Another TPK - Sigh.

[Hjorimir]

Nitpick: This is the second TPK and the third time they are making characters.

...and, no, I don't think it is a two-way street. There is no opposite to meta-gaming that the DM needs to be involved in. Real people make poor decisions all the time in real life; characters make poor decisions as well. (In my game I often say, "You all go to sleep?" Only to quickly be followed up by the players saying, "Nope! We set a watch order as follows..." They don't let me get away with anything. Oh how I miss the halcyon days of newbie players that I could torment at will.)

I don't think the DM should have to constantly remind players to be careful or use any particular strategy for two main reasons: it feels more like the DM is railroading characters and it isn't fun if the DM has to run the both the PCs and NPCs at the same time. One might as well just e-mail the players each week and let them know what cool things they did.

 

[smetzger]

...and, no, I don't think it is a two-way street. There is no opposite to meta-gaming that the DM needs to be involved in....

I got to disagree with that one big time. The d20 knowledge and profession skills and many others are all set up to give the characters information that the players may or may not know OOC. In this case a relatively low Survival skill check would have indicated that the fire was clearly visible from the lair. Since Survival is not trained only and is Wisdom based it is likely that at least one person in the party would have made the DC (of which I put at about 5, but even at 10 someone would probably make it). I don't think a player (especially a new one) should have to say "I use my Survival check of 12 to determine what a safe distance to the lair is that we can't be spotted from". Failing the direct call out from the player the DM should ask for some Survival checks (or roll them himself) especially when a potential TPK is on the line.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

...and, no, I don't think it is a two-way street. There is no opposite to meta-gaming that the DM needs to be involved in.

and we completely disagree here.

To me, both the Players and i are working together to create this world and have it make sense. its just as "out of character" for a character to not do something basic and sensible because the player lacks the character knowledge as it is for the character to do something brilliant because the player has the knowledge the character lacks.

I have found it to produce wonderful games when i can tell the players, or better yet, show them in play, that i presume their characters are competently acting based on their skills. I long ago passed on the "you did not say your character looked up when you said he searched the cavern" style of "linguistic trickery gaming" which seems to turn it into an adversarial process.

I find it much more enjoyable all around if they don't see ME, the GM, as the adversary but instead see my monsters as the adversary. if they feel they are competing with ME, I feel i have failed.

Real people make poor decisions all the time in real life; characters make poor decisions as well.

Except for, apparenlty NPC int 6 ogre NPCs, in this case, who act flawlessly.

(In my game I often say, "You all go to sleep?" Only to quickly be followed up by the players saying, "Nope! We set a watch order as follows..."

See the above reference to linguistic trickery gaming. not my cup-o-tea. heck, it almost sounds like a step beyond, with the GM actively trying to trip up the players... as opposed to the npcs in the stories trying to trip up the PCs.

Not a game i would be inclined to continue playing in myself.

They don't let me get away with anything.

My players don't see ME as the adversary, so they aren't fretting or worrying or spending effort on preventing ME from "getting away with anything." They don't expect that i will be out to trip them up, worrying about making sure every casual statement is vetted for "can he screw us with this?" safety.

My characters, my adversaries in game... now thats who they worry about.

Oh how I miss the halcyon days of newbie players that I could torment at will.)

I understand our differences in perspectives more clealry now.

I don't think the DM should have to constantly remind players to be careful or use any particular strategy for two main reasons: it feels more like the DM is railroading characters and it isn't fun if the DM has to run the both the PCs and NPCs at the same time. One might as well just e-mail the players each week and let them know what cool things they did.

alternatives between the "can i screw the players if they misspoke something" and the " i email you the results, you dont even need show up" campaigns eing are run by Gms every day.

For example, in my games, if the players are out in dangerous areas, they don't need to tell me they are setting watches when they camp. Since their charactersare experienced, it is assumed. So, in those cases WHEN something happens i simply ask them to tell me the schedule, so i can see who is alert.

I find if you presume basic competence equal to their character's skill as the default and not "only what you say that i cannot twist or catch you up on", things run much better in play.

But, that may be just me.

 

[drnuncheon]

Why do people think that a 6 intelligence isnt capable of following a simple order like "wait"?

