Another TPK - Sigh.

[Raven Crowking]

just a little amazed at how forceuser seems to think his hands were tied by his setup and his adherence to principles when in fact he had troops with so many organic weaknessses in JUST THE TYPE OF AMBUSH he had them flawlessly conduct that a minor bungle or slip along the way to alert the party and let them be in something other than "dead meat sleeping" position is likely, not impossible.

Maybe it's just me, but I was given to understand that the PCs actually made a fairly good showing of it once combat was joined. This implies to me, anyway, that they were not "dead meat sleeping," especially once the entangle went off. My understanding was that some of the PCs could have escaped, but chose to remain with their companions, fighting to the end. Also, my understanding is that this fight was within one or two dice rolls of having been won by the PCs.

Am I missing something here?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

This is how the first ogre encounter in my current campaign went. PCs were all first level:


A giant humanoid, nearly ten feet tall, was engaged in building a cairn with some of the fallen tower stones. Not a troll, then. An ogre. Still dangerous, but not as dangerous as what they had feared. From the size of the cairn, whatever it was burying was about the size of the ogre itself. The ogre was wrapped in a bear’s hide, tied on with a rope. Its well-muscled arms were hairy and knotted with warts and muscle. What Locke could see of its face was bestial, with huge teeth and a bristling beard. At least the ogre favored one side as it worked, as though wounded. Thank Badur for small favors.

Hrum and Desu caught up to them and stepped into the clearing. Desu let the donkey free. It raced across the clearing, and cowered behind the half-orc warrior. As Desu returned to where the donkey and Hrum stood, they caught sight of the ogre. Hrum quickly strung his bow. Desu, however, saw that it was injured and, as Ravenscroll stepped through the ragged stone gap into the tower, Desu hailed the ogre.

“Forgive our intrusion,” he said. “Maybe we can help.”

The ogre turned its red-rimmed eyes toward Desu. Its face was twisted with grief and rage. It howled in anger.

“I don’t think that’s going to work,” Locke said. Suddenly prophecies didn’t seem so imperative. Recovering his lost life didn’t seem worth dying for at the moment. He stepped quickly away from Hrum and Desu as the ogre retrieved a huge greatclub from near where it was working. From within the tower, Ravenscroll gave a cry of pain. Hrum loosed an arrow. Again, the ogre roared with rage. The dwarf’s raven shot out of the tower in a flurry of panic.

Hrum fired arrow after arrow as the ogre advanced. Most found their mark. Locke and Desu moved swiftly away, leaving Hrum to face the ogre alone. “By the Seven Good Gods!” called Hrum. “Some help here!” He fired another arrow, and then dropped his bow in favor of his sword.

“Draw it this way,” Locke called. Desu prepared a sling stone. The raven fluttered between tower and the companions as Hrum hurried toward them. It almost wasn’t enough. With it’s great stride and reach, the ogre struck Hrum a glancing blow with its greatclub. Clearly, a solid blow would be lethal.

Another ogre, this one a stripling no taller than a tall man, stepped out of the tower. It was armed with an ornate trident. The raven redoubled its efforts, trying to draw its master’s friends into the tower. But now Hrum, Locke, and Desu stood together at last. Whether it was this or not, the ogres did not stand long. The young ogre was already greatly injured. Perhaps his father did not want to lose him. In any event, the fight had gone out of them, and they quickly fled into the forest.

Moments later, Desu followed the raven into the tower, where Darwin Ravenscroll lay injured close to death.

The tower walls were five feet thick, giving way to a space about twenty feet in diameter. A narrow stone stair wound counterclockwise around the inner wall, leading nowhere. Part of a wooden roof remained, giving shelter to a massive cot. Darwin lay crumpled near the side of the cot, bleeding from a vicious stab wound.

There were various pots and pans, bones, bags, and bits of rusty dented metal armor scattered about the tower in an untidy hodgepodge. Desu clattered through them quickly to the dwarf’s side. At least he was still breathing, but he was pale with blood loss. Despite the extent of Ravenscroll’s injuries, Desu was able to stabilize him without too much difficulty, staunching the wounds with sticky cobwebs and bloodmarrow.

