Is this "Fair" - Part III

[librarius_arcana]

Go here

http://www.sonsofkryos.com/

And download,

The Ed Greenwood and Monte Cook Interviews,
If it's okay for Ed to use Elminister to help struggling players with hints etc (some of you would call this "fudging") then it's okay for me,

(Sounds like a nice guy as well)

 

[delericho]

Just a little harsh there aren't we.

Probably. I apologise for posting in anger.

You hit a nerve - one such DM ate my dog and kicked my homework. And I really liked that dog. So, I apologise for my tone, which was uncalled-for.

 

[nameless]

I say it is not fair, and the scenario is indicative of a poor DM. If the "dungeon" is so deadly that they will die in the entry hall, then it is not going to be the kind of place a group of greenhorns can get to easily.

The simple solution is to put up some kind of barrier that the group won't be able to pass immediately. It could be a physical barrier like a broken bridge, or it could be a coincidental barrier like a village of cannibal lizardfolk near the entrance. The beautiful thing about D&D is that the delays will almost necessarily lead to the party gaining xp. Maybe there is a magical lock to the dungeon and some widget (also shown on the map) is needed. In a side adventure, the party could easily gain 3 or 4 levels, find the widget, and not feel railroaded. So everybody wins.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I voted other. You changed the scenario and invalidated the poll. Your first situation is fair, your second situation is unfair. You also gave so little information as to make it almost impossible to draw a conclusion without making several assumptions (are there other plothooks available for instance - we don't know).

If the response to their investigations had of been "With your limited resources and lack of contacts you were not able to uncover any information about the site marked on the map in the wilderness".

Would you still think that it was unfair on the GM's part?

Would you as a player have thought it safe to go there with your limited information?

I would imagine a more powerful dungeon would have lower check DCs to find out how deadly it is. The more obscure dungeons would probably be safer!

 

[Kahuna Burger]

other. It is a game I wouldn't continue playing in.

 

[spectre72]

Probably. I apologise for posting in anger.

You hit a nerve - one such DM ate my dog and kicked my homework. And I really liked that dog. So, I apologise for my tone, which was uncalled-for.

Well since I have never ate your dog or kicked your homework I took it as a rant.

We each have a different style of play, and as long as our players are having fun then we are doing OK.

The only comments that I take offense to are those that label me as a BAD DM without ever playing with me.

So for those who have said "I would never play with a DM like that", you may have played with me and don't even know it because I often run games at local conventions.

Usually my games are full, and people show up in my games year after year.

I have players in my games that drive a couple of hours to play with me and my group.

Must be doing something right.

In the first session of every campaign I warn people that the kid gloves are off, and there will be characters that die.

That is my decision as a DM.

I do not go out of my way to kill them, but I will not save their butts either.

We are currently playing in a very heroic Eberron campaign, but characters have died.

Like the swashbuckler who snuck into an enemy encampment (even though the rest of the party pleaded with him not to) and rolled a 1 when trying to sneek away. 8 Elven Muskateers shot at him after spotting him, 4 hit (1 a critical) a few seconds later he was dead. The rest of the party saw what happened from the top of the ridge where they were hiding and snuck away to regroup.

The group discussed what happened and after discussing it he saw understood what had happened and why. His response was, "That wasn't a very smart thing for me to", and he started rolling another character.

Since then he has been much more cautious, and he knows that bad decisions on his part will have consequences. He has also learned to at least listen to the other players who have more experience playing than he does.

As for invalidating the poll, Online polls are not really scientific so I don't feel bad about adding more information. It is also interesting to me how the tone shifted from being OK to shafting the characters when you add one little piece of information like them not being able to get any information due to the failed skill checks.

The majority of people who think I shafted the players apparently think that a warning should be given no matter what the check result. Well I disagree on that point and always will. I am not saying that I would not warn them if the situation warranted it, but in the example through bad luck they walked into a trapped entrance to the dungeon.

If they had of walked into one of the other entrances they probably would have lost one member of the party instead of a TPK, and after the first trap was sprung or the first creature was encountered they would have known they were over their heads and would have retreated.

Of course when getting there they avoided the biggest hazards that were in their way, so good luck turned into bad luck because they missed the warnings along the way (creatures over their challenge level).

IMHO luck is a factor that cannot be avoided, sometimes it is good for the characters and othertimes bad. That is why the game uses dice, otherwise we would just be telling a story. There is a big difference for me as both a player and a GM on a game that you have a chance of failure, and one that you tell a story.

I ran a PBEM where I had a few players that were horrible about getting in game turns, and I hated it. As a GM I am a facilitator, not someone who is writing a novel. Players control their characters destiny, not me. I do not make decisions for characters, they make their own. I give them options and assist them if they want help because they do not understand something or need to find a rules reference.

I am not out to get the characters, but at times the monsters I control will get them. It is nothing personal, and it is not a goal. I do not use skull markers on my GM screen as a way to keep track of how many PC's I have killed. I try to make things difficult on the characters so they have a sense of accomplishment when they triumph over evil.

Sorry if this seems rantish, but I wanted to vent a little also

Good luck in your future games.

 

[delericho]

Well since I have never ate your dog or kicked your homework I took it as a rant.

Fair comment.

Like the swashbuckler who snuck into an enemy encampment (even though the rest of the party pleaded with him not to) and rolled a 1 when trying to sneek away. 8 Elven Muskateers shot at him after spotting him, 4 hit (1 a critical) a few seconds later he was dead. The rest of the party saw what happened from the top of the ridge where they were hiding and snuck away to regroup.

See, that's entirely fair. PC does something stupid, PC pays the price. Fair enough.

It is also interesting to me how the tone shifted from being OK to shafting the characters when you add one little piece of information like them not being able to get any information due to the failed skill checks.

The majority of people who think I shafted the players apparently think that a warning should be given no matter what the check result. Well I disagree on that point and always will. I am not saying that I would not warn them if the situation warranted it, but in the example through bad luck they walked into a trapped entrance to the dungeon.

It wasn't that it was a failed roll that screwed them that I objected to. It's that they couldn't succeed.

If they had of walked into one of the other entrances they probably would have lost one member of the party instead of a TPK, and after the first trap was sprung or the first creature was encountered they would have known they were over their heads and would have retreated.

And in that situation I wouldn't have been happy, but wouldn't have labelled it 'unfair'.

 

[DonTadow]

First I think that any DM who TPKS and throws his campaign into the gutter to teach a lesson should hang up his dice.

I dothink this encounter is fair considering that hte PCs were dumb enough to go to this location without any preperation whatsover. To open up a map and sayhey lets go here is something I"d only expect from the Knightsofthe Dinner Table(read the latest issue).

Its more realistic if high level things exist in the game prior to the pcs getting to that level.

Then again, this is not all of the PCS fault for the TPK. The blame goes on the DM as well. DMs need to do a better job I see of running their game. If you see the PCs heading foracliff do you let them go there to teach them a lesson, even if thats the end of what would have been a good campaign. The DM should have probably sent an encounter towards them on the way theere. Something thatshows them how dangerious things are up ahead. iF anything he should have left one or two alive, especially if their retreating. WHen they go to recover their dead and get healing the cleric tells them that they are too young to go there and that the first level ws the easist.That would probably set those PCs away from there for a while until their built up.