Armour Dilemma: Am I Wrong Here?

[fusangite]

Thanks everyone for your input. The human relations work was all done by the other players so last night's game was a breeze. I must particularly thank the paladin and bard in this respect. We all had a good time and the game's warm atmosphere returned. The three heavily-armoured characters have all vowed to go out and buy chain pijamas to prevent future disasters (except the paladin who already owned them but didn't feel like wearing them to battle anyway).

The players also had a good time completely derailing my plan for the episode and collectively over-ruling the paladin's slavish adherence to the rule of law and assassinating the duke of the city.

My assessment of the debate:

1. Generally, you guys made me feel supported about the only thing that got me really upset: player rudeness. Although, I did find people's idea that an RPG and dinner party are not socially comparable quite surprising and food for thought.

2. I tried to follow the arguments of people who disputed my application of the rules and suggested that I had an alternative. I really didn't buy any of those arguments.

3. It seems like there's a real 70/30 split on ENWorld about what kinds of tough situations you can throw at your players. Some people seem to believe that throwing encounters at people when they aren't prepared (e.g. are out of spells or unarmoured) detracts from enjoyment of the game while others feel that doing so, from time to time, is an important element of the game. You have pointed out to me that a substantial (30%) minority of the gaming community does think the way my player does. I hadn't realized the minority was so large; and learning this does help me to understand my player better.

 

[Caliban]

No. Heavy Armor sucks.

No. You just can't deal with it.

I have to go with the group that thinks the DM screwed up.
You chose to enforce a rule, or just set up a situation that uses that rule, that points out a glaring hole in 3e mechanics.

Ah, so you support verbally abusing the GM for actually enforcing rules in the book, and actually having the enemies use intelligent tactics that fit them.

*shrug* Whatever.

 

[fusangite]

Valiantheart, much as I'm trying to just stay out of the debate and just observe the outcome, I must disagree with a few of your arguments:

First, you did effectivley neuter the combat characters in you game by not allowing them to don their armor. What was preventing you from launching this "surprise attack" right before everybody went to bed?

Why would the vampires choose to launch this attack at a time when they were less likely to succeed? Perhaps you should have put the term "surprise" in quotation marks there.

It is an unfortunate fact, but because the way D&D is set up most melee characters are more a sum of their magic items than their abilities. Restriciting that effectively nullified them.

This is a really shabby piece of rhetoric. Telling people that while they can use their magic rings, weapons, amulets, bracers, horns, cloaks, boots, etc. but just not their armour is not "nullifying" them. Your argument is like that of those Libertarians who state that there is no difference in principle between a 10% income tax and a 100% income tax.

What if the scenario had been reversed and you had some thing that had kept the party from getting 8 hours of sleep for three or four nights in a row and then you sprug the final BBEG battle? Now you have all your primary spell casters who have only 10-20% of their spells available.

Actually, that was the character of last night's episode. Those who participated in the battle 2 episodes ago were almost completely out of spells in last night's episode and ended up being carried by the melee characters because the arcane casters were almost completely out of spells.

Do you reprimand them for not grabbing their quarter staffs and rushing into fight vampires who can do the equivalent of 25 points of damage a hit with their energy drain?

Actually, you'll note (a) I didn't reprimand anyone who chose to put their armour on instead of rushing into battle; I just argued that complaining that no being able to participate in the battle wasn't reasonable for them; (b) I don't think a cleric with a +2 magical mace, able to turn undead 4 or 8 times a day, with 15 potential "cure" spell touch attacks and multiple copies of Searing Light, Lesser Restoration and Negative Energy Protection memorized is in the same position fighting vampires as a spell-less wizard with a quarterstaff.

 

[Saeviomagy]

1. Generally, you guys made me feel supported about the only thing that got me really upset: player rudeness. Although, I did find people's idea that an RPG and dinner party are not socially comparable quite surprising and food for thought.

I think here's the difference:

An RPG is much closer to a "bring a plate" dinner party, where the individuals attending are expected to show up with food. The host is still expected to do most of the work - they supply the place, and most likely the drinks, tableware etc, but everybody present makes an investment. If someone else interferes with that investment, they're more likely to voice their problems than if everything were set out for them.

 

[mmu1]

3. It seems like there's a real 70/30 split on ENWorld about what kinds of tough situations you can throw at your players. Some people seem to believe that throwing encounters at people when they aren't prepared (e.g. are out of spells or unarmoured) detracts from enjoyment of the game while others feel that doing so, from time to time, is an important element of the game. You have pointed out to me that a substantial (30%) minority of the gaming community does think the way my player does. I hadn't realized the minority was so large; and learning this does help me to understand my player better.

There's a big difference between throwing occasional encounters at the party when they're not prepared, and intentionally designing a climactic encounter with the BBEGs in such a way that only some of the characters won't be prepared. This wasn't a random occurence, but an intentional setup on your part that put several of the characters at a huge disadvantage.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hmmm, at the very least it sounds like you now have an ex-paladin on your hands... Not reacting when he actually had a good idea of what was going on is not going to sit well with his god.

Late night encounters happen, you aren't always in armor, live with it. I once had a player throw a hissy fit over the fact that I wouldn't allow his caharacter to:
a.) Sleep in full plate
b.) while in a tree...

He also complained about the penalties for skills like Jump while in armor. ("But the rest of the party made the jump!', 'Yeah, but the rest of the party was in light armor, and they had lower penalties...')