By that time, they had all entered the ruined tower and looked around. Locke and Hrum began sorting through the ogres’ stolen loot. They set aside those items that might be useful in the Dragon’s Lair, such as a coil of hemp rope. Locke gave a small gasp of delight when he found a sack filled with tobacco. He immediately withdrew his pipe from his pouch.



copyright (c) 2004 Daniel J. Bishop

 

[Raven Crowking]

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?

Personally, I try to include a good deal of information in my descriptions not only about what can be immediately sensed, but also about what the PCs know about the game world. I am well aware that players may not be as well versed in some aspects of folklore, medievalism, or whathaveyou as I am, and might need the information. On the other hand, I almost never tell them what the monsters are, unless the creatures are fairly common, and I often have NPCs mix up monster names, like telling the PCs to be wary of a troll when the creature is, in fact, an ogre.

However, I also feel fully justified in believing that there are some things I just shouldn't have to tell the players. Sometimes, when something seems monumentally and obviously stupid, I will ask, "Are you sure you want to....?" in such a way (I hope) that the problems with their statements are obvious. But, then, if they go ahead anyway, I will not save them from the consequences.

Here are some examples of "flavor text" from my current campaign. All quoted sections are copyright (c) 2004 Daniel J. Bishop.

The Weirwood is cut back a good two bowlengths from the village wall, but once the forest starts, it starts thick. Overhanging boughs cut the light down to a green shadow, and areas of thick undergrowth reduce visibility. The northward trail is used by woodcutters, so there are liable to be clear-cut areas and glens at least as far as the caverns.

The first day passes rather uneventfully. All you encounter are birds and small animals – chipmunks and squirrels, the occasional rabbit. Anyone with the Track feat notices signs of wild boar, and the hoof marks of deer throughout the day, but you see nothing so large.

Lots of information on what the immediate wilderness area is like, as well as what natural animals are liable to be found. I knew that at least one PC had the Track feat, and I wanted to summarize an entire day, so I merely assumed at least one or two checks.

Later, when they encounter wild boar, I would have had no sympathy for their not being aware of the possibility, had that been the case.

Just as the ship’s boat is being made fast, a group of Lakashi women steps out from the cover of the forested area to the south. They are tall and dark, with dark hair braided around feathers and held with snakeskin. They are dressed in deer leather jerkins and pants, with snakeskin boots and belts. Two of them are armed with short bows – hand axes are in their belts. Four others are unarmed save for stout walking sticks. Their leader, a stunning woman with clear green eyes, raises her hands to show that she bears no weapon, and begins walking slowly toward you.

In the campaign literature, it is established that the Lakashi are organized in clans based around various animal totems. These women follow a snake totem, which is subtley indicated here, then less subtly indicated later on.

You follow the ancient road for the rest of the day. The land continues to rise and fall about you, though the road must have been well made as it is reasonably level. Occasionally, you can see outthrusts of rock that looming over the track, or loose tumbles of old stone that must once have marked walls or stone fences, but they are few and far between. As night draws near, the Lakashi make for a shallow cave that they seem to know well. Within, there is a fire pit and stacked firewood. Representations of forest animals have been painted on the walls of the cave with ochre and natural dyes – deer, wolves, bears, boar, and snakes. While crudely stylized, the paintings have a kind of natural grace about them.

If the PCs fail to realize that this area was sparsely inhabited once, I have no sympathy. Nor do I have a lot of sympathy if they fail to realize that the Lakashi make somewhat regular use of the cave. Enough information has been supplied.

You pull your cartful of alchemical supplies for a long, weary day, eastward down the road. At least the once-powerful smell of skunk has become all but a phantom, there only when the wood is wet. Huge trees, thick with overhanging vines and moss are showing deep summer greens on either side of the road, and form an arch high overhead. Although it is a dark day, and sometimes there is rain, the high ceiling allows only a few raindrops to fall among you as you travel. This thickly forested area is, in some ways, almost like being underground, though far more wholesome. Songbirds flit among the branches, or sing out of sight. Squirrels are common, busy running along the branches or seeking last autumn’s lost nuts along the forest floor.

