Your money or your life?

[LostSoul]

Well, personally speaking, I thought "staying true to character" was at least part of the fun of roleplaying games. No choice required.

It is fun.

Having an effective character is also fun.

I don't know if you want to have to choose between them. Maybe, I'm not so sure.

What I'm suggesting to solve this dillema is to make it so that a new character cannot match the effectiveness of the existing PC. This effectiveness should be built up by the character's attachment to the world, in the form of social contacts, political clout, fame, etc.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

What I'm suggesting to solve this dillema is to make it so that a new character cannot match the effectiveness of the existing PC. This effectiveness should be built up by the character's attachment to the world, in the form of social contacts, political clout, fame, etc.

The PCs in my game:

• Are adjunct members of the city watch, with the legal power involved.
• Have major contacts in two dragonmarked Houses, including the patriarch of Medani.
• Can reach the Crown's elite intelligence force's commander if needed.
• Are owed a favor by the most powerful monarch on the continent.
• Are heroes of the city, their exploits reported by the city's broadsheet.
• Have the loyalty of an entire district, due to one of the PC's efforts to protect it, specifically.
• And more.

They have lots and lots of power beyond what's on their character sheets. That's why I'm so concerned, if it turns out the motivation was suicide due to fear of losing stuff. That fear must be incredibly powerful, and I need to figure out how to address it, for this campaign and those in the future.

 

[LostSoul]

And, perhaps more importantly, should all negative consequences of choices I make be designed away from the game? If that's the case, are any choices actually meaningful?

I think what I'm talking about is this kind of thing:

"There's the orphanage. I burn it down."
"You lose 2 levels."
"But if I don't they'll kill my wife."
"Sorry, those are the rules."

Not so much this:

"There's the orphanage. I burn it down."
"Seriously? Okay, it burns. You'll probably become a wanted man once the guard gets its diviners out here."
"I had to do it to save my wife."

 

[LostSoul]

They have lots and lots of power beyond what's on their character sheets. That's why I'm so concerned, if it turns out the motivation was suicide due to fear of losing stuff. That fear must be incredibly powerful, and I need to figure out how to address it, for this campaign and those in the future.

That's cool, sounds like a good game!

I know that I've had trouble figuring out what to do in the past with the death & loot issue... I guess that's why I've been talking about it here, to work some stuff out in my own head. Thanks!

 

[Janx]

I'm a bit late to the table, but here's some thoughts:

Debating about how the dragon stalks the party is moot. We're not here to do an audit on what events led up to the encounter. The dragon is high level, it had means to keep track of the party, and identify the optimal time to attack.

Debating about what happened to the PCs after they died is moot. The problem the OP has is how the party came to decide to fight to the death. They had no knowledge of what would happen after they died, and was irrelevant to the decision making process (point of fact, the party may have thought they'd be raised). But in any event, whether the dragon did or could have fully destroyed them (ex. with a disintegrate) isn't a factor in what happened DURING the encounter.

Now to the problem at hand, how did the players get to the point they decided to fight to the death.

Did they thinking running was valid (a "fair" encounter should include a viable escape route)?

Did they think the surrender terms would be honored (a lot of players don't trust surrender)?

Were they attached to their PCs (were they vested in them)?

Did they think they had a chance of winning?


Ultimately, I think each GM should have a campaign guide. That guide should include the meta-game parameters that you run with. Things I think the players need to realize are:

some encounters are not winnable through combat
sometimes the PCs will have to run
the DM is not out to kill PCs, though it can happen
Surrendering is a valid tactic and will be honored by most foes
Retreat is a valid tactic, and encounters will be planned to allow it
The DM will avoid "humiliating" a PC when it is not warranted (you don't need naked prisoners to have a chain gang of prisoners)
Part of good storytelling involves setbacks, the players can't win every encounter
The end goal is for PC advancement and success, and the campaign is intended to end that way, assuming good choices by the players.
The campaign is not intended to keep the PCs down the entire time.

The point then, if this is you're agreed upon playstyle, to run the game true to that form.

 

[Starbuck_II]

What's the DC of the Spot check to see the moon? Anybody know? Eberron has 12 moons of different sizes, so I guess I'll need to figure out all of them.

By the rules:
Spot checks are for encounters or noticing something special about an object/creature.

Unless you are planning on fighting the moon: it shouldn't come up.

