Another TPK - Sigh.

[Hjorimir]

If his point was to say, "ForceUser, I'd just make sure I was practicing due diligence and took into consideration the ogres low Intelligence and low stealth skills giving the players a fair shot at detecting them before it was too late" then he should have said so.

Frankly, he comes off more than a little antagonistic. I've played D&D with ForceUser for years and I can say it isn't in his nature to act with any sense of malice towards the players or their characters. There may indeed be some mechanical aspects of the game he should familiarize himself with, but his choice to pursuit the party with the full force of the ogres was in no way harsh or unrealistic.

There were a few good points made during this thread, but overall it has come off more as a witch-hunt than a critical look at the topic at hand. He was asking for a little insight as to ways to improve on the situation. I could sit here and find various quotes that are downright insulting. But that would be a waste of time.

 

[Sunderstone]

I sometimes wish I could go back to being a player instead of a DM. I havent played in a campaign for many years. I would love playing in ForceUsers group, he uses tactics for monsters which many DM's dont, this adds flavor.

I dont really like losing characters either but it happens. If it happens with creatures this cunning it's all the more challenging to me.
I may have taken alot of other precautions though as a player. I also would have suggested lying in wait for the rest of the Ogres, possibly setting up a trap or two beforehand and definately setting up some type of alarm (bird call etc).

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

swrushing- most of your argument stems from the INT of 6 not being able to set up a simple plan, even when led by a leader. You will vehemently continue arguing this point beacause you feel its the correct one.
Others do not think this way, including myself.

see comments above on the difculty of leading squads of average intellect men of average intelligence. i add that to the comments from military guys who have talked with me on the subject, as well as the norm in fiction and film.

All of this adds up to say "flawless execution without a hitch is a sign of high amounts of training, done by the best, and not the norm."

Simple point, if you goal is to stick and adhere to the capabilites of your NOCs, to reflect their strengths and weaknesses, then stealthy ogres in flawless execution is NOT your way of going about it.

***A tiger with a 2 Intelligence (-4 penalty) still stalks its prey and tries to move silently before going for the kill. Are they commando tigers? Not in the least.

no but stealth is one of a cat's strengths. its a "logical conclusion" for a cat to try to sneak up on you AND SUCCEED.

an ogre's weakness is his stealth.

As far as the -8 hide checks? Maybe the dice were real lucky for the DM and not so lucky for the players. Or depending on the terrain, they may have had Improved Cover which provides a +10 bonus to Hide IIRC.

uhh... and so that +10 to hide also applies against the ogres spotting them, right.

You can argue about sound as the sentry can use a listen check, but there is a -2 per 10' of distance (cumulative) penalty from the sentry's listen check due to forest background noise.

sure, if the Gm says there is sufficient noise for that. but if the forest is so active with animals at this point in the night, where is the rolls for the mob of ogres to spook the animals, giving the PCs something else to notice?

Considering the Ogres only had to initially be quiet enough to get close enough for the entangle... its very feasable.

they have to INITIALLY get close enough to spot the party.
then, assuming that went flawlessly and they were not spotted or heard at that distance, they have to move back beyond ranges where spellcasting can be heard. Cast at least two spells, then close in again to line of effect range for entangle... again all with no failed rolls, and then they are in position to throw an entange at whatever range the cover no longer blocks line of effect.

how did our hulking morons do at all this? Flawlessly. Not one failed roll when it matters.

To take it further, the Ogre Leader could have gotten closer first without his whole band, cast entangle, then yell for his band to attack.
So much for your flawless 101st airborne Ogre platoon.

see above for the in and out and back and forth.

 

[Sunderstone]

see comments above on the difculty of leading squads of average intellect men of average intelligence. i add that to the comments from military guys who have talked with me on the subject, as well as the norm in fiction and film.

cool, next session Ill invite a few former armed foces servicemen for consultation and have a dvd player running "Platoon" for movie comparison. Dude , get a grip its D&D, a game.

no but stealth is one of a cat's strengths. its a "logical conclusion" for a cat to try to sneak up on you AND SUCCEED.

an ogre's weakness is his stealth.

umm... I was using the tiger to disprove your 6 being too moronic of intelligence to plan and execute anything.Please pay attention.

uhh... and so that +10 to hide also applies against the ogres spotting them, right.

given, but the Ogres didnt pack a lit campfire in their backpacks.

sure, if the Gm says there is sufficient noise for that. but if the forest is so active with animals at this point in the night, where is the rolls for the mob of ogres to spook the animals, giving the PCs something else to notice?

the dmg says this, regardless of DM being implemented. Other animals not usually spooked can be insects buzzing, occasional hoots of an owl, etc

they have to INITIALLY get close enough to spot the party.
then, assuming that went flawlessly and they were not spotted or heard at that distance, they have to move back beyond ranges where spellcasting can be heard. Cast at least two spells, then close in again to line of effect range for entangle... again all with no failed rolls, and then they are in position to throw an entange at whatever range the cover no longer blocks line of effect.

all this can be done by one ogre vs one sentry, so the dice may roll in favor of either one.