Again, the PCs are given a fairly clear idea about the area that they are in, and about the consequences of pulling a cart along without a draft animal. They are reminded of the after-effects of attacking a skunk that had invaded their campsite earlier. They know the season. Should they somehow ignore any of these things, though, I'd probably remind them.

The inn is dark, and smells strongly of goat, stale beer, and wood smoke. A huge communal taproom with long, low wooden benches and trestle tables takes up most of the place. A long, fieldstone fireplace and a few smoky lamps light the place. The rafters are stained from the smoke. In addition to the locals, you can see a few Lakashi women haggling with some of the goatherders, trying to trade beaver and rabbit furs for metal tools and weapons. Some younger girls and boys are employed serving drinks, and occasionally stealing a sip. One of the closer locals mutters, “All things in threes,” then calls out “Ai! Tondbert! We’ve another flock of travelers this evening!”

Lots of things implied about this place in the descriptions, including the presence of a third group of travelers (in addition to the Lakashi traders and the PCs), which the players will either pick up upon or not. If not, too bad for them.

As you travel down the tunnel, you notice many rope-like rock formations, almost like vines of stone, along the cave walls. Large lizards with sticky-padded feet, almost the size of cats, scamper along the walls and ceiling, seeking insects, small rodents, birds, and snakes to eat. They are quick moving, almost as much like monkeys as reptiles. Still, the monkey-lizards seem to ignore you at worst – often they scamper well outside your reach.

After traveling a little more than 100 feet into the cave, you come to your first check. The tunnel bends slightly to the east and drops a good 40 feet down to another level. Someone has pounded an iron piton into the floor here, leaving enough exposed to tie a rope to it. It is in the center of the ledge.

Do the players understand that someone has gone this way before? If not, too bad.

At the bottom of the ledge, the water collects into a shallow pool that runs along the floor of the tunnel. The water is cold, and about 6 inches deep, making the floor treacherous to anyone who moves faster than half their normal speed. There seems to be a small flow to the south – this water is not stagnant.

The part I made bold is a specific warning about rules-related issues, which I think would be apparent to anyone walking there. If I failed to mention it, I feel I would be remiss in my duties as a DM.

This passage goes only about 20 feet before it is blocked by fallen rock – apparently from the tremor you have already seen signs of. There are indications that something has tunneled down from above in relatively recent times…probably the creatures you fought…but the passage seems to have closed behind them. Still, there might be more caves or chambers up there if you could excavate the area properly.

Ahead is a room about thirty feet wide and forty feet deep. Another passage, ten feet wide, leads out of the far wall. To the east, a twenty foot wide passage leads away beneath an arch. The arch was once ornate, showing images of many animals – bears, deer, turtles, foxes, frogs, and wolves among them – but the images have been broken by age and whitish mold, making them seem half-melted and strange. Brackish water covers the room entire.

Just more examples of description. Overkill, really. Heck, I failed my Ego Check and just kept picking out quotes I liked.....!

Point is, though, that PCs can and will do stupid things, even having been granted a fairly comprehensive description. Sometimes, they should receive an additional warning. Sometimes not. In any event, once they've decided to commit to an action (often in the face of that additional warning) they should be allowed to commit to that action. Otherwise, the game becomes meaningless pretty quickly, IMHO.


RC

 

[swrushing]

Am I missing something here?
RC

First post...

Caught completely by surprise, the group didn't have much of a chance. They all died.

He was there, I wasn't.

I suppose we could assume he did not know what he was talking about in his description here, but i was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his own characterization of the scene he ran.

 

[Raven Crowking]

First post...



He was there, I wasn't.

I suppose we could assume he did not know what he was talking about in his description here, but i was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his own characterization of the scene he ran.

Well, yes, ForceUser did say that.

