Another TPK - Sigh.

[Sunderstone]

Well, the problem isn't that an Int 6 person can't follow orders when you're up-front, leading the group. The main problem is that as soon as you turn your back, they'll wander off to do something else, usually rather unpredictable. They also have problems understanding even basic group tactics, meaning that they have great difficulties acting as part of a group, other than perhaps a mob.

I can understand that totally but sometimes evil rules with an Iron Hand and FEAR can keep the underlings at bay. Maybe the Ogres feared there leader's wrath if they didnt follow?

One simple hypothetical, even for those who cannot fathom six int 6 hide-8 ogres and a leader possibly ever failing to flawlessly execute a flawless tacical plan, is a simple sotmr in the afternoon starts wiping away the party tracks and if it continues into the night makes keeping the fire untenable or at least muffles it somewhat and restricts visibility and wind. The net result of this may be one of several things...

some DMs dont use weather in their game, some DMs dont play with all exact rules regarding distance and terrain. To each their own. You seem like the type that everything has to be scientifically-explained to hold any relevance. Like I said to each their own. You still dont have to be belligerent about all this with ForceUser. You could have easily commented on what he could have done better without the tone.

an angry mob of stupid people, well, for me, that does usually mean a stupid mob. Remember, the majority of these ogres are int 6. Whats the charisma and leadership skills of the orgre chief? he has apparently already spent more atts on improving int and wisdom significantly and in purchasing skills for use with track. How good is his leadership skills? How high did he raise his charisma? How good was he at reigning in, while tracking, his half dozen vengence-driven int-6 morons for a couple hours of nightime tracking AFTER a long day of raiding and pillaging?

just how flawless was this ogre chief/shaman whatever guy?

Again you have to complicate everything. So now we need to know what the Ogres did that day as well? Do we need to know exactly what the lead Ogre's leadership skills are like?
Do we have to prepare for any hypothetical situation to every wandering or planned encounter that can possibly happen? Are we in-touch with every molecule of the universe at every moment.
Again, everything needs to be explained in scientific detail for you. To some thats great, Im a stickler for details as well, but DMs are often called upon to work with the unexpected. Not take days off from work to fully plan out even the most remote hypothetical situation.

Maybe you want ForceUser to calculate the exact temperature that day, find out if lunch was agreeing with the Ogres before they got home, and maybe even get the Ogre Leader's mothers maiden name beforehand.
For that matter why not make a detailed history for every wandering encounter spetznaz-style. We could put soldier checkpoints every few miles in the forest to stop wandering monsters and ask them for their passports and papers.

 

[Piratecat]

Gang, I'd like to stop the incipient argument before it goes any further. No more insulting comments, please. This thread has a lot of fun questions to discuss, but leveling snide jabs that bait other members shouldn't be a part of this. You can disagree with other peoples' ideas and positions all you like, but being rude to them is going to result in some very cranky moderators. . .

And no one wants that. Well, at least *I* don't.

So calm your tempers, relax your gritting teeth, and head back on topic. Many thanks.

 

[Sunderstone]

Sorry Cat, I was just being mildly sarcastic.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

I can understand that totally but sometimes evil rules with an Iron Hand and FEAR can keep the underlings at bay. Maybe the Ogres feared there leader's wrath if they didnt follow?

Its likely they did fear the leader's wrath. its likely they do want to follow orders. its likely every single moronic ogre wants to not get in trouble and not do stupid things and make blunders and lose focus.

Stupid blunders are rarely done because the perpetrator wants to be stupid.They usually occur because he cannot help but be what he is... stupid.

some DMs dont use weather in their game, some DMs dont play with all exact rules regarding distance and terrain. To each their own.

but, when the point of defense is how the results that happened are what should have happened, that things were played right and the outcome was from "not coddling" and player mistakes and not from GM sources... then the issues that could have helped the PCs that the Gm handwaves away are, it seems to me, relevent.

You seem like the type that everything has to be scientifically-explained to hold any relevance.

how in the world you derive at that is beyond me. The weather, the ogres potential mishaps based on their lack of brains, clumsiness and stealth, and so forth are all story based notions. I guess if one considered citing the mechanical rules elements involved like spot ranges and hide checks to see if the "this is how it should happen" is reasonable within the rules is science minded then, yeah, i might fall into that camp.

Personally, given that the "science" varies a lot from game to game and genre to genre, i would rather say that i like for things to make good dramatic sense, be consistent within the scene and story premises.

I just see it as more likely for an ogre mob ambush to not go perfectly, flawlessly, smoothly and without glitch than for it to. So when i look at the scene described and the results, they don't seem to be something where i would jump in on "they got what they deserved" for the players and "great job" for the Gm.

Like I said to each their own. You still dont have to be belligerent about all this with ForceUser. You could have easily commented on what he could have done better without the tone.

Is it just tones critical of the GM that you feel you must bring up, or have you also gone after posts where the players were maligned?

Again you have to complicate everything. So now we need to know what the Ogres did that day as well?