Because humans (average int: 10) frequently screw up simple orders?

EDIT: OK, I see that's already been brought up.

There is no opposite to meta-gaming that the DM needs to be involved in.

No opposite, but the DM can easily be nvolved in metagaming. He knows the player's plans, after all, and can (sometines even unconsciously) work to defeat them.

J

 

[Hjorimir]

Yeah, oh well for a bit of light-hearted humor. Not a single one of my players see me as an adversary. They are, however, completely responsible for the actions of their characters and they prefer it that way. My words of trickery is an inside joke between me and my players from when we first started playing D&D as children. We have evolved.

To be honest, I do nudge them with some insight when appropriate. But a ridiculous tactical decision on their part isn’t one of them. For us that just feels like rookie play and since most of us have been playing for over two decades that isn't fun. They are well past the point where I need make sure they never trip and hurt themselves.

You know, I was trying to think of an example of good role-playing that would have eliminated the TPK. What I came up with was Lord of the Rings. Remember (in the movie) when the fellowship left Moria right after Gandalf fell? What did Aragorn say? Something along the line of "We have to get out of here. By nightfall these hills will be crawling with orcs."

No metagaming there at all. If you want to get that out of your players, you don't tell them, "Hey you think you need to..." What the character thinks is completely the purview of the player. To step in and make sure they do something else that is safe is the very definition of kiddy-glove DMing. That's not for me. What you're describing seems to me to be more like authoring. "Well I don't see the character doing that. Instead he does this." Let the players be the players.

You keep making your comments about flawless ogres. My comment was that characters can make poor decisions; not that make poor decisions all of the time. Quit twisting my words, it is impolite and an inaccurate representation.

smetzger, for Knowledge skills I send my players documents of things their characters know based on background and applicable skills. It isn't an issue in my campaign because I've taken time to prepare them. If I haven't, I take ownership of the situation and let them know at that time. I always assume they take 10 on Knowledge skill and just give them information. When they become active and say, "What do I know about X.?" I allow them to drop a die and see if they know anything (unless if their take-10 result is high enough to succeed, then I just give them the goods).

But if I've taken the time to type up a document on the nuances of something like elven society the onus is upon the shoulders of the player to react accordingly. Not for me to remind them, "Hey, you know these elves are cannibals."

The attached is an example of what some of the characters were given based on their Knowledge (Religion) skill for just one particular facet. So the cleric and paladin of the church had better know who ranks over who without me having to remind them.

 

[Vigilance]

Well, I have to come down with swrushing here and say I think ForceUser was much MUCh too harsh.

I think the salient point you need to ask yourself Force, since you clearly want to learn from this experience (a very good trait) is whether you would have allowed 6 PCs with a -8 Hide/Move Silently penalty to sneak up on a camp with a sentry posted.

I think the answer is no, they wouldn't make it to within 100 feet or so without being spotted, which means you missed a few rolls along the way.

Surely, rolling every few rounds of movement, the sentry would have EVENTUALLY beat the ogres Move Silently -8. Heack, since sleeping characters make Listen checks at -10 there's a chance the *sleeping* characters could have heard them coming.

It just doesn't make sense to me that Intelligent 6 Ogres with a -8 skill penalty could have pulled that off.

Now some have raised the point "Int 6 doesn't mean incompetent" and I agree.

However, squads of human soldiers (Int higher than 6) with better training (ranks in the Hide/Move Silently skill and much lower penalties) have a hard time getting close to a camp undetected.

This is why we have special forces units- because normal soldiers aren't disciplined and/or skilled enough to move behind enemy lines undetected.

So if someone with a higher Int and more skill ranks couldn't do it, I have, again, a hard time believing these ogres could do it.

Chuck

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

To be honest, I do nudge them with some insight when appropriate. But a ridiculous tactical decision on their part isn’t one of them.

As i stated in another message, when a single player has a brain fart, i tend to think of it as a fault on the player. When an entire group of players has the same "brain fart", i tend to look to what I did wrong to so clearly lead all of them down the wrong path. Frankly, its common for them to disagree even when the right thing to do is obvious. So if they all agree and its on a bad idea, thats almost always a sign that something I thought i told them did not get said.