But then, didn't he elaborate afterwards? And doesn't that elaboration include that the PCs actually made a fairly good showing of it once combat was joined? I don't think it requires being unkowledgeable about his description to assume that he glossed over what the PCs did in order to make his question easier/more interesting to read. People gloss over details all of the time. The gist of his question was, after all, about how the PCs got into the situation, and the general result thereof.

I can understand why ForceUser didn't include a blow-by-blow in his initial post. However, as he subsequently elaborated, and as at least one of his players has come forward to describe his DMing style, wouldn't it be fair to assume that ForceUser was there and we weren't?

Or, in other words, why don't you give him the benefit of the doubt on his elaboration of the scene?

Am I missing something here?


RC

 

[DragonLancer]

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?

One is the player and the other is the character. I'm not sure what you have a problem with there. In the situation we have been given, the players (and hence their characters - or at least one of them surely) would have the common sense and forethought to realise that camping just half a mile away from where the ogres lair, is quite frankly a bloody stupid idea. Not to put the players down, thats not my intention, but it seems to me that they didn't use their heads here.

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?

Because one (addressing the baron) is a roleplay situation and providing the player/character was polite to the baron I wouldn't have a problem with that because they are at least roleplaying and trying to do the right thing.
If the players in ForceUsers game, had kept moving during the night and got back to the village or somewhere safe, they I don't think there would be a problem. Its fairly obvious, to a player or a character, that camping that close to the lair of the ogres was a bad idea. This is what I am trying to put across, that in the given situation it was not setting/world information they were missing, but they just didn't think.

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?

It doesn't. But then I'm not talking about one player, I'm talking about the group. You can't tell me that not one person in that group thought camping that close to the ogres was a bad idea.

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.

Thats not what I am condoning. In my long experience, roleplaying games are common sense. You are not an idiot, you are clever and you have good idea of common sense. You know what is a good or bad idea. You know that doing X is a bad idea, and your characters have the same idea. I'm not insulting you there, so please don't take it that way and I'm not insinuating that ForceUsers players are idiots, so hopefully they won't take offence either.

 

[Plane Sailing]

First post...



He was there, I wasn't.

I suppose we could assume he did not know what he was talking about in his description here, but i was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his own characterization of the scene he ran.

swrushing, it appears you missed reading the post then where forceuser expanded on the results of the combat as RavenC said.

You are certainly taking an very antagonistic stance towards forceuser and anyone who questions you in this thread, and it doesn't do your argument any favours as well as not being very nice.

The boards work best when we all play together nicely, everyone learns something and everyone has a good time.

Please play nicely.

edit: that goes for everyone of course

Thanks,
Plane Sailing (Moderator)

 

[swrushing]

Or, in other words, why don't you give him the benefit of the doubt on his elaboration of the scene?

I am.

However, his summary on page 3 does not contradict the original statement and it leaves enough unsaid to make it diffuclt to try and go contradicting with.

For example, he says that if the two spells which missed had landed, there might have been a different outcome. Thats not pushing this to a victory here.

How many ogre casualties were there? Not mentioned? Were there any ogre losses? If we knew that, we might have the beginnings of the ability to assess whether it was close or not.

From his short version in the opener, and the elaboration on page 3, it doesn't seem like a close fight where the PCs had much of a chance.

If he now wants to reverse/rephrase his statements and turn this into a thread about "a close fight where the PCs unfoirtunately died", thats fine, but thats not the impression i got.

if it is just a thread about a close fight where the pcs unfortunately died, then its a lort more ado about a little than it seemed.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

In the situation we have been given, the players (and hence their characters - or at least one of them surely) would have the common sense and forethought to realise that camping just half a mile away from where the ogres lair, is quite frankly a bloody stupid idea. Not to put the players down, thats not my intention, but it seems to me that they didn't use their heads here.

Just a reminder that we don't have both sides of this event.

Its fairly obvious, to a player or a character, that camping that close to the lair of the ogres was a bad idea. This is what I am trying to put across, that in the given situation it was not setting/world information they were missing, but they just didn't think.

