm wasn't trying to kill us everyone made new characters, 2 fights in we realized everyone is melee so me and one other person are switching characters again to benifit the entire party.
Ah, the whole "you're standing naked, on a narrow bridge suspended above a volcanic lake of magma, surrounded by 12 red dragons and trapped within an anti magic zone. You're dazed and slowed and you have one round to defeat the dragons and escape before the volcano erupts, killing you."
That's no test of character; you don't have any choices to make. Your only option is to burn to death.
My response to that situation? "I charge the volcano, because I'll be damned if it's gonna take me without a fight."
lol.
I'v almost completely lost all faith in DMs outside of my circle.
You know why you hear so many DM horror stories?
Because everyone loves to complain. Doesn't matter if you're Mother Theresa or some punk living in Nobodycaresistan, you'll complain, even if it isn't out loud.
Lots of people have good DM stories that they don't talk about because streams of "hey guys I had a pretty fun session" are less interesting to read than "hey guys my DM is a tremendous ass and I wish I had the gumption to string him up by his ankles and hang him over an uncomfortably warm fire while I tell him how much of a jerk he is."
I'm a big fan of at least letting the PC try.
This right here.
And if I forget to daze/stun/slow/inflict ongoing damage to a player, I forget. It's the same rule we have in Monopoly; if the next turn begins and I haven't collected on my money/status effects, bully for me. I won't stress out of a player tells me "Oh yeah, and the Dragon takes 5 ongoing poison from my attack last turn" if I'm in the midst of a dragon's turn, but I won't let him stack on 45 damage from the past several turns of forgotten damage. It's just to keep the game moving.
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
I find it annoying that we can't tell which posts have been edited or removed by ORCs anymore. It was refreshing to see that it was usually the people I expected it to be. Oh well.
I only really had the problem with one DM, the same one who dropped a meteor on us, actually. He was infamous for fudging dice against us; but for his DMPCs, allowing character options for his DMPCs that were denied to us (like psionics), and doing things like arbitrarily deciding the party just plain dies when we deviate from his precious story (which was 9 times out of 10 a piece of wannabe machiavellian drivel). If it took his DMPC out of the spotlight or even marginally deviated from his planned storyline events, it didn't happen...no matter what the dice, our stats, or our own ability to reason, said about it.
I find it annoying that we can't tell which posts have been edited or removed by ORCs anymore. It was refreshing to see that it was usually the people I expected it to be. Oh well.
How long did you put up with this guy?
Eladrin in prison might be difficult scenario to play through without breaking story in half. Perception OPed up Cleric might be almost imposble to sneak upon and the like.
If players want to blatantly dungeon/story break I will be doing something to prevent it. Whether it will be doing similarly blatant hacks or something more subtle will depend on how quick i can think and what tools are available to me.
In some other cases this dont work thing is "plot twist" type. It will be either heavily forshadowed, or minorly inconvenient, or wil have not deeple cvered way out, or will be reimbursed by story to the player that recieved it.
Eladrin in prison might be difficult scenario to play through without breaking story in half. Perception OPed up Cleric might be almost imposble to sneak upon and the like.
Not really. Just make a prison with no windows. You need Line of Sight to teleport.
Being tricked or forced into a situation that is unwinnable when the standard agreement between DMs and players is that encounters are winnable unless noted otherwise is annoying. If my character got dumped into an unwinnable situation by a DM, which I then went on to win against all odds, and the DM killed my character anyway, damn right I would be upset, but it wouldn't be because my character died. It would be because of the crappy DMing.
Note: I don't mind being told or saying, "There are encounters in here that you're not expected to win. If you decide to risk it, come up with a plan, implement it, and win, there will be some really nice rewards, but running away may well be the right choice.". I don't consider that crappy DMing. That's being told up front what to expect as far as challenge is concerned.
Well, that is "otherwise noted," although honestly I consider running away to be an acceptable outcome. "Win" in Dunegeonese means that the players the players have a reasonable chance of success, for a given value of success, which will vary table by table and game by game, and even encounter by encounter.
If my DM then tried to play it off like I just failed some test of character,
I think I get the core of your misunderstanding. Dying isn't "failing." Flinging dice, whining, or a Paladin of Bahamut tripping up the other PCs in order to make sure only their character survives is.
No, I got that. What I am saying is that your methodology is bad. If you stick people in hopeless situations that are rigged so that they cannot succeed, then you are going to get a stronger reaction against the hoplessness and frustration of the situation than you are going to get from any one character dying. You're essentially saying, "Here, bang your head against this wall for the next hour or so. I promise that if you bang your head just right, the wall will collapse." And then when the player starts to discover the trick and gets frustrated because they have spent the last hour banging their head against a wall that will never give no matter how they hit it, you say that they have failed a test of character because they get upset with you.
I'm saying you are not testing a player's reaction to having their character die. You're testing a player's willingness to let you play tricks on them. If you're specifically looking for players who don't mind if you screw with their expectations and railroad them into failure, then by all means run a Kobayashi Maru for them. If you want to test a player's reaction to having their character die in a more typical, expected DnD scenario such as a result of poor rolls, bad strategy, or charging headfirst into a situation that was over their head when they had proper warning ahead of time, you'll just have to wait for those situations to arise naturally.
As for reversing stuff happening in battles because players/DMs forgot something, unless it is truly important I am not going to bother. It simply slow down things too much. If it is vital, I treat it on a case-by-case basis.
Wouldn't it be better for the game if you simply tell your players you are going to put their characters in a Kobayshi Maru
One of my big pieces of advice to rookie DMs is to never drop a big surprise. It's not that surprises in RPGs are bad things, persay, but that it's really hard to know how a group will respond to it. That sort of gauging is a skill that can take years to hone, and can still be fraught with misreading. For stuff like that sort of scenario, the potential cost of reaction by asking the players straight-up if the no-win scenario's cool compared with the potential rage of the surprise is almost always leaning in the favor of the inquisitive.
Still, an unwinnable situation that doesn't clearly have it labeled on the box is just frustrating for a game, and is often a bit of a cop-out for a story. The point of a good unwinnable situation is that it should be, in fact, that way for anyone else. If you set it up right, you can pit the players against an unbeatable foe early, presaging a later encounter and establishing the local mega-badass. The trick is that there should usually be several paths to overcoming that foe, the specifics of which tend to come down to the sort of tale being told and the characters involved. Again, as I'd recommend to new DMs, you're better off erring on the side of too obvious rather than too vague, since it's hard to know how readily someone will catch a subtle plot hook.
Example: Once upon a time in an Exalted game, I created a 'puzzle trap' that cut off the party from the central room of a manse. A short tunnel with two doors was the only way in, and though it only looked to be about 20 feet long, the further you walked into it, the further the other door got. Now, I'd done a bit to establish the idea of some metaphysical magical tweaking of the creator, but nto enough. What resulted was a fascinated group experimenting away for over an hour OoC-time, failing to miss the answer: walk backwards. After the fact, it seems a perfect puzzle, since it would take either a brilliant leap or a complete random shot of idiocy to attempt that, which would keep out most interlopers as a matter of course; smart enough to realize that, and you'd be about able to build a manse like that on your own, and dumb enough would belie getting past the previous traps along the way. Thankfully, the group enjoyed the puzzle and I was able to pull the "smart guy roll for it" latch before they got too frustrated. Still, they didn't seem to learn the lesson of that puzzle for other ones later on that were equally mad/brilliant in their workarounds.
Eladrin in prison might be difficult scenario to play through without breaking story in half. Perception OPed up Cleric might be almost imposble to sneak upon and the like.
Not really. Just make a prison with no windows. You need Line of Sight to teleport.
Unless they also happen to be a warlock and took the 6th level daily utility that allows you to teleport without line of site.
Eladrin in prison might be difficult scenario to play through without breaking story in half. Perception OPed up Cleric might be almost imposble to sneak upon and the like.
Not really. Just make a prison with no windows. You need Line of Sight to teleport.