For us that just feels like rookie play and since most of us have been playing for over two decades that isn't fun. They are well past the point where I need make sure they never trip and hurt themselves.

again, the extremes come out. Again, there 9is a wide gulf between tpks and never letting them hurt themselves, and Gms all over the place play in that zone every day.

Something along the line of "We have to get out of here. By nightfall these hills will be crawling with orcs."

No metagaming there at all. If you want to get that out of your players, you don't tell them, "Hey you think you need to..." What the character thinks is completely the purview of the player. To step in and make sure they do something else that is safe is the very definition of kiddy-glove DMing.

If in that case mentioned above, the players were talking about staying and i felt as Gm that it would be obvious to the aragorn character that the orcs move faster than the discussion was assuming, i would have the aragorn player make a roll and if successful mention to him that he would expect the orcs to get to x by nightfall, more or less. What the player does, now armed with the knowledge his character should have, is now up to him.

That's not for me. What you're describing seems to me to be more like authoring. "Well I don't see the character doing that. Instead he does this." Let the players be the players.

the huge difference is the difference between me telling them what their characters are doing and telling them what they know. (referencing the above example.)

In the case of assumed competence, i just go with what they have done before and the presumption of reasonable actions to avoid hoisting them on it.

In neither case am i changing their actions, tho by giving them clearly the knowledge their character's would have relevent to the issue, i may give them the opportunity to reach a different choice.

You keep making your comments about flawless ogres. My comment was that characters can make poor decisions; not that make poor decisions all of the time. Quit twisting my words, it is impolite and an inaccurate representation.

Sorry, but i did not twist anything. i never said anything about "all the time". matter of fact, i specifically limited it to "in this case" as opposed to "all the time".

Except for, apparenlty NPC int 6 ogre NPCs, in this case, who act flawlessly

 

[Hjorimir]

As i stated in another message, when a single player has a brain fart, i tend to think of it as a fault on the player. When an entire group of players has the same "brain fart", i tend to look to what I did wrong to so clearly lead all of them down the wrong path. Frankly, its common for them to disagree even when the right thing to do is obvious. So if they all agree and its on a bad idea, thats almost always a sign that something I thought i told them did not get said.

Exactly, if it was the fault of the player(s), they should be responsible for their actions. I do make sure to consider what they know of the situation. If I find that I left something out, I make sure to give them the additional information. If I didn’t leave any of the important details out, their fault.

again, the extremes come out. Again, there 9is a wide gulf between tpks and never letting them hurt themselves, and Gms all over the place play in that zone every day.

Did I say anything should be an automatic TPK? Did ForceUser say, “TPK guys, you messed up.” Nope. I’m not being extreme, but I think your interpretation of evens is.

If in that case mentioned above, the players were talking about staying and i felt as Gm that it would be obvious to the aragorn character that the orcs move faster than the discussion was assuming, i would have the aragorn player make a roll and if successful mention to him that he would expect the orcs to get to x by nightfall, more or less. What the player does, now armed with the knowledge his character should have, is now up to him.

Where I think that it is rather obvious that they have enraged a large group of humanoids that are close at hand and should act accordingly. It isn’t like I held back that information from them.

the huge difference is the difference between me telling them what their characters are doing and telling them what they know. (referencing the above example.)

Yes, looking above they already know there is a huge group of orcs they just left behind in Moria (or in the case of ForceUser’s group, they knew there was a band of ogres). So there is no difference here at all. Of course, if you can somehow demonstrate how the players didn’t even know that, I would concede that point (provided there was something in game that should have alerted the PCs to the fact and the information wasn’t shared).

In the case of assumed competence, i just go with what they have done before and the presumption of reasonable actions to avoid hoisting them on it.

Interesting choice of words…

Presumption: n. (pr-zmpshn) Behavior or attitude that is boldly arrogant or offensive; effrontery.

In neither case am i changing their actions, tho by giving them clearly the knowledge their character's would have relevent to the issue, i may give them the opportunity to reach a different choice.

No, you’re not changing their actions. You’re leading them to make a different one.

