Another TPK - Sigh.

[Sunderstone]

It was all in your delivery sw.
He wasnt bragging about the tpk and he even asked for future suggestions. This is a forum after all so everyone is entitled to post what they want (including you and me), but the looking down upon attitude wasnt needed.

 

[Patlin]

I don't think you can look just at intelligence in determining the ogres abilities to concieve of and act on a plan. Wisdom also plays a part.

99% of the time, even intelligent monsters will have plans blow up in there face -- due to the way the party responds to the plan. Plans very rarely survive first contact with the enemy, but unless and until you meet opposition, even an idiot has a decent shot of following simple directions.

"You lot, be quiet and follow me. Me make plants angry around glowy fire, then we smash." Not beyond an Ogre, and sometimes plans do go well. They go well more often if the enemy does stupid things. The ogres didn't need to get close enough to spot the party, the campfire was visible from a great distance and the initial attack was an area of effect spell. How smart do you have to be to use the basic fire-in-the-hole tactic?

 

[DragonLancer]

What would you have done?

Exactly what you did. Players that don’t have a minimum of common sense deserve everything that gets thrown at them. From reading the posts on this thread, I can see where some may conclude that you perhaps did not give out complete local information, or used the ogres too intelligently, but I think you did ok by sounds of it.
Ogres can still try and be sneaky, and seeking revenge for the death of their friend is perfectly acceptable IMO.

DMs should blame themselves more often; after all, they are the ones running the campaign. But instead of taking a hard look at themselves, they act like smug deities looking down upon the foolishness of their players.

Sometimes you guys forget that the whole point of this GAME is to have fun.

Nonsense. The game is meant to be fun, true, but not everything falls at the feet of the DM. Players can cause just as much problems for a game as the DM can.

I don’t want to run, nor play in, a game that is just “fun”. I want repercussions, and a realistic world/setting/game. I don’t want everything falling in the favour of the players just because it’s meant to be fun.

I would be nice to have them subdued, waking up in a cage, and then having to find a way out. But that is playing into their stupidity, and promotes poor gaming, because the DM will get them out of a fix that they put themselves in. This is not how to run the game IMO. I won’t deny that running an occasional scene or story twist like that is cool, but the situation described by ForceUser, the players deserved to get spudded.

P.S.: ByronD, you may be right about ForceUser's players not wanting to play in the sort of game that he wants to run. Personally, though, I don't think that DMs are obligated to alter their playing style. The DM sets the table, and if you want to eat, you eat what he's serving. If you don't want to eat, make room at the table for someone else.

The game has to be fun on both sides of the DM's screen. Everyone involved is obligated to make it fun, not just the person who spent the most time and money setting it up.

Amen, brother. Games run both ways. As DM I run the game I want to run, but then I have players who know how I run and are cool with that. I’ve got one player who would rather have more powergaming I think, but that’s not how I DM. One day I may cater to him but not right now.

I really hate it when people throw out the comment that the game is run almost solely for the players. That’s rubbish. It is for the DM as well, and the DM has to be happy with the game he is running. I’m obviously in the minority here, in that it’s my game to decide how things work and the game level is how I set it.

note that one could just as easily say that if this is the third TPK, the GM should have learned by now the players' style and adjusted accordingly.

of course, the best situation is for the GM and players to both compromise and come up with something mutually enjoyable.

I don't know if you DM, d4, but from my point of view, the DM invests a lot more time, energy, and money in the game than any given player, or all of the players as a group. Not only that, but if one or two players aren't having fun, there is still a game. If the DM isn't having fun, there is no game.

I would say, the DM sets the table. If no one wants to eat, then he shouldn't DM. But, given that anyone wants to eat from that table, they need to take into account what table they are eating from.

A game is a mix of compromises, but when push comes to shove, players should change to fit the DM’s play style. The DM puts far more effort into the game than players do, and really it is the DM who decides what happens with the game/campaign. The players do not always come first.

I don't really see how/why everyone keeps calling this player tactics, when it seems to me to be an error/misunderstanding. For example:

Player: I sneak into the temple while the cultists are chanting and steal the relic.

Good DM: You can't do that, the light globes hanging from the ceiling fill the chamber with very good light. There are no areas of shadowy illumination in which to hide.

Bad DM: As all eyes turn towards you, you realize you made a terrible mistake. Eight cultists grapple you while another eight draw their rapiers and sneak attack you while grappled. You are dead.

When a player puts that forward as his action, then as far as I am concerned he is accepting the consequences of his actions. What you have posted for the Good DM is what should be said if the player bothers to ask before hand. The Bad DM option should lead to a fight not an instant death.

You are the eyes and ears and noses for your players. The mass of the onus is on you to tell them and show them whats happening, what their character ssee hear and know. if its painfully obvious to you as the Gm that 1/2 mile given what you know as Gm about the situation is too close, is too obvious, is certain death, then its on you to make sure the PCs (if they have someone with appropriate skills so that its obvious to them) knowledge is shared fairly with the players.

If the players don’t ask or don’t think about it, then it’s tough. They take their chances. Unless you’re running a game for complete newbies to D&D, you should not be offering that kind of advice. Players make the calls, and live with the outcome (or not in this case). If you just hand them this sort of thing you are taking away a good chunk of the game, and they aren’t learning, and not using common sense.

 

[Hjorimir]

Well put, DL.

 

[swrushing]

Players that don’t have a minimum of common sense deserve everything that gets thrown at them.

I, for one, would hold off on this degree of characterization while i only had the one other view represented.