Unless they also happen to be a warlock and took the 6th level daily utility that allows you to teleport without line of site.
Make a prison with no windows, and place it inside another prison with no windows, and once per day put the Warlock back in the center prison and whip him for trying.
It's not that hard
Yeah, another scenario:
You crit the bad guy, roll damage etc... it is bloodied, you end your turn.
DM: Ah I forgot! last time he hit you, you were supposed to be dazed/stunned/whatever until the end of his next turn, so no damage.
This happens on both sides of the screen. I have implemented a "you forget it, it doesn't happen" rule. I got tired of players saying something like "oh, last round my power gave everyone 5 temporary hit points..."
They might groan that I say "sorry, it didn't happen then" but in reality it benefits them, since I am always forgetting things like monsters' auras and things like that.
No, I got that. What I am saying is that your methodology is bad. If you stick people in hopeless situations that are rigged so that they cannot succeed, then you are going to get a stronger reaction against the hoplessness and frustration of the situation than you are going to get from any one character dying. You're essentially saying, "Here, bang your head against this wall for the next hour or so. I promise that if you bang your head just right, the wall will collapse." And then when the player starts to discover the trick and gets frustrated because they have spent the last hour banging their head against a wall that will never give no matter how they hit it, you say that they have failed a test of character because they get upset with you.
I'm saying you are not testing a player's reaction to having their character die. You're testing a player's willingness to let you play tricks on them. If you're specifically looking for players who don't mind if you screw with their expectations and railroad them into failure, then by all means run a Kobayashi Maru for them. If you want to test a player's reaction to having their character die in a more typical, expected DnD scenario such as a result of poor rolls, bad strategy, or charging headfirst into a situation that was over their head when they had proper warning ahead of time, you'll just have to wait for those situations to arise naturally.
I'm not sure where to start here. Maybe I presented it wrong, cause I did. The Kobayashi Maru is an icon of nerd lore. It's not simply an unwinnable situation and, in fact, there are ways to win that range from boring (I don't go in) to awesome (I slip the DM five bucks). It's not just about seeing how they handle the character dying. It's also about how they approach situations. Are they careful? Do they rush in? How creative are they? And then there are the little variations on it we see that aren't Kobayashi Maru. Two similar scenarios we've also seen test specifically whether or not they can make hard decisions. Can they handle sending others to their deaths? Can they choose between saving the lives of two people? Do they risk everyone to save both or do they doom one to have a higher chance saving the other?
So while you can rage about "OMG, you gave us hopeless situations and I banged my head on it you jerk!" the DM now knows more about the groups ability to be creative and think outside of the box, work together, their thresholds, how well they keep in character in combat, decision making, and the kind of themes they're willing to work with. It's a stress test that covers numerous bases.
Yeah, another scenario:
You crit the bad guy, roll damage etc... it is bloodied, you end your turn.
DM: Ah I forgot! last time he hit you, you were supposed to be dazed/stunned/whatever until the end of his next turn, so no damage.
This happens on both sides of the screen. I have implemented a "you forget it, it doesn't happen" rule. I got tired of players saying something like "oh, last round my power gave everyone 5 temporary hit points..."
They might groan that I say "sorry, it didn't happen then" but in reality it benefits them, since I am always forgetting things like monsters' auras and things like that.
We came to the same conclusion and implemented a similar houserule. It fixed any further misunderstanding. And I totally agree that often as a DM I forget stuff like auras, too bad, I pay attention next time.
So while you can rage about "OMG, you gave us hopeless situations and I banged my head on it you jerk!" the DM now knows more about the groups ability to be creative and think outside of the box, work together, their thresholds, how well they keep in character in combat, decision making, and the kind of themes they're willing to work with. It's a stress test that covers numerous bases.
Speaking as someone who both DMs and plays, I'm really not attached to being treated like a mouse in a science lab, especially if the person thinks doing it to me when I don't want it done is a good thing. In the course of learning this stuff about them, I'm pretty sure that they're learning something about you as well. My gut feeling is that they're not going to like what they learned.
This is supposed to be fun. Getting my threshold for anything stress tested without my consent is, in no way, fun. Why you think it might be fun for your players escapes my ability to imagine.
Speaking as someone who both DMs and plays, I'm really not attached to being treated like a mouse in a science lab, especially if the person thinks doing it to me when I don't want it done is a good thing. In the course of learning this stuff about them, I'm pretty sure that they're learning something about you as well. My gut feeling is that they're not going to like what they learned.
This is supposed to be fun. Getting my threshold for anything stress tested without my consent is, in no way, fun. Why you think it might be fun for your players escapes my ability to imagine.
While my proposal only currently exists theoretically, your response seems more to be on principle than any theory. Why do you think that simply testing the players responses to scenarios is somehow berating enough to compare it to tests on mice? It's like you've never played a game that taught a skill then saught to test mastery of a skill. Which is a basic fundament of game design. But it's still a form of testing. This is largely just the entry test, see what skills already exist.
Being tested can be fun. An ideally (theoretically) run Kobayashi Maru should just come across as an overly complex encounter (or set of) only different from a real one in their focused use and how the final encounter plays out.
I now realize how much of a tangent I'm going on.
One of the adventurers decided to trip a panicked running horse by grabbing it's leg as it ran by. That was an easy one. A successful grab, a tumble in the dust, and an almost broken arm was the result. Interestingly enough, his first response was, "That didn't happen!" to which I responded, "Do you have any idea what a horse weighs?"
As their characters met in the game, a nasty hazard was coming down the street. The current players were the two boys and their dad. One was a rogue and picked a door open on the side of the street. The rogue wanted to let his brother in and lock his dad out. I told him that wasn't logical, as his character didn't know either of them. He had to choose between letting both in or locking both out.
A new player joined the game. The boys immediately jumped him in the game. He slept them, gathered their weapons and piled them near the table where they were all applying for a job in town. When they awoke, they immediately gathered their weapons and tried to attack again. They were promptly disarmed, arrested, and got to spend some time in jail and on work details. This was role played. They were stuck going through the judicial process while the others in the game got to go on adventures. Interestingly enough, the new player bailed them out of jail in the end. They are still paying off their debt to him. He got a big kick out of it.
In my game, the main city has adventurers of all levels, come to take advantage of the riches that can be found through a great portal in town. Running around and attacking anyone in sight is not the best modus operedi. Breaking into a house and attacking the people inside might pit you against a much higher level group. The intent is to teach players to not to turn to violence to resolve every issue. Fortunately for the players, there are consequences for random killing in town, so the higher level characters aren't so ready to just massacre offenders. They have other ways of dealing with the unruly. My NPCs tend to be more manipulative. That's not to say that all NPCs in town won't kill you.
My view is that the players should have as few restrictions on their choices as possible. I want the characters to be as free as possible to express themselves in the game and to have fun. It is also more fun for me when I have to scramble and determine logically how NPCs will react to their deviate behaviors. We are all there to have fun. If the players don't like my scenario, they are free to abandon it, and we will move on to other things.
He had a Half-Bugbear, Multiclass War-Priest, two handed fighter. He had the game all figured out. He was always there first, did the most damage, could heal himself. He was a one man party.
We got to a point in the game were he wanted to draw two weapons, half move, and attack. The DM wouldn't allow it. He basically went nuts. So, every time I had a chance, I would "half move and attack". At which point most of the other players would chuckle.
Being tested can be fun.
Not when someone didn't ask to be tested and didn't know they were going to be tested. That is almost the complete opposite of fun.
Fun: Playing S1 - Tomb of Horrors knowing you're going to die.
Not fun: Discovering that your character you've been developing for a year died because the DM though it would be interesting to see how you would react to it.
Fun and Educational: Boy Scout Wood Badge Training for Leaders.
Not fun: Going camping for a weekend and finding yourself at Wood Badge Training.
Educational: Joining the military and going though boot camp.
Hell: The sudden return of the draft and finding yourself in boot camp.
Doing something to someone outside of the expectations of the activity without advance warning tells them that you won't respect their boundaries.