Actually, that point was brought up pages ago by someone else, someone who also saw other possibilities within the setup.

Do we need to know exactly what the lead Ogre's leadership skills are like?

before we decide "he led his unruly not too bright troops flawlessly and thus the tpk" we might ought to at least consider it, shouldn't we? I mean if the raid goes off without a hitch the PCs die and the campaign ends. So, maybe, before we take that step, we ought to consider whether an ogre leader under the circumstances... the one we built with track, with druid spells, with higher attributes and all that so that we KNEW exactly what he could throw while he was slaughtering our pcs... has the leadership skills to conduct and lead all these ogres into this raid without hitch.

before we say "yeah they all follow him without error and so well in fact they overcome their own lack of brains etc" we really ought to ask that question...yes.

That question asked before the tpk might offer a GM an insight into, if he wants to take the time to consider any outcome other than the tpk, other possible reasonable ways this scenario should play out.

Do we have to prepare for any hypothetical situation to every wandering or planned encounter that can possibly happen?

We ought to give it a moments thought for those which are tpks or very seriously threaten to be. A little thought on this before can be a better thing than rerolling characters after.

Are we in-touch with every molecule of the universe at every moment.

not me. you?

but thats fine because the vast majority of the molecules are not tpking your pcs.

so, perhaps focusing on those a little more would help.

Again, everything needs to be explained in scientific detail for you. To some thats great, Im a stickler for details as well, but DMs are often called upon to work with the unexpected. Not take days off from work to fully plan out even the most remote hypothetical situation.

absolutely.

Maybe you want ForceUser to calculate the exact temperature that day, find out if lunch was agreeing with the Ogres before they got home, and maybe even get the Ogre Leader's mothers maiden name beforehand.

why, no? What i was suggesting was that, rather than feel his hands were tied, he had plenty of other options for which way to go that still could stay within the "treuness" of the scene. I would hope that he sees that its not a choice between tpk and barbie, but that the flaws and weaknesses of his adversaries alone make for many ways this perfect flawless ambush wasn't the most likely result and that had he chosen on of those, the "right result" can still play out.

For that matter why not make a detailed history for every wandering encounter spetznaz-style. We could put soldier checkpoints every few miles in the forest to stop wandering monsters and ask them for their passports and papers.

if that fits his campaign and setting and it fits his and his players styles... sure. But thats hardly what I am suggesting.

 

[Sunderstone]

btw swrushing, sorry for my sarcasm earlier. I was just trying to point out that every DM has their own style and may not look at all the same things that someone else does in their game.
It definately doesnt make anyone less of a DM.

 

[Hjorimir]

No, what you're suggesting is to just use a little DM-fiat to smooth things over for bumbling players. That is completely different.

Furthermore, I wasn't advocating meta-gaming, which is the use of player knowledge that the character would not possess. I was suggesting that the players would be better equipped to run their characters with knowledge and skills they do possess. To wit, a ranger would use her knowledge of hunting and survival to know enough to get further away, cover the party's trail, and not light a fire that night. None of these things rely upon knowing another group got pasted by the same group of ogres not more than a half-mile from their home, which I would consider their home turf.

Lastly, you don't have to be flawless to pull off jumping a bunch of sleeping characters at night. In my campaign, humanoids such as ogres raid and ambush with regularity; it is something very familiar to them...even if they are not overly brilliant.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

No, what you're suggesting is to just use a little DM-fiat to smooth things over for bumbling players. That is completely different.

The Gm makes the decision about the weather... "is it going to be clear and fine, perfect for flawless commando ambushing, or is it going to rain which would make the tracking tough and reduce spotting distances". Whether he makes that decision by fiat or by die rolling he makes that decision. As someone else said, not making a choice, in this case leaving weather irrelevent, is a decision in the ogre's favor.

Same thing with "do the ogres do anything stupid?", Do the ogres make too much noise?" etc although these have a few more solid mechanical elements to them.

Deciding "nothing goes wrong for the ogres" or not even thinking to consider the possibility before you wipe out your party in a slaughter is as much of a fiat as deciding a storm is in the mix.

ymmv.

Furthermore, I wasn't advocating meta-gaming, which is the use of player knowledge that the character would not possess. I was suggesting that the players would be better equipped to run their characters with knowledge and skills they do possess. To wit, a ranger would use her knowledge of hunting and survival to know enough to get further away, cover the party's trail, and not light a fire that night. None of these things rely upon knowing another group got pasted by the same group of ogres not more than a half-mile from their home, which I would consider their home turf.

if the characters they were running that night possessed the knowledge and skills you suggest, shouldn't the gap between player knowledge and character knowledge be brought up BEFORE THE TPK?

if a player uses his knowledge that is outside of what his character knows, the Gm should call him on it.
By the same token, if the player has the character do something bad that the gm knows the character skills would not let him do, the gm should let him know, not slaughter him and hope the player gets it next time.

separation of player and character knowledge is a two way street.