Sorry, but i did not twist anything. i never said anything about "all the time". matter of fact, i specifically limited it to "in this case" as opposed to "all the time".

So your contention is that ogres cannot possibly do anything well? Or only when player characters may get hurt or even killed? Are you saying they are completely incapable of ambushing somebody? Do you know exactly how close the ogres were to the camp before the entangle was cast? All I said was that people make poor decisions in life. Role-playing games are supposed to emulate real people (at least on some levels).

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

So your contention is that ogres cannot possibly do anything well?

Why, no, that is not my contention at all.

Or only when player characters may get hurt or even killed?

nope, didn't contend that either.

Are you saying they are completely incapable of ambushing somebody?

No, not at all. 0-for-3 there.

Do you know exactly how close the ogres were to the camp before the entangle was cast?

I believe the original post said something about extreme of medium range, which for a 5th level character IIRC is about 150'. So, no, i don't know exactly how far those flawless ogres were. My bet would be something along the lines of "as close as they needed to be" though.

All I said was that people make poor decisions in life. Role-playing games are supposed to emulate real people (at least on some levels).

and i do not disagree with this sentiment. it also works well, IMO, when it also applies to NPCs as well as PCs.

 

[takyris]

I game with a bunch of suburban geeks who have never gone camping. If one of 'em is a Ranger with a +27 to Survival and Knowledge(nature), it would be sort of idiotic of me to not secretly make a roll for him and say, "Hey, your woodland skills suggest that the weird bumpy hillocks I just mentioned aren't natural, and might be the sign of some burrowing creature that makes its home in this area." Or "Given the sparse tree cover and the clear weather, it's possible that somebody could find your campfire."

Just like, in my d20 Modern game, I would help somebody who'd never touched a computer in his life but was playing a Computer Expert Smart Hero with a +19 on his check. "Okay, you can definitely sign into TechnoDemon Industries, but with your knowledge (technology) expertise, you think that unless you take some precautions, there's a good chance that they'll be able to trace your hack back to your home phone number. You can do whatever you like -- that's just what you've learned in your years of study."

By the same token, if my real-life computer expert player is playing a sharpshooting cop with no computer skills, he'd better not be using his real-life knowledge (unless he's doing it out of character to help the clueless guy playing the computer expert). He's actually been really good about that. "So, Steve, that looks like a computer thing. Can you, uh, Java that? Maybe you can, um, make it firewall with your ethernet? Steve? Steve, why are you crying?"

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that a good GM will make it clear to his players one way or the other -- either they're playing the characters closely in-character, and shouldn't use any of their outside knowledge (but should benefit from knowledge of skills they don't have in real life), or they are playing fast-and-loose, and are free to use their real-life knowledge (but only benefit in minor ways from whatever ranks they put in knowledge skills). Saying, "You don't know anything that your character wouldn't know, and also, if you don't know what your character knows, I'm not going to tell you," is less than fair. The character gets both sets of limitations and neither set of advantages.

And for new/inexperienced players, this includes telling them when they might want to ask the GM whether their character knows something. For players who are either completely new or trained on CRPGS, the experience of asking the GM, "Hey, does my guy with all the outdoor survival experience think this is a viable strategy?" is pretty unfamiliar. Very new players won't even realize that they're allowed to ask follow-up questions, like, "What kind of trees are we in? You said this was hilly terrain. Is it hilly like 'Can't put a football on the ground without it rolling away' or hilly like 'Occasional hills off in the distance'?"

And for the record, I am on occasion horrible at this kind of thing. In a mystery game, I didn't want to give away information, so I didn't exactly spell out the fact that the murders all bore the trademarks of a certain mythological genre (they were all patterned after different Greek myths). When it finally came out, one of the players approached me and said, "Okay, I know nothing about mythology, but my character has a +14 to Knowledge(Arcane Lore). I didn't know that I should have asked about that, though, since, well, I didn't know that it pertained to it."

We agreed that next time, I should be a little bit more generous in tossing stuff his way, especially since his character has such skill in that area, and the player does not. There are times when the players don't know what they don't know, and those are the times when the GM should take a look at their skills and delicately offer information. Not suggestions, certainly, but information.