-----------------
On-topic:
It's sometimes difficult for people with different experiences to come to terms. I recall a DM saying to my wife "You can't get all that in a backpack.". She dumped her purse out onto the table.
I've found it necessary to simply ignore everything I've learned about riding horses when playing.
Never argue combat with anyone in the SCA, even if you have a doctorates in mid-evil history. It's not worth it.
Never argue combat with anyone in the SCA, even if you have a doctorates in mid-evil history. It's not worth it.
I just point them to the quote in my sig and then refuse to discuss any further since it'll be useless anyway.
Never argue combat with anyone in the SCA, even if you have a doctorates in mid-evil history. It's not worth it.
To be fair, when you tell someone who's trained how to use weaponry and/or fights competitively a lot that they're wrong because you read it in a book or heard it during a lecture from another guy who read it in a book, his lack of trust of your "evidence" isn't that surprising. I do Dagorhir nowadays (used to do SCA, but didn't enjoy it that much), and I have to say that no book can ever truly get across the intricicies of Combat just by being read (the Japanese books I've read on combat don't even try; many just say, "This is something that must be experienced; ask your teacher."), and I'd be mildly annoyed if someone told me I was not able to do something I had actually done IRL because they had a thesis on it. :S
I just point them to the quote in my sig and then refuse to discuss any further since it'll be useless anyway.
Your Sig is hyperbole, Scipio; it's a bad analogy. It would be better if it said:
"Citing SCA as proof you understand how to use a DnD Longsword is like citing paintball as proof you understand how military combat works."
Same goes for Fencing and a Rapier.
Anyway...I don't mind Kobayashi-maru scenarios in a game once in a while...maybe once per tier? A way of gauging how the characters are developing OFF the sheet. I don't even need to be "warned" either. Parties are not entitled to know which encounter will be the one that finally does them in...since it's always supposed to be possible. That's the point of adventuring. You take on a dangerous job because no one else has the guts or talent, and you assume the risk of failure and death with each encounter. The only difference is, a kobayashi-maru kind of encounter shouldn't be "real" per se. Like the example where in the end it was all a dream. It's most certainly wrong to throw a party into an unwinnable scenario and then enforce the negative consequence of it. Accepting a risk of failure is one thing, but to have it arbitrarily forced on you is something else.
In the dream example with the undead. The DM should've definitely said something more akin to that it seemed to work, but then more undead show up, or whatnot...forcing them to seek another solution. As it went in the example though, I think the result speaks to the character of both the players AND the DM, and not well.
Being tested can be fun.
Not when someone didn't ask to be tested and didn't know they were going to be tested. That is almost the complete opposite of fun.
Fun: Playing S1 - Tomb of Horrors knowing you're going to die.
Not fun: Discovering that your character you've been developing for a year died because the DM though it would be interesting to see how you would react to it.
I see someone doesn't actually know what Kobayashi Maru is. That's points off the nerd cred for you. It's a simulation, nobody dies. And you certainly don't do it a year into a campaign. Whatever would make you think that? The origination of the concept was the opening scene of a movie, not the ending.
Doing something to someone outside of the expectations of the activity without advance warning tells them that you won't respect their boundaries.
There's absolutely nothing about the scenario as a test that qualifies as "outside of the expectations of the activity." Unless you're very narrowly defining expectation.
To be fair, when you tell someone who's trained how to use weaponry and/or fights competitively
The number of people I've met in the SCA who have been trained how to use weaponry is few and far between. The vast majority of them have been trained how to use weapon substitutes in a manner that isn't supposed to kill someone.
As an example, at Pennsic, well over a decade ago ('94? 95?), I had the pleasure of being with someone who, when he wasn't drawing the dole, was a professional longbowman*. What he could do was so far out of scope with D&D rules that it was just best to ignore reality and go with game balance. People should not be able to hit targets that are behind hay bales. He spent most of the week drinking and trying to not laugh out loud at everything he saw.
*he did demonstrations for money...
I loved the ridiculously complicated Player's Option books that came out with 2E. I remember being so relieved because one of the players in my game had mentioned that her character had really good eyesight and then in the Player's Option book I found the trait (or whatever it was called) that gave me a rule to handle the situation. Without it I probably wouldn't have allowed the character her choice.
I think it was just at the beginning of 3E when I had a character who wanted to squeeze past an ogre in a narrow hallway and give the brute a shove as he went by. I just piled up excuses and basically told him no. Boo me!
My last long campaign was a gradual adjustment out of that mindset.
Unlike a computer RPG, the characters in a D&D game should be able to try anything they can imagine their characters doing. The game posits a complete world with real people in it, taking actions and having effects. If players get into the scene and come up with crazy ideas, that is a very good thing, it's immersion.
In our last session the group was trying to find a ship to take them to Xendrik and we didn't even roll skill checks. No one asked to, and it just didn't seem necessary. They still got the price down by 75gp. When they went to check out the ships to see if they lived up to the captain's claims I just let them go with it. Being able to tell if a ship is seaworthy is more about the characters' backgrounds than about skill checks.
I've been back and forth on 4E a few times, but right now I'm really digging the old-school "infinite adventure" feeling that comes straight from OD&D. It's all wonder again!
cheers,
Meshon
I see someone doesn't actually know what Kobayashi Maru is. That's points off the nerd cred for you. It's a simulation, nobody dies. And you certainly don't do it a year into a campaign. Whatever would make you think that? The origination of the concept was the opening scene of a movie, not the ending.
The Kobayashi Maru as a Trek reference has been around since Kahn and I know very well what it is since I'm an old enough geek to have seen it in the theatres when it opened.
Let me take you back to the beginning of this:
After we all dead we found out it was a dream. It was fine, but I felt so mad.
That's a trap for DMs. I want to run a Kobayashi Maru scenario, myself, which is what that was in a way. Players are doomed to fail, but it's played off as a test of character.
At no point do you say anything like "I'd like to do something like that but tell the players in advance instead of springing it on them at the end." No, what you say is:
It's not just about seeing how they handle the character dying. It's also about how they approach situations.
"So Bob, I've just killed your character. How do you feel?" The answer isn't going to be positive if the player was expecting to continue playing that character for awhile. On the other hand, if you're playing Paranoia, where this sort of thing happens multiple times a session, it's more of a "Meh" moment.
The only way it's a test for the players is if they don't see it coming. That's why I was trying to figure out if you wanted to know how the players dealt with it, or how their characters dealt with it. Because finding out how they players deal with it, when the don't see it coming, is not any fun for the unsuspecting players.
The number of people I've met in the SCA who have been trained how to use weaponry is few and far between. The vast majority of them have been trained how to use weapon substitutes in a manner that isn't supposed to kill someone.
An excellent point, and the reason I hated Fencing; I was simply saying that, "I have a doctorate," is no better a reason. "You weren't even there; you've never even held a sword," would be my immediate thought on that one.
I myself have Martial Arts training and I specialize in Martial Weaponry; however, it is totally useless (as you were saying about having training in horseriding) to use such in a Fantasy Game as some kind of "proof" or some such, and I have yet to do so.
I'm not sure where to start here. Maybe I presented it wrong, cause I did. The Kobayashi Maru is an icon of nerd lore. It's not simply an unwinnable situation and, in fact, there are ways to win that range from boring (I don't go in) to awesome (I slip the DM five bucks). It's not just about seeing how they handle the character dying. It's also about how they approach situations. Are they careful? Do they rush in? How creative are they? And then there are the little variations on it we see that aren't Kobayashi Maru. Two similar scenarios we've also seen test specifically whether or not they can make hard decisions. Can they handle sending others to their deaths? Can they choose between saving the lives of two people? Do they risk everyone to save both or do they doom one to have a higher chance saving the other?
So while you can rage about "OMG, you gave us hopeless situations and I banged my head on it you jerk!" the DM now knows more about the groups ability to be creative and think outside of the box, work together, their thresholds, how well they keep in character in combat, decision making, and the kind of themes they're willing to work with. It's a stress test that covers numerous bases.