If the players don’t ask or don’t think about it, then it’s tough. They take their chances. Unless you’re running a game for complete newbies to D&D, you should not be offering that kind of advice. Players make the calls, and live with the outcome (or not in this case). If you just hand them this sort of thing you are taking away a good chunk of the game, and they aren’t learning, and not using common sense.

this is definitely a totally different philosophy or style than the one I use. if it works for you, thats great, but i prefer a much less adversarial role with my players. I really don't want them worrying about "did i say everything to the gm right" as much as i want them worrying about the characters and the world and the bad guys. that works much better for me with newbies and veterans, as Gm and player.

 

[Saeviomagy]

** Of course, this doesn't rule out the ogre druid speaking with animals or using a wolf animal companion or something to find the party, even without any of the ogres having Track. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just saying that it's something to consider.

It also misses out the fact that the ogres couldn't care less about the darkness... To them, it's basically daylight.

 

[DragonLancer]

this is definitely a totally different philosophy or style than the one I use. if it works for you, thats great, but i prefer a much less adversarial role with my players. I really don't want them worrying about "did i say everything to the gm right" as much as i want them worrying about the characters and the world and the bad guys. that works much better for me with newbies and veterans, as Gm and player.

I wouldn't put that much concern on them saying the right thing. I'm not that harsh with it, but if they don't ask and just assume, then they don't learn. What my post commented on with regards to this post, feels too much like hand-holding to me, which is good advice for newbies, but experienced gamers shouldn't need that.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I must admit:
if a group of 7 creatures, each with a hide mod of -8 and a sneak mod of -4, managed to sneak up on the party to within charge range without the sentry spotting them or hearing them, then I'd be concerned that the DM fudged the numbers to allow that to happen.

Hell, I'd expect some of the sleeping party members to succeed at their listen checks. From a look at the numbers, a fair few of those ogres are going to be running around with a final stealth check that's negative.

And the DM had damn well better be rolling every stealth check for every ogre, unless he's just going to decide that the sneaking isn't going to happen and have us all hear it.

Saying "I could roll them all, but that would guarantee failure" is not a statement that should lead to you improving the odds. It's a statement that should lead to you giving up on the tactic.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Takyris,

I've been offline for a couple of days, so this has probably already been answered, but.....

Oh, no, but the big boss didn't give his minions specific instructions? He just told the monsters that they had to capture the hobbits alive, like the idiotic bad guy in an action movie who, when the hero is surrounded by 12 ninjas with uzis, says, "Stop, I want him alive!" for no reason other than to gloat and introduce the hot chick that the hero is going to seduce, turn from the path of darkness, and use as an assistant in his escape from the bad guy's lair?

Why on earth would a great and powerful dude like that deliver such idiotic and self-hindering instructions?

Because the GM decided that it would result in something other than a bunch of low-level halfling deaths, that's why.

I'm not sure if you're going from the film version or the trilogy itself, but in LotR, it is pretty clear that Saruman wants hobbits captured, not killed, and especially not despoiled, because he is unusure which hobbit is carrying the Ring, and he is completely certain that if his minions find the Ring (as opposed to himself), then he is dead. For the finder would surely claim the Ring as his own, and then the Eye will surely see. And the Eye will dispatch the winged Nazgul, pick up the Ring, and possess it before Saruman can do anything about it.

Saruman was not on the side of Sauron; he wanted the Ring for himself, so that he could oppose Sauron and order things according to his own will.

Within the context of the story, Saruman's instructions to his minions are incredibly rational. So much so that, as it turns out, Sauron's instructions to his minions are pretty much the same...only Sauron's minions prove far less trustworthy than Saruman's.

In short, the DM is not making an on-the-spot judgment call; this is part of the scenario as he crafted it, and a perfectly logical outcome of player actions within the campaign world.

Also, please note that your previous scenario included only the deaths of Merry and Pippin. Since Frodo and Sam seemingly escaped prior to your mooks attacking, the BBEG doesn't have the Ring, and your campaign can continue. Just don't expect Minas Tirith to fare as well without Aragorn's passage through the Paths of the Dead bringing additional forces from Southern Gondor. (On the other hand, since Denethor doesn't see the ships of the Corsairs sailing up the Anduin in his Palantir, he might not be so quick to give up. He might actually aid in defending the city, and would not later be deposed by the return of the King.)


RC

 

[Knoxgamer]

I wouldn't put that much concern on them saying the right thing. I'm not that harsh with it, but if they don't ask and just assume, then they don't learn. What my post commented on with regards to this post, feels too much like hand-holding to me, which is good advice for newbies, but experienced gamers shouldn't need that.

Why is there a difference between the character's saying the right thing and the character's knowing how far a campfire can be seen? I do not see a difference in the player's addressing a baron as "Ser" or not realizing they needed to hide a campfire. In both instances the character knew something the player did not. Why should there be an exception for the spoken word? If the player does not realize the need to use the correct surname, angers the big time Lord and is beheaded for it, how is such a thing different than the player not realizing the fire's light and smoke would carry? Some players are socially adept and on top of conversations in D&D, some players have military and/or outdoors experience. Why should player experience and attentiveness to detail be the bottom line for determining whether or not the character know a particular bit of information?

If I had been in this situation and suffered the character death, the only thing I would have learned is that I need to ask the GM - with great frequency - what my character knows and whether my character thinks any given plan of action sounds favorable. Unfortunately, that would grow tiring for me and I would likely look elsewhere for a game. The GM should inform players, whenever possible, of any pertinent information regarding their character's knowledge.