Lastly, you don't have to be flawless to pull off jumping a bunch of sleeping characters at night.

with a sentry posted. They set a watch. They knew bad guys were out there and knew the dirtection of the camp, yet a mob of ogres with lousy hide/silent checks and morons for the most part waltzed up, tracking them from the camp, and slaughtered them with total, flawless, surprise.

i agree you do not have to be flawless to kill sleeping characters at night, but to overcome your own idiot partners, to sneak up on a group who has a watch posted when stealth is one of your weaknesses, and so forth... thats pretty flawlessly done in my book.

they did not have to be flawless, but the Gm decided they were, right down to the third tpk.

In my campaign, humanoids such as ogres raid and ambush with regularity; it is something very familiar to them...even if they are not overly brilliant.

too general a statement to object to or support.

IMG it varies greatly by the skills and traits of the beasties as to whether or not they SUCCEED.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

No, what you're suggesting is to just use a little DM-fiat to smooth things over for bumbling players. That is completely different.

The Gm makes the decision about the weather... "is it going to be clear and fine, perfect for flawless commando ambushing, or is it going to rain which would make the tracking tough and reduce spotting distances". Whether he makes that decision by fiat or by die rolling he makes that decision. As someone else said, not making a choice, in this case leaving weather irrelevent, is a decision in the ogre's favor.

Same thing with "do the ogres do anything stupid?", Do the ogres make too much noise?" etc although these have a few more solid mechanical elements to them.

Deciding "nothing goes wrong for the ogres" or not even thinking to consider the possibility before you wipe out your party in a slaughter is as much of a fiat as deciding a storm is in the mix.

ymmv.

Furthermore, I wasn't advocating meta-gaming, which is the use of player knowledge that the character would not possess. I was suggesting that the players would be better equipped to run their characters with knowledge and skills they do possess. To wit, a ranger would use her knowledge of hunting and survival to know enough to get further away, cover the party's trail, and not light a fire that night. None of these things rely upon knowing another group got pasted by the same group of ogres not more than a half-mile from their home, which I would consider their home turf.

if the characters they were running that night possessed the knowledge and skills you suggest, shouldn't the gap between player knowledge and character knowledge be brought up BEFORE THE TPK?

if a player uses his knowledge that is outside of what his character knows, the Gm should call him on it.
By the same token, if the player has the character do something bad that the gm knows the character skills would not let him do, the gm should let him know, not slaughter him and hope the player gets it next time.

separation of player and character knowledge is a two way street.

Lastly, you don't have to be flawless to pull off jumping a bunch of sleeping characters at night.

with a sentry posted. They set a watch. They knew bad guys were out there and knew the dirtection of the camp, yet a mob of ogres with lousy hide/silent checks and morons for the most part waltzed up, tracking them from the camp, and slaughtered them with total, flawless, surprise.

i agree you do not have to be flawless to kill sleeping characters at night, but to overcome your own idiot partners, to sneak up on a group who has a watch posted when stealth is one of your weaknesses, and so forth... thats pretty flawlessly done in my book.

they did not have to be flawless, but the Gm decided they were, right down to the third tpk.

In my campaign, humanoids such as ogres raid and ambush with regularity; it is something very familiar to them...even if they are not overly brilliant.

too general a statement to object to or support.

IMG it varies greatly by the skills and traits of the beasties as to whether or not they SUCCEED. Ogres would like to ambush and surpise, they just are not very good at it. Bugbears, they like to as well, but are much better at it.

 

[Pielorinho]

ForceUser, if you don't mind me asking, how did you describe the woods.

I was kind of thinking the same thing. The two forests I'm most familiar with are those of the Great Smoky Mountains in North Carolina, and those of the Olympic Rainforest of Washington State. In neither of these would a small campfire be visible from more than a hundred yards off.

I try to give my players hints when their strategies seem stupid to me; more than once I've found it's because we've got drastically different assumptions about some key point, whether it's the thickness of a forest, or the susceptibility of guards to bribing, or how quickly a poor-maneuverability critter can return to combat, or whatever.

When the party is doing something really dumb, it's a good time to go crazy with the description .

Daniel

 

[Plane Sailing]

Funny, in over ten years of pre-3E gaming I never had a single TPK. Since switching to 3E, I've had two, and more near-wipeouts than I can immediately recall.

This isn't your fault, it is something that is inherent in the 3e system. In prior editions higher level characters lasted longer in a fight (and higher level fights lasted longer too). That means that when you come from 1/2e into 3e it isn't immediatly obvious how fragile high level characters are. A high level fight often ends more quickly than a low level fight because there is much less swishing around and every solid blow hurts.

My experiences mirror your own, and I realised that this is where the problem lie - as a DM I wasn't used to creatures causing so much damage, as players they weren't used to judging their level of vulnerability in a setting where crit multipliers can ramp up the amount of damage done dramatically.

3e makes life more dangerous for PCs at all levels, and proportionally far, far more dangerous for characters of 5th level+ than was ever the case before.

Cheers