Well your original statement were "I like to see how a player resorts to dying" and "sometimes when you give them an unwinnable situation and they succeed somehow, it looks arbitrary when you kill them anyway." (And I am familiar with the Kobayashi Maru, thank you. Your descriptions of "winning" sound like "not playing at all" and "cheating" to me. If I had a DM who insisted that I give him five bucks to prevent him from forcing character death on me, I don't know how I would react to that but I probably would not be interested in playing in that game ever again knowing that the other players were funneling him money not to arbitrarily kill their characters as a "test.")
I don't know. Your statements still make you sound like the a domineering DM jerk to me. You can try to weasle out of it by saying, "Haha, it was just a test," but the fact of the matter is you're putting the players through tasks that are commonly associated with the worst kind of DMing. If you think it is fun to watch the players go through the motions knowing that they are just wasting their time, why not just litter your games with undetectable instant death traps? That should be awesome! And you will have plenty of opportunities to see how your players react to characters dying.
At no point do you say anything like "I'd like to do something like that but tell the players in advance instead of springing it on them at the end." No, what you say is:It's not just about seeing how they handle the character dying. It's also about how they approach situations.
At no point do I say "I spring it on them a year after the campaign is started."
What I do say is I describe a myriad of benefits you gain from it that would be useful to know when beginning a campaign. What use is specifically trying to find out how well people work together a year after they've been working together? You should already know it.
"So Bob, I've just killed your character. How do you feel?" The answer isn't going to be positive if the player was expecting to continue playing that character for awhile.
So what? The expectation, for some anyway, of the DM is to make the players feel like their characters are in danger without them actually being. Not cater every action to perfect happiness. Which is explicitly what is going on. You've shown them firmly that decisions can lead to character death, but you never actually were going to kill the characters.
And like encounters, if the players walk into it knowing there's no danger, it loses a lot. I'd like to see you run a boss encounter after telling the players "don't worry, you're going to win, your characters are in no danger." Because hey, that's the expectation.
I'd like to see you run a boss encounter after telling the players "don't worry, you're going to win, your characters are in no danger." Because hey, that's the expectation.
Every time I run a H1-4 LFR table at the local game store, that's exactly what I'm doing.
For many people, that is their introduction to the world of Dungeons and Dragons. It isn't the same set of rules that we use when we play D&D on my dining room table. The people there have different levels of play and different expectations.
And like encounters, if the players walk into it knowing there's no danger, it loses a lot. I'd like to see you run a boss encounter after telling the players "don't worry, you're going to win, your characters are in no danger." Because hey, that's the expectation.
Sure, but if there is no chance of survival, it loses just as much. The agreement between DMs and players is that encounters will vary in difficulty and danger, but there will always be some chance of success.
I'm a firm believer that the threat of failure must be ever present in DnD. And not just in the sense that you make players feel like they could potentially fail. It must actually be possible that they could fail. It makes the game more interesting for both players and DM.
But the same thing is true of success. We're not talking about testing officers who will be in charge of hundreds or thousands of lives here, where their reaction to failure is valuable information for assessing their readiness to take and give orders in the face of dire consequences. We're talking about the equivalent of spending an afternoon working on a crossword puzzle that has no solution. Assessing a person's reaction to certain death is interesting, valuable, and necessary in many situations. Assessing a person's reaction to being cheated by a game they are playing for fun may be interesting (and in fact I would not be surprised if it is far more extreme for a lot of people than failing on something important), but it is by no means the same thing. One is test of resolve. The other is a test of a person's willingness to spend their leisure time on trivial, unnecessary, tests that are rigged against them.
What he could do was so far out of scope with D&D rules that it was just best to ignore reality and go with game balance. People should not be able to hit targets that are behind hay bales. He spent most of the week drinking and trying to not laugh out loud at everything he saw.
I couldn't do it with a medieval longbow, but I used to be able to reliably drop an arrow over a barrier and hit the target when I participated in archery tournaments and was training twice a week. You just learn your bow and get a feel for how far you can pull back and how far the arrow will go before it drops.
What in the nine hells is the SCA
I'm pretty sure its one of those re-enactment groups that play with prop weapons and kill each other in historical wars.
They are a medival society.
What in the nine hells is the SCA
I'm pretty sure its one of those re-enactment groups that play with prop weapons and kill each other in historical wars.
They're more interested in the re-creation of medieval society. As far as I can recall, they don't do wars. They do melee tournaments and exhibitions.
Society for Creative Anacranism
They are a medival society.
It could be worse. They could be a star trek society.
What in the nine hells is the SCA
I'm pretty sure its one of those re-enactment groups that play with prop weapons and kill each other in historical wars.
They're more interested in the re-creation of medieval society. As far as I can recall, they don't do wars. They do melee tournaments and exhibitions.
Same difference to me. They dress up and play with prop weapons. Bunch of larpers I tell ya.
And like encounters, if the players walk into it knowing there's no danger, it loses a lot. I'd like to see you run a boss encounter after telling the players "don't worry, you're going to win, your characters are in no danger." Because hey, that's the expectation.
Since the Kobayashi Maru was a simulation where it is explicitly known to everyone that it is one, and therefore there is no danger (since it wasn't the TNG universe, home of the Moriarty), doesn't that sorta counter your entire argument? Even with D&D, players and DMs alike know the general assumption is that by and large, the players always win fights. There's always that chance for everything to go wrong or for the unexpected to occur, but there generally isn't a lot of danger. Even so, the group generally plays as though their characters are at risk, and will tend to be less safe in those assumptions in actual combat.
I again submit that any benefits gained by the surprise of such an unwinnable event pale to the potential frustration of the group for breaking the social contract of the game. Of course, this sort of situation may already be standard faire, such as if you run a sandbox world that doesn't have the warning labels conveniently placed when you're about to wander into epic-ville. For most groups, though, the expectation is that if there characters are being presented with a problem or mission, there should be some path to resolution. I think the only thing that can be worse for a player to hear than 'no' is 'yes, but no'.
I make sure that I place a few encounters in each adventure that the players "could" face and must run away from. I leave warning signs up and sometimes I even tell them "dude, you're gonna run into Blank, if you keep going on this path.
If my players are level 10 and I tell them a level 30 dragon is laired somewhere at the top of a mountain and they climb the mountain looking for the dragon, they'll find the damn dragon. Then they have to try to escape, because killing it ain't gonna happen by normal means.
One of my players claims I need some glowing neon signs that read "TPK". I don't like killing my pcs and I try to avoid it, but without death as a real consequence, the game can get dull. I'm currently playing in one such group where the DM is terrified of killing the pcs. Our sorcerer can walk up and slap dragons without fear of death. The DM is still learning 4e and I'm playing a shaman, so I'm not going to complain, as I want to see what the shaman is like through the different tiers, and the DM needs time with the system before he wacks us out.
What exactly is a/the Kobayashi Maru?
The new "Star Trek" movie shows it. Basically, the original story is that in Starfleet Academy, there was this ball-breaking test, the Kobayashi Maru. Nobody had ever defeated it before Captain Kirk, who only manages it through a hack, since the test is otherwise designed to be absolutely unwinnable. Wikipedia explains it in more detail. Basically, the idea isn't to win, but to learn how one deals with failure and immanent death.
Make a prison with no windows, and place it inside another prison with no windows, and once per day put the Warlock back in the center prison and whip him for trying.
It's not that hard
In the novel Swordmage (FR) the authorities use something called "mage-manacles" they basically prevent the use of teleportation or any other kind of rituals. Since it is used in a somewhat backwater town, it is apparently a relatively common item in the FR. Personally that does not suprise me considering how common short range teleportation is in the D&D universe.
What in the nine hells is the SCA?
Society for Creative Anarchism? Oh wait, that might be considered political, better not mention them again.
cheers,
Meshon
Yeah, another scenario:
You crit the bad guy, roll damage etc... it is bloodied, you end your turn.
DM: Ah I forgot! last time he hit you, you were supposed to be dazed/stunned/whatever until the end of his next turn, so no damage.