As others have stated, whether 1/2 mile is good or bad depends a lot on the terrain. The attention to the terrain is lacking in forceuser's posts, so its not totally out of whack to suspect it may not have been made crystal clear in his session description either. its at least worth doubting.

You can't tell me that not one person in that group thought camping that close to the ogres was a bad idea.

So, your assumption is that at least one player thought what they were doing was a bad idea and yet chose to do it anyway?

Thats even harsher than the notion that none of them thought about it!

I would not be myself willing to go there without hearing their side.

For me, thw why of the decision is in doubt, since I don't have the players' views.

Clearly, forceuser thinks it was a bad call, a poor call, one which seems way out of the realm of reasonable to him, and so the party got hit with what he felt were "logical consequences" et al the tpk.

But, for me, as i have said earlier, while one player can have a brain fart and do something really dumb, its much much rarer for everyone to all agree at the same time to be really really dumb.

Whenever my entire group agrees on a single dumb thing, i stop and wonder where i failed to get across to them the setting and situation. In every single time, i have found where their understanding was different from mine on some scene event, mostly due to a difference in precision from "what i said" vs "what their characters would see".

A band sitting on a rise with a clear view of the orc camp would have it painfully obvious to them that a fire was dumb. A band sittintg in dense woods who cannot see more than 2d56x10' would not see it as necessarily that big, especially if the wind was right.

A group of players who had only gotten partial verbal descriptions are neither of thoise necessarily.

But i will say this... if it was so blatently obvious that forceuser considers it to be so poor a decision, and the PCs have skills in any of these areas, it was the Gms job to deal with the gap in Player knowledge and PC knowledge with survival rolls and what not. IMO.

Thats not what I am condoning. In my long experience, roleplaying games are common sense. You are not an idiot, you are clever and you have good idea of common sense. You know what is a good or bad idea. You know that doing X is a bad idea, and your characters have the same idea. I'm not insulting you there, so please don't take it that way and I'm not insinuating that ForceUsers players are idiots, so hopefully they won't take offence either.

IMX there is a large gap between character knowledge and player knowledge. Most of my friends know precious little about riding horse or hunting game ormost of the things that are common everyday things to their characters. They also know a lot more in other areas than their players. Since i do tend to enforce separation of character knowledge and player knowledge when it works against them, i also do so when it works for them.

 

[Knoxgamer]

One is the player and the other is the character. I'm not sure what you have a problem with there. In the situation we have been given, the players (and hence their characters - or at least one of them surely) would have the common sense and forethought to realise that camping just half a mile away from where the ogres lair, is quite frankly a bloody stupid idea. Not to put the players down, thats not my intention, but it seems to me that they didn't use their heads here.

It appears to me that character and player are being fuddled together. Allow me to use myself as an example. I have a bad tendency to fall into formal language and logical argumentative strategies even when playing an Int 8 Cha 8 character. Unfortunately, my DM rarely pays attention to that and will allow my character to dominate the social situation even though other characters would be better at it. My knowledge and skill, as a player, directly impacts the character that I play and that is a bad thing. As a player, I could have made this mistake. I might have had many reasons for doing so, anything from "my character has little experience in the wilderness" to cocky self-assuredness. Even if *I* knew it was a bad idea, my character may not.

The reverse is equally true. When I play a rogue with Knowledge: Streetwise I may do many unstreetwise things without my DM assisting me in what my character knows to do. I come from a middle class suburban background, and simply will not be as on top of things as a city dweller would. Like many players, I may also have difficulty understanding the nature of the city we adventure in as it relates to modern day cities - assuming it does or does not have attributes a modern city would have. In this case, as a player I lack knowledge my character has and it's important for the DM to inform me when my character's knowledge comes into play.

Many instances, such as the above, where characters seem to set themselves up for inevitable doom stem from the player's being unaware of just how unwise their decisions are - even while their characters would beat them over the head for suggesting it.

If the characters knew and did it anyway, then I fall into the Capture and Take Back Alive camp.