When a dragon is trying to follow someone for an encounter they must use spot checks or we are assuming DM fiat.

 

[Charger28Alpha]

The PCs in my game:

• Are adjunct members of the city watch, with the legal power involved.
• Have major contacts in two dragonmarked Houses, including the patriarch of Medani.
• Can reach the Crown's elite intelligence force's commander if needed.
• Are owed a favor by the most powerful monarch on the continent.
• Are heroes of the city, their exploits reported by the city's broadsheet.
• Have the loyalty of an entire district, due to one of the PC's efforts to protect it, specifically.
• And more.

They have lots and lots of power beyond what's on their character sheets. That's why I'm so concerned, if it turns out the motivation was suicide due to fear of losing stuff. That fear must be incredibly powerful, and I need to figure out how to address it, for this campaign and those in the future.

Taking the above into account, I really do not understand why they did not just give up their gear. With contacts like you list, the PCs should have little problem re-equipping themselves.

As to not trusting that the Dragon would honor the surrender, what did they have to lose by taking the chance? If she did not honor the surrender she would have taken their stuff than killed them, as it was she killed them when they did not surrender, then took their stuff.

Don't get me wrong as a PC in many games I have loved cool equipment, but dying for it is senseless. I have also had PCs die in a "last stand" situation. However, getting killed by a angry Dragon in the streets of Sharn when my PC was her target is not a "last stand" situation.

Lastly, as a GM/DM and as a player I find that expectation of encounters being balanced is as Exploder Wizard states "complete crap". I see D&D worlds as being dangerous places, and taking the chance of PCs being outmatched in fights from time to time, removes a lot of that danger.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

By the way, the whole setup here brings to mind some thoughts on villain design.

IMO, D&D works best when the PCs come to the foes, not the other way around. It's not very heroic to get killed in your sleep, or on the toilet.

So, if you're running a campaign and aspire to realism, design foes that either can't easily sweep out of nowhere, or who are physically weak and must resort to minions, or who for some other reason can't kill the PC on the toilet. Otherwise, you end up with situations like the DM in this thread faces.

Monsters who can't enter the city without being attacked en masse by the watch are a good example. Villians who lead respectable double lives are another. Dragons who are afraid to leave their hoard are a third.

The problem with this dragon as it's described here, is that it's insanely perceptive, fast, and deadly, with no reason to stay in its cave. For all the talk above about the players needing to play their characters realisticly, the truth is that if the game was realistic they'd all be picked off alone, at the dragon's leisure.

Ken

 

[Turtlejay]

I am suprised that nobody has thought about the PC's expectations regarding gear.

I had one DM who was so stingy with gear that at 4th level most of us had our starting equipment, and my wizard had only met one other caster with a spellbook to copy from. And I could not afford the charge to copy the spell. In this campaign gear was so precious that giving it up would be a sore request for sure.

In another campaign we had a good amount of wealth, and new characters could come in with appropriate gear for their level. Giving up the gear would not be as big an issue there, because we knew the DM would provide. We could call in favors or the other PC's would sacrifice a bit to allow us to 'catch up'

With an Artificer in the group and more wealth than suggested for their level, they *should* be in the latter group, but if you were being stingy lately with loot to try and rectify their over-wealth, or they had some other reason to think they would not be able to re-equip, I can see why they were so loathe to give up their gear.

The thing is, as a player I would metagame that as a good DM, which it sounds like you may be, there is no way you would allow me to be dirt poor and less effective than the other members of the party. Not the other metagaming where I wanted my stuff.

All this stuff about perception is funny to me. It is a dragon. It has a 5th level diviner chained in it's basement. It's dragon's hard includes artifacts that enable it to scry. A member of it's cult of personality is spying on the party. There are dozens of ways this dragon could spy on the party besides flying reeeeely reeeeely high.

Jay

 

[Starbuck_II]

All this stuff about perception is funny to me. It is a dragon. It has a 5th level diviner chained in it's basement. It's dragon's hard includes artifacts that enable it to scry. A member of it's cult of personality is spying on the party. There are dozens of ways this dragon could spy on the party besides flying reeeeely reeeeely high.

Jay

But then it can hide and move silently easily to them and ambush them.
See it already gets penalties for hiding from size. So since the OP never said invisible: we see that it some is a ninja dragon because it hides in plain sight (which is just DM fiat).