Not a big deal really, but still annoying....
Edit: it can easily be applied the other way, the PC missed, but suddenly after his turn he realizes that he had +4 to hit from the leader.....
From your example, I would have prefereed that the undeade be turned and for whatever reason, 50 more come your way....
I have a "one round" limit on those type of "backtracking" things. If you forget something, you have until your next turn to recall it, after that...too late. Attribute it to the chaos of combat. @#$& happens. And, same goes for me and my npcs/monsters.
What exactly is a/the Kobayashi Maru?
Show
A series of character tests in Star Trek that's undergone numerous variations. It first appeared in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan in the opening scene. Lt. Saavik is commanding the enterprise as they rescue the Dilithium freighter Kobayashi Maru from the neutral zone. When they arrive, they are beset by numerous Klingon warships who being an attack on the Enterprise. Explosions occur and everyone dies.
Then Kirk shows up and its revealed to the audience as a simulation. There's some minor bickering because Saavik doesn't think it tests her skills as a captain. However, that wasn't the point. It's to see how Saavik handles no-win scenarios. The choice is to either not enter the Neutral Zone and let the Kobayashi Maru die or enter it, violating the treaty, and risk the lives of everyone. Choosing the latter results in the destruction of the Enterprise as a demonstration that there's not always a winning choice. Sometimes you will lose.
But it's revealed that someone has "won" the Kobayashi Maru. Captain Kirk. How? He reprogrammed the simulation. Because Kirk does not believe in no-win scenarios.
This is a great set up for later in the movie. The Enterprise is in incredible danger and everyone on board will die. Unless someone sacrifices themselves. That is the solution Spock comes upon, his solution to the no-win scenario. He sacrifices himself.
It becomes a popular recurring topic in Star Trek fiction following this. In TNG Deanna Troi undergoes a simulation designed to test her ability to command a friend to their death to save the crew. Wesley Crusher undergoes one of his own, unbeknownst to him, that tests his ability to decide between leaving someone trapped to die in order to rescue someone else who has a greater chance of surviving or risk all three of them. Voyager has Tuvok administer a test that's a variant of the original but he allows retreat as a valid option.
The novels have played with it even more, highlighting various attempts at non-standard victories. Such as exploiting bugs in the simulation's programming, challenging the Klingons to a captain's duel as a diversion, or even blowing up the Kobayashi Maru themselves.
In general, it's a simulated scenario (often known as a simulation by the test takers, but not always, see Wesley Crusher's) that's designed to see how someone handles a solution where they can't win. Being unable to win, in this context, meaning that someone will die. Maybe you can't save everyone or you cause everyone on your crew to die in the attempt.
I find it an incredibly interesting concept because of it's presentation of harsh realities of sacrifice and failure contrasted by the potential idealism of outside-the-box thinking solutions. It's a great way to establish setting that believes in hard decisions with the potential to also greatly characterize an idealistic character who does not.
One may note that Spock's solution to his non-simulated no-win was sacrifice. And that specific sacrifice was ultimately negated when he returned. But not without its own cost. So the prevailing theme is on the harsher side, which makes it all the more awesome to have Kirk remain the idealist within that setting.
Then Kirk shows up and its revealed to the audience as a simulation. There's some minor bickering because Saavik doesn't think it tests her skills as a captain. However, that wasn't the point. It's to see how Saavik handles no-win scenarios. The choice is to either not enter the Neutral Zone and let the Kobayashi Maru die or enter it, violating the treaty, and risk the lives of everyone. Choosing the latter results in the destruction of the Enterprise as a demonstration that there's not always a winning choice. Sometimes you will lose.
But it's revealed that someone has "won" the Kobayashi Maru. Captain Kirk. How? He reprogrammed the simulation. Because Kirk does not believe in no-win scenarios.
This is a great set up for later in the movie. The Enterprise is in incredible danger and everyone on board will die. Unless someone sacrifices themselves. That is the solution Spock comes upon, his solution to the no-win scenario. He sacrifices himself.
It becomes a popular recurring topic in Star Trek fiction following this. In TNG Deanna Troi undergoes a simulation designed to test her ability to command a friend to their death to save the crew. Wesley Crusher undergoes one of his own, unbeknownst to him, that tests his ability to decide between leaving someone trapped to die in order to rescue someone else who has a greater chance of surviving or risk all three of them. Voyager has Tuvok administer a test that's a variant of the original but he allows retreat as a valid option.
The novels have played with it even more, highlighting various attempts at non-standard victories. Such as exploiting bugs in the simulation's programming, challenging the Klingons to a captain's duel as a diversion, or even blowing up the Kobayashi Maru themselves.
In general, it's a simulated scenario (often known as a simulation by the test takers, but not always, see Wesley Crusher's) that's designed to see how someone handles a solution where they can't win. Being unable to win, in this context, meaning that someone will die. Maybe you can't save everyone or you cause everyone on your crew to die in the attempt.
I find it an incredibly interesting concept because of it's presentation of harsh realities of sacrifice and failure contrasted by the potential idealism of outside-the-box thinking solutions. It's a great way to establish setting that believes in hard decisions with the potential to also greatly characterize an idealistic character who does not.
One may note that Spock's solution to his non-simulated no-win was sacrifice. And that specific sacrifice was ultimately negated when he returned. But not without its own cost. So the prevailing theme is on the harsher side, which makes it all the more awesome to have Kirk remain the idealist within that setting.
Society for Creative Anacranism
They are a medival society.
It could be worse. They could be a star trek society.What in the nine hells is the SCA
I'm pretty sure its one of those re-enactment groups that play with prop weapons and kill each other in historical wars.
They're more interested in the re-creation of medieval society. As far as I can recall, they don't do wars. They do melee tournaments and exhibitions.
Same difference to me. They dress up and play with prop weapons. Bunch of larpers I tell ya.
Actually, a large number of SCA (Society for Creative Anacronism) participants don't touch weapons or armor at all - as Feyberry mentioned, they're more interested in recreating medieval society. The medieval fighting arts are just a part of it.
There are as many potters, weavers, bakers, and musicians in the SCA as fighting men. I once spent an hour and a half playing medieval children's board games at a meeting.
Anyway, enough nitpicking about spelling...
Sounds dangerous to me. Adopting perspectives and methods that are obsolete or outright incorrect in comparison to reality. While I agree with utilizing those exceptionally rare few historical practices and viewpoints which are of a logically practical benefit throughout human development; I abhorr the notion of doing anything simply because "it's just always been done that way," or because, "everyone does it that way." I am, however, equally against those who do the direct opposite of any such thing simply to avoid "convention or conformity."
Character death is one thing. Being tricked or forced into a situation that is unwinnable when the standard agreement between DMs and players is that encounters are winnable unless noted otherwise is annoying.
I am so glad that no such agreement exists in our group. Sometimes big, nasty, scary things show up to taunt you and brush you off. But pissing off such BBNSTs will almost certainly get you killed. Likewise, if the party was asked to reconnoiter a situation and decided to charge instead... Well. What can I say? Stupidity kills.
There were several encounters in my HackMaster game that were winnable only if the players didn't turn them into combats. Fortunately, my players are smart and so now their third-level party has befriended not only a adolescent dragon but also a powerful knight of the nearby kobold nation. Either of those situations would most likely have resulted in TPKs if the players assumed that could just muscle their way through the whole game (which is exactly why I included them in the first place).
If my character got dumped into an unwinnable situation by a DM, which I then went on to win against all odds, and the DM killed my character anyway, damn right I would be upset, but it wouldn't be because my character died. It would be because of the crappy DMing.
Now that would suck and would likely get said GM punched in the face by just about the whole group (I generally prefer my fairly stout cane over my relatively fragile hands
).BBNST?