Glad I dont play in your campaign, you reach way to deep into variables and overcomplicate just about everything. Be it what the ogres did earlier indicating their current frame of mind, or what type of animals will or will not get spooked by passing Ogres.
Way too much nonsense for you to have the kind of "perfect dm" attitude you have.
ForceUser has his own style, as do you too. He hasnt flamed your style or tactics, and even one of his players says that he isnt the vengeful DM type, yet you fault him so because he didnt prepare all the proper non-essential detail you would have.

 

[drothgery]

umm... I was using the tiger to disprove your 6 being too moronic of intelligence to plan and execute anything.Please pay attention.

I hate to say this, but a humanoid (or monstrous humanoid or giant or anything looks vaguely human-ish, and isn't an ape) with a 6 Int is supposed to act like a really stupid human, while something that looked like a tiger and had a 6 int would be expected to act like a very cunning animal. Yes, if you're consistent and logical a 6 Int is a 6 Int, but Ogres are designed to be played as stupid, unsubtle, big, evil enemies -- Ogres who aren't this way are presenting a far greater challenge than would normally be expected of Ogres.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

There may indeed be some mechanical aspects of the game he should familiarize himself with,

should we take this that you are at least adding "the GM" to the list of reasons the characters died now, instead of laying it on the players choices and the players bad die rolls?

but his choice to pursuit the party with the full force of the ogres was in no way harsh or unrealistic.

i dont think i have ever said the CHOICE to pursue the ogres was unrealistic at all.

heck, lets look at my very first post in this thread... the very first paragraphs.

having the ogres decide to track the raiding party makes sense.

having the ogres find them, then sneak up on them in the night and get surprise makes sense for a rewasonably smart, organized and at the least moerately stealthy bunch.

Ogres, however, are INT 6 and if in their normal hide armor mm stats have a hide and silent check of about -8 (-1 for dex 8, -4 for size large, -3 for hide armor.)

its the flawless execution by moronic hulking brutes from "lets go get 'em" to "taken by complete surprise" when dealing with NPCs that are loud and not bright that is my issue. (OK, another issue is the lack of attention to other possibilities like terrain and weather as possible options.)

There were a few good points made during this thread, but overall it has come off more as a witch-hunt than a critical look at the topic at hand.

some quotes from the first few pages, all before i even posted here..

"bad decisions on the part of the players have caused TPKs."

"Just plain suicidally stupid behavior and I have no sympathy for them as players."

"Guess that is why most criminals get caught, too stupid to cover thier trails and hide out to see if they are being pursued.
I hope the ogres enjoyed their meals."

others followed.

seems like the players are fair game?

*****

again, the logical conclusion is "the ogres go after the pcs", not "the ogres take the pcs by complete flawless surprise and they all die". The latter was what the Gm gave to his players, and i think he should be a lot more focused on that failing of his than how stupid he thinks his players character's were.

in his original post...

"I often get the feeling that my players aren't quite totally aware of the consequences of their actions."

"...when they make bad decisions... "

"Twice now, bad decisions on the part of the players have caused TPKs "

"accomodate the players' poor choices."

mentions of players being at fault? 4

how many mentions of ogre's lack of stealth? 0
how many mentions of ogres not being bright? 0
how many mentions of ogres having exceptional luck? 0
how many mentions of the move from "go get 'em" to "complete surprise" being ever in doubt? 0

Wrong focus.
Wrong questions asked?

 

[Hjorimir]

Wrong attitude.
Wrong accusations.

 

[Sunderstone]

I hate to say this, but a humanoid (or monstrous humanoid or giant or anything looks vaguely human-ish, and isn't an ape) with a 6 Int is supposed to act like a really stupid human, while something that looked like a tiger and had a 6 int would be expected to act like a very cunning animal. Yes, if you're consistent and logical a 6 Int is a 6 Int, but Ogres are designed to be played as stupid, unsubtle, big, evil enemies -- Ogres who aren't this way are presenting a far greater challenge than would normally be expected of Ogres.

again, an opinion. yours. We all differ. To me they arent Cro-Magnons.
Ogres for 6 intelligence still tend to wear armor, and use other large weapons besides small trees. They have leaders, sometimes sub-leaders, they form hunting parties and warbands. Some even become shamans etc.
I dont envision them acting as "really stupid humans". They may not be the brightest, but they arent as stupid as some would say they were.
But again , thats my opinion and thats good enough for my game.

 

[Sunderstone]

but Ogres are designed to be played as stupid, unsubtle, big, evil enemies

who says this btw? I'd agree with unsubtle, big , and even Evil.... but who says they were designed to be stupid?

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Glad I dont play in your campaign,

We are in complete agreement here.

you reach way to deep into variables and overcomplicate just about everything.

if i go a little further, put a little extra effort in so that my ogres don't feel like my bugbears and so on and the scenario feels right to me and mine and in doing so i avoid unnecessary or maybe even senseless tpks, which raises the enjoyment of my players and me and my campaign is not frustrating to me, I think its time well spent.

YMMV of course.

yet you fault him so because he didnt prepare all the proper non-essential detail you would have.

Nope, i fault him for the reasons i gave. moving too easily from "get em" to "and they get complete surprise" and not taking into account or taking advantage of any of the possible "logical outcomes" in favor of the most extreme tpk option. i fault him for starting his focus on how stupid the players character's action were as the primary focus and not starting with his own errors as the primary focus.

The very non-essential detail you mention might well have enabled him to recognize the other options and use them within the context of "logical conclusions."

maybe.

maybe not.