See the previous sentence. 8o)
I am so glad that no such agreement exists in our group. Sometimes big, nasty, scary things show up to taunt you and brush you off. But pissing off such BBNSTs will almost certainly get you killed. Likewise, if the party was asked to reconnoiter a situation and decided to charge instead... Well. What can I say? Stupidity kills.There were several encounters in my HackMaster game that were winnable only if the players didn't turn them into combats. Fortunately, my players are smart and so now their third-level party has befriended not only a adolescent dragon but also a powerful knight of the nearby kobold nation. Either of those situations would most likely have resulted in TPKs if the players assumed that could just muscle their way through the whole game (which is exactly why I included them in the first place).
I most definitely did not say that encounters should always be winnable by brute force alone.
The situation we are talking about is one in which the character has no choice but to die, solely because the DM thinks it will be interesting to see how the player reacts.
Although I will say that I personally do not have the MM memorized, so if a DM tells me the type of monster and sets me up for a fight, but gives no other indication that the monster is too powerful, then I would be irked. There are plenty of ways to give an indication of a creature's power level before the fight is joined, and I think setting the party up for an apparently typical battle against a creature that turns out to be an epic badass is kind of unfair.
If the DM does give a reasonable indication of the creature's threat level (or if the PCs charge into a situation on which they were warned ahead of time they'd best gather more info before rushing in), well… I am a firm believer that some characters are just too dumb to live.
Still, in both cases these are different situations. The character's untimely demise can be traced back to a player's decision, as it should be. DMs should not arbitrarily kill off characters because they want to run a social experiment. As much as I sympathize with Manion's desire to have some forewarning of how his players will deal with adversity, the specific adversity that he is testing their ability to handle can be simply avoided by not being a jerk to them in the first place.
BBNST?
See the previous sentence. 8o)
My question is, why the second B?
I abhorr the notion of doing anything simply because "it's just always been done that way," or because, "everyone does it that way." I am, however, equally against those who do the direct opposite of any such thing simply to avoid "convention or conformity."
There are two types of fools: those that believe change is good, and those that believe change is bad.
I think that's a quote from someone (or a paraphrase that destroyed the original line's eloquence), because I'm sure I read it somewhere, but I've never been able to figure out where.
Society for Creative ANACHRONISM.
Anyway, enough nitpicking about spelling...
Wait, weren't you the one who said you didn't know what SCA meant? Anyway, I spelled anarchism correctly.
I should go somewhere else, apparently I have nothing really useful to add to this thread. I hope that's the thread's fault, but I'm not so sure...
cheers,
Meshon
That reminds me of a munchkin player that I ran into at a con a few years back.
He had a Half-Bugbear, Multiclass War-Priest, two handed fighter. He had the game all figured out. He was always there first, did the most damage, could heal himself. He was a one man party.
We got to a point in the game were he wanted to draw two weapons, half move, and attack. The DM wouldn't allow it. He basically went nuts. So, every time I had a chance, I would "half move and attack". At which point most of the other players would chuckle.
Was this 3.5e or 4e? If it was 3.5, then that's perfectly RAW and the DM was bang out of line for disallowing it. IIRC, after a certain BAB total you could draw weapons as a part of a move action if you were proficient with them. If it was 4e, yeah, he'd need a quick draw style effect in order to draw two weapons in one turn, and move, and attack.
I'v almost completely lost all faith in DMs outside of my circle. Sounds like people just don't really know what the hell they're doing behind the DM screen, or they're just working out their own frustration on the players.
If this forum has done nothing else, it has made me appreciate the people I game with all the more.
This.
The one problem I used to have back in the day was from players saying/doing something completely stupid...like saying they punch a king in the face/urinate on the prisoner they're rescuing etc. Then when I went along with that they'd immediatly go no I didn't. Fortunately, I realized the game could be played with mature people and now the above quote applies.
There was one instance where the DM pulled the "that didn't happen" card...it was an online game, I don't remember the exact nature of the quest as this was a good six or seven years ago, but the basic gist was we had 7 days to prevent the destruction of the demiplane we were in...on the last day we had defeated the BBEG and were about to do some ritual/return an item/whatever to fix the destruction...a smaller group of players has been actually working towards the destruction though and set an ambush for us. As we were getting towards the ambush spot, we were attacked by another wave of the BBEG's creatures...since we were running low on time we had most of us stay back to hold off the creatures while two or three went ahead to complete...whatever needed completing. Anyway, they hit the ambush spot and got killed, then either time ran out or everyone else got killed during the battle but the DM ruled "that didn't happen" at the end.
Ah, the whole "you're standing naked, on a narrow bridge suspended above a volcanic lake of magma, surrounded by 12 red dragons and trapped within an anti magic zone. You're dazed and slowed and you have one round to defeat the dragons and escape before the volcano erupts, killing you."
"I shoot the farthest red dragon with a transit arrow, teleport to it's opposite side, and then use my +4 to speed move ability to run away from the volcano which erupts and kills the dragons."
Ah, the whole "you're standing naked, on a narrow bridge suspended above a volcanic lake of magma, surrounded by 12 red dragons and trapped within an anti magic zone. You're dazed and slowed and you have one round to defeat the dragons and escape before the volcano erupts, killing you."
"I shoot the farthest red dragon with a transit arrow, teleport to it's opposite side, and then use my +4 to speed move ability to run away from the volcano which erupts and kills the dragons."
that didn't happen :P
I just ret-con'd those 15 minutes of game play and moved on. Random encounters can be fun and exciting, but they can also be very, very stupid. I don't mind TPKs, and have ended many campaigns with them, but nothing quite so insane as an entire party dying in one round due to dice luck.
This has probably happened to too many gamers, but I was about the kill the bad guy (I had rolled a Nat. 20 on a melee attack right after the spellcaster had rolled well on a fireball or something). But the DM wanted the Evil Dude to be a reoccuring problem, so the DM had the guy teleport away, even though he otherwise should have had no teleport ability or items.
That actually seems like an acceptable conclusion to a fight. Reducing an enemy to 0 HP means that they are beaten and can no longer fight, not necessarily that they are dead.
And clearly the Evil Dude did have some ability to teleport. Otherwise he wouldn't have been able to do it.
Otherwise he wouldn't have been able to do it.
Actually, the way it went down was I calculated the total damage I was doing, told the DM, he paused and then said something to the effect of... "I can't let you kill him, I need him later. He, uh... teleports away at the last second. Yeah."
Otherwise he wouldn't have been able to do it.
Actually, the way it went down was I calculated the total damage I was doing, told the DM, he paused and then said something to the effect of... "I can't let you kill him, I need him later. He, uh... teleports away at the last second. Yeah."
Ergo clearly he had the ability to teleport. Otherwise you would have killed him.
Pppbbbttt!!! He didn't have it listed on his NPC character sheet.
Only a moron would actually list something as powerful as at-will immediate interrupt teleporting with no line of sight or line of effect on his character sheet.
You probably think the CIA can't control the weather just because you've never seen the expense report.
DM: Um. So...that's not good. It was all a terrible dreeeeeam...
Me (Fighter): Ohmygod, I just had the most terrible dream! I killed all my friends!
Barakas (Rogue): I just had th-
Me: And Barakas!
Barakas: ...
You probably think the CIA can't control the weather just because you've never seen the expense report.
It's people like you what cause unrest.
You probably think the CIA can't control the weather just because you've never seen the expense report.
That's because the expense report is misleading. The invoice is from "Manion's Garbage Disposal."
They outsource it.
BBNST?
See the previous sentence. 8o)
Ahh ha!
My question is, why the second B?
Big Bad Nasty Scary Thing
Society for Creative Anacranism
They are a medival society.
It could be worse. They could be a star trek society.What in the nine hells is the SCA
I'm pretty sure its one of those re-enactment groups that play with prop weapons and kill each other in historical wars.
They're more interested in the re-creation of medieval society. As far as I can recall, they don't do wars. They do melee tournaments and exhibitions.
Same difference to me. They dress up and play with prop weapons. Bunch of larpers I tell ya.
Actually, a large number of SCA (Society for Creative Anacronism) participants don't touch weapons or armor at all - as Feyberry mentioned, they're more interested in recreating medieval society. The medieval fighting arts are just a part of it.There are as many potters, weavers, bakers, and musicians in the SCA as fighting men. I once spent an hour and a half playing medieval children's board games at a meeting.
Also, they do, in fact, do wars. And for the fighters, it's not really larping, so much as a fighting sport.
Although, the camps at the end of the day are as much a part of why we go to wars as the fighting, I sometimes think.
Of course, the degree of anachro...whatever, in fighting styles and armor and such can vary very widely, so many people have a very negative view of SCA members' knowledge of melee combat, as well as arms and armor.
Which is a constant source of frustration for those of us who don't deserve the bad rep.
Yes, we laugh at some of those guys just as much as the rest of you. More, actually, you can only spend so much of your time earnestly fighting with well researched methods and what amounts to realistic practice gear, without laughing hysterically at many of the SCA related youtube videos.
good gods...so much facepalm.
Society for Creative ANACHRONISM.
Anyway, enough nitpicking about spelling...
Sounds dangerous to me. Adopting perspectives and methods that are obsolete or outright incorrect in comparison to reality. While I agree with utilizing those exceptionally rare few historical practices and viewpoints which are of a logically practical benefit throughout human development; I abhorr the notion of doing anything simply because "it's just always been done that way," or because, "everyone does it that way." I am, however, equally against those who do the direct opposite of any such thing simply to avoid "convention or conformity."
Neither of which is what the SCA is about, of course.
I couldn't do it with a medieval longbow, but I used to be able to reliably drop an arrow over a barrier and hit the target when I participated in archery tournaments and was training twice a week. You just learn your bow and get a feel for how far you can pull back and how far the arrow will go before it drops.
When I was still actively participating in the SCA, we made our archers practice things like that. Not always to accurately hit targets. Sometimes it was used to freak out the opposing shield wall, get their shields up, and let the couple of archers who held fire, and those quick enough to already have another arrow knocked, enjoy raising the pitch of the voices of the enemy line.
Or to take out a knight, because taking out knights can be even more fun than winning battles sometimes. :P
Never argue combat with anyone in the SCA, even if you have a doctorates in mid-evil history. It's not worth it.
To be fair, when you tell someone who's trained how to use weaponry and/or fights competitively a lot that they're wrong because you read it in a book or heard it during a lecture from another guy who read it in a book, his lack of trust of your "evidence" isn't that surprising. I do Dagorhir nowadays (used to do SCA, but didn't enjoy it that much), and I have to say that no book can ever truly get across the intricicies of Combat just by being read (the Japanese books I've read on combat don't even try; many just say, "This is something that must be experienced; ask your teacher."), and I'd be mildly annoyed if someone told me I was not able to do something I had actually done IRL because they had a thesis on it. :SI just point them to the quote in my sig and then refuse to discuss any further since it'll be useless anyway.
Your Sig is hyperbole, Scipio; it's a bad analogy. It would be better if it said:
"Citing SCA as proof you understand how to use a DnD Longsword is like citing paintball as proof you understand how military combat works."
Same goes for Fencing and a Rapier.
This.
I had someone with a master's degree in medieval studies or somesuch, who was writing his thesis on weaponry in some context or other argue with me on some minor point about the use of a two handed sword. Some application of the idea that they were mostly useless outside of choping the heads off polearms and half-swording to puncture armor.
I don't remember exactly what the contention was, but the next wednesday I proved to him, via personal display, that he was wrong.
He curled his lip and said something along the lines of "The SCA is a joke."
I think it was the cross side rising snap....
basically, you go for the legs, except you don't, and hit them upside the opposite side of the head from the leg you made them think you were going for. I think he may have doubted how quickly it could be done, without exposing yourself to your opponent too much.
My memory is probably over simplifying the whole thing, it's been a while, and I've been to a few wars since then.
Which means I've had a lot to drink since then, for those who don't know. And had my head knocked a few times, sad to say.
damned knights.
some friends and I have started our own little group. I had a handful of friends who were interested in it as a fighting sport, but not much beyond that, and those of us who were in the SCA just got tired of the stupid drama.
what's really funny, is when people tell you that your experience with wooden weapons means nothing.
Nevermind that wood has always been the medium of practice weapons, or that our weapons wiegh about the same, but are less aerodynamic due to being round, rather than flat. (meaning that if we can do something with one, it's almost a complete guarantee that you can do it with a real steel weapon).
just...never you mind. :P
To be fair, when you tell someone who's trained how to use weaponry and/or fights competitively
The number of people I've met in the SCA who have been trained how to use weaponry is few and far between. The vast majority of them have been trained how to use weapon substitutes in a manner that isn't supposed to kill someone.
As an example, at Pennsic, well over a decade ago ('94? 95?), I had the pleasure of being with someone who, when he wasn't drawing the dole, was a professional longbowman*. What he could do was so far out of scope with D&D rules that it was just best to ignore reality and go with game balance. People should not be able to hit targets that are behind hay bales. He spent most of the week drinking and trying to not laugh out loud at everything he saw.
*he did demonstrations for money...
A few years ago I would have doubted the veracity of your claims as to the training of SCA folk. Unfortunately, I've seen some youtube vids...ack.
Suffice it to say, that isn't true everywhere.
knowledge of actual medievil cultures will also send you into hysterical fits of laughter as many SCA events. People's hearts are in the right place...but sometimes...yikes. and the accents! as someone who both greatly enjoys doing "voices" as my friends call it, and who prides himself at being able to pick apart an accent and replicate it...it hurts. it really does. a lot.
funny thing about the fighting is watching someone who was properly trained, fight someone who wasn't.
it can be brutal, and sometimes humiliating for the loser. unfortunately there's a huge variance in both skill and "legitimacy" of training techniques in the SCA.
if there were another, more stringent competitive fighting group anywhere near my area, I would definately seek them out...
those various things being said, the only place for any discussion of experience or knowledge on this stuff is as a point of reference.
mostly I've found it useful for those "the rules don't cover this, but I/another DM want(s) to allow it" situations, for figuring out the logical limitations of something. Even then, magic and various other factors of the world can alter what is reasonable.
I want to torch the field the orcs are moving throw to slow their progress and kill as many as possible before they get to the town. Well, the range on your bow isn't far enough. How many feet does that equal, ok....math math history math.
oh, and starting arguments about small creatures in dnd...what the hell was I thinking starting that thread? of course it was going to degenerate into a flamewar!
I can be very shortsighted, at time. :P
See, I have real experience! I know that:
a) Combat is really exciting and cool!
b) Yelling funny things in a fight makes it better.
cheers,
Meshon
You can make fun of the SCA all you want. Indeed, some of the people within the SCA make fools of themselves.
However there are a lot of folks in the SCA that fight well and as a poster said above, people have been training with wooden weapons since man beat man with a club.
There is a lot to be said about simply reading how something works, and then actually going out and trying to apply it.
P.S - I fight in the SCA too.
Don't you hate when you have been doing something as PC(like a spell or ability) and all of sudden the DM says "that didn't work"
The really grinds my gear. When I hear a DM saying this I feel like he didn't plan for this and it would ruin his game.
My best memory of this is in a 3.5 game. Our minis were already set with atleast 50 skeltons on each side of us. We didn't know what to do we were despreate to get out.
We needed to run and we were all level 3. I decieded to turn undead. I rolled high enough and was more then double there levels to destory them
I would have destroied enough of them to make a path and run.
When I did it and was about to remove the monsters our dm says "that didn't happen"
We all went WHAT!?how
He just said it didn't work
After we all dead we found out it was a dream. It was fine, but I felt so mad. I finally got to use turn undead. I twould have been epic way to get out of it and I was denied for no reason(at the time)
I think I would have felt better if he would have role-played it bettter
"You turn undead seems to be powerful, but these undead don't seem effected almost not of this world"
I think I would have felt better.
Any stories like that(from both sides as PC or DM)
That's happened to me a number of times, but when I was a less experienced DM, I did that quite a bit myself.
Considering that it was a dream sequence, it definietly would have helped to RP the failure of your attack other than just say "That didn't work" or "that didn't happen".
The most egregious instances of this happening to me have been in LARPs, specifically Vampire the Masquerade LARPs. I'm sympathetic to storytellers at those kinds of LARPs, where there can be a lot going on with a lot of different players...but it's really frustrating when you do something early in the evening of the game, and then around 1 am, you're told by a GM that the massive combat encounter that started five hours ago and just finished (and in which you had no part of) rendered the actions you thought you had done independent of that encounter impossible. Thus, you have to retcon 5 or 6 hours of RP and planning...
=| bleh
At the table, most of the instances where things like "That didn't work" or "that didn't happen" were said by the DM were said because a player started to act on something that was undecided at that point as if it had been decided...Most of the time what the DM meant was "Wait! Let me finish!"...it took me a while to learn to say that rather than get angry at my players for making assumptions. It also took me a while to understand that when the DM says something like "That didn't happen" to ask him or her to describe what -did- happen (in a friendly and engaged kind of way...not a "Well, Why didn't it happen?!?" kind of way).
You can make fun of the SCA all you want. Indeed, some of the people within the SCA make fools of themselves.
However there are a lot of folks in the SCA that fight well and as a poster said above, people have been training with wooden weapons since man beat man with a club.
There is a lot to be said about simply reading how something works, and then actually going out and trying to apply it.
P.S - I fight in the SCA too.
I don't play in the SCA (had a really bad experience with a super elitist when I was 13 and went to my first SCA event) but I play in Darkon...
Yeah...it's geeky...
But it's also alot of freaking Fun...and beating other guys and gals with sticks on a battlefield is good exercise *sage*.
I don't mind doing some realism tweaks, like falling damage not capping so people don't jump from 500 foot cliffs and simply hit the ground and continue on their way but *shrugs* the game isn't supposed to be a perfect representation it's meant to be well...a game so for balance sake and what have you it's going to be played like this.
Considering that it was a dream sequence, it definietly would have helped to RP the failure of your attack other than just say "That didn't work" or "that didn't happen".
Exactly -- If that were me, I'd have the undead fall down and explode and all -- and then the bones start to rattle, and they pull themselves back together. Or drop another horde -- use dream logic rather than just going, oops, no that didn't happen.
The best way would be to have it not work in some way that gives the party a clue about the true nature of what's going on.
This reminds me of my worst "that didn't work" moment. I was playing Tomb of Horrors (3rd ed version) at a convention -- yea, this was pretty recent. So I'm playing a dwarf cleric pregen. Badly built pregen, too -- it had 8 charisma. On a cleric. With the Additional Turning feat. (Recall, in 3rd edition, turning was charisma based!) I mean, I'm okay with a cleric who just isn't good at turning, but why give him weak turning and then more daily chances to suck?
Anyway, we got to this one part of the dungeon where opening a certain treasure chest released a four-armed scimitar weilding skeleton. So I pop out my turning -- I roll badly and nothing happens. I wait until my next turn, and decide to hit it with a Cure spell to damage it. The DM says it "doesn't seem to work very well". Okay, the dude has spell resistance, I'm okay with that. At this point we're moving into round three, and the rogue has done more to damage this thing than I have. So I go for the turning one more time (I have like eight per day at this point, y'know?), figuring that if I fail it'll probably die anyway due to the ranger and fighter. That's when my die tumbles to a stop on a beautiful, beautiful natural 20! "Ha! I can turn level plus four undead!"
The DM looks at me and says, "Nothing happens."
I'm not one to rage-quit, but I almost walked off when I protested, "How can that not work?!" and the DM just shrugs and says, "It didn't seem to affect the skeleton."
Well, moving to the end of the story, it turns out the monster is a bone golem, not an undead, which is why turning bounced off him.
Okay, fine, I get that. I'm okay with that. It's meant to fool you, and I was fooled. Sure -- but really, WTF, mister DM? He didn't make anything of it that my first turning failed, nor when I used the cure spell. If it were me DMing, I would've given the character a chance to figure it out when the first turning hit the monster -- a little religion check to see if you notice that it didn't react at all, not like it resisted but like it didn't even notice. And then when the cure hits it, I'd have gone to great trouble to let the player know that the thing was definitely NOT an undead.
Part of it is grumpiness that I "wasted a 20", but I'm more furstrated that the DM wasn't giving me critical information that my character should've at least had a chance to pick up on.
At the table, most of the instances where things like "That didn't work" or "that didn't happen" were said by the DM were said because a player started to act on something that was undecided at that point as if it had been decided...Most of the time what the DM meant was "Wait! Let me finish!"...it took me a while to learn to say that rather than get angry at my players for making assumptions. It also took me a while to understand that when the DM says something like "That didn't happen" to ask him or her to describe what -did- happen (in a friendly and engaged kind of way...not a "Well, Why didn't it happen?!?" kind of way).
That's what I try to do -- I'm a proponent of the "say yes" school of DMing. I do my best not to say "No, you can't" or "that doesn't happen".
I've had a few of those "let me finish" moments too, though in my group it's more often when I have multiple plot lines going on simultaneously and I have to put one person on hold while I deal with another person's stated actions. For example, one person is talking to a prisoner while another searches the room, and I have to tell the searcher to settle down and wait a few minutes while I handle the other. Normally I use my DMly insight to deal first with the person who's going to produce the most important plot point, or else the one I can deal with most easily. Actually I really like doing that because it lets me have time to think if somebody does something weird that I didn't expect. "Success, okay, the wall is covered with moss and lichen, but you don't think it's dangerous. You want to climb the wall? Uh... okay, let me deal with Jim talking to the guard for a minute..."
Player: "I got a 34."
DM: "You fail."
Player: "What the ****!? I got a 34!"
DM: "Fine. You dodge it."
I'm a cruel DM.
You can make fun of the SCA all you want. Indeed, some of the people within the SCA make fools of themselves.
However there are a lot of folks in the SCA that fight well and as a poster said above, people have been training with wooden weapons since man beat man with a club.
There is a lot to be said about simply reading how something works, and then actually going out and trying to apply it.
P.S - I fight in the SCA too.
Indubitibly.
I kind of feel bad for SCA-ers who get trained by silly people who don't know what they're talking about, and then get set against someone who does in a tourny or war situation. It can be brutal.
Not quite as bad as I feel for people who know as much or more about melee combat as me, but take that knowledge more seriously, and are in the SCA. Life is very frustrating for some of them. :P
Which is why I try not to take very many things seriously.
You can make fun of the SCA all you want. Indeed, some of the people within the SCA make fools of themselves.
However there are a lot of folks in the SCA that fight well and as a poster said above, people have been training with wooden weapons since man beat man with a club.
There is a lot to be said about simply reading how something works, and then actually going out and trying to apply it.
P.S - I fight in the SCA too.
I don't play in the SCA (had a really bad experience with a super elitist when I was 13 and went to my first SCA event) but I play in Darkon...
Yeah...it's geeky...
But it's also alot of freaking Fun...and beating other guys and gals with sticks on a battlefield is good exercise *sage*.
Yeah, there's a good reason I stopped participating in the SCA, and instead took it to my backyard with friends. That reason has nothing to do with combat. :P
Me: I use an MBA (Melee Basic Attack).
DM: Okay, roll it.
Me: *Rolls natural 20* Natural 20.
DM: Which attack did you say you used?
Me: An MBA.
DM: (due to too much noise or so he claimed) What did you say?
Me: I said: I use an MBA.
DM: (same reason as before) What did you say?
That's when I noticed I still had a Daily Power left, which I just had forgot to uncheck during our last Extended Rest, which is basically since last game session.
Me: I said: I use Tempest Dance (Houserule: The three attacks from Tempest Dance use the same Attack Roll and they don't have to be against different targets).
I guess that's kinda the same as some of the aforementioned examples. Only the DM actually tried to help us win the battle (either that, or he really hated that Halfling Thief too).
we end do doing this relatively often, because a lot of people in the group are a bit spacey, and have to be reminded occasionally of options they could be exploiting.