Personally I like being in hurried rough and tumble encounters, no time to prepare, I also like having the time to set up situations where it's the bad guys getting surprised. Turn about is fair play. (And I love it when the PCs plot and plan and get the drop on the badguys, especially if they can surprise me as well as the critters!

I'd say give the player a warning, then if he acts up again, dump him.

The Auld Grump

 

[S'mon]

Re the 70/30 split, it was a shock to me too when I first started reading EN World. I wonder if the 30% figure was lower pre-3e? Before 3e I never read very much about how it was incumbent on the GM to provide the PCs with challenges suited to their abilities and (especially) preferences; and the idea that that 'balanced encounters' are ALL they should face seems based on a misreading of the CR/EL system - in the EL section of the DMG it's suggested that 5% of encounters should be in the party EL+5 or more 'run away or die' zone, but player's-rights advocates seem to ignore this.
That 30% of posters think it's unfair of the GM to make PCs choose between their own safety (by putting on armour), and the welfare of NPCs (under attack) is slightly horrifying to me.

 

[Valiantheart]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, you did effectivley neuter the combat characters in you game by not allowing them to don their armor. What was preventing you from launching this "surprise attack" right before everybody went to bed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Why would the vampires choose to launch this attack at a time when they were less likely to succeed? Perhaps you should have put the term "surprise" in quotation marks there.

Your have proven that you have entirely missed the point several other posters have pointed out to you already. Regardless of the fact that the BBEGS would have used it as a sound tactic, it is clear from the reaction of a good portion of your gaming group that they found the confrontation suicidal at best.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is an unfortunate fact, but because the way D&D is set up most melee characters are more a sum of their magic items than their abilities. Restriciting that effectively nullified them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is a really shabby piece of rhetoric. Telling people that while they can use their magic rings, weapons, amulets, bracers, horns, cloaks, boots, etc. but just not their armour is not "nullifying" them. Your argument is like that of those Libertarians who state that there is no difference in principle between a 10% income tax and a 100% income tax.

Ah the good old, "I dont agree with your line of reasoning so you are a ninny poo head whose entire point of view is invalid. Here let me throw in a meaningless diatribe with no relation to the discussion. Ahh, now I feel much better about myself."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if the scenario had been reversed and you had some thing that had kept the party from getting 8 hours of sleep for three or four nights in a row and then you sprug the final BBEG battle? Now you have all your primary spell casters who have only 10-20% of their spells available.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, that was the character of last night's episode. Those who participated in the battle 2 episodes ago were almost completely out of spells in last night's episode and ended up being carried by the melee characters because the arcane casters were almost completely out of spells.

At least you are somewhat fair. However, being low on spells is not as drastic as being armor less against energy drainers. There are still wands and scrolls to fall back on.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you reprimand them for not grabbing their quarter staffs and rushing into fight vampires who can do the equivalent of 25 points of damage a hit with their energy drain?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Actually, you'll note (a) I didn't reprimand anyone who chose to put their armour on instead of rushing into battle; I just argued that complaining that no being able to participate in the battle wasn't reasonable for them; (b) I don't think a cleric with a +2 magical mace, able to turn undead 4 or 8 times a day, with 15 potential "cure" spell touch attacks and multiple copies of Searing Light, Lesser Restoration and Negative Energy Protection memorized is in the same position fighting vampires as a spell-less wizard with a quarterstaff.

a. True enough. Though your socially challenged player might disagree.
b. You and I might think so, but he did not.

 

[Tsyr]

That 30% of posters think it's unfair of the GM to make PCs choose between their own safety (by putting on armour), and the welfare of NPCs (under attack) is slightly horrifying to me.

What 30% of us think (And I'm marginaly one of those 30, though I can see the other side as well... hell, maybe not all of that 30% thinks this, but I do), is that it's a blood game... If the players aren't having fun, the game is being played wrong.

End. Of. Story.

This isn't a job, this isn't a duty. You're game might be great... But if the people you are DMing for aren't having fun, you are not playing the game the way it was meant to be played... It wasn't meant to be played as a tool to express your views on the player/DM relationship or anything else... It's a game, to have fun with. If the players aren't having fun, you either should change your DMing (If you can, and still have fun), or DM for different people...

There is only one right way to play the game, and only one wrong way. The right way is everybody has fun. The wrong way is people don't.

Now, of course, DM's Rights Advocates will quickly point out that the players don't have to be there. And they are right. Players can leave at any time. I'm all for the idea of leaving if you aren't having fun. I've done it before. But without players there is no game, so it behooves the GM to keep in mind the fun of his players when he is planning a game.

What the GM has to ask himself is "How much do I value the happieness of each individual player? Assuming I do to some signifigant degree, can I make that player happy while still keeping the rest of the players happy? And can I do so while still enjoying the game myself?". As much as possible, you should work towards answering those questions in a positive manner. Unfortunatly, this means that sometimes, one person might be odd man out, as his views just don't mesh with the rest of the group. I really can't tell from what you have posted in this case if the player in question is just the odd man out, in which case he should leave as he probably will clash with you again, or if there is sympathy for him in the rest of the group, in which case you should re-evaluate your own actions, or if he is the odd man out, but you could be doing something to accomadate him without hindering the fun of the rest of the group, yourself included. All three of those are valid senarios.

And some of this 30% doesn't feel that the DM is by any god-sent decree "beyond reproach"... I've been on both sides of the screen for years. And I'm honest enough with myself to admit, I make mistakes... on both sides of the screen. I fail to plan ahead far enough, on both sides of the screen. I do things I really shouldn't have done, had I considered the rest of the people present, on both sides of the screen. I've followed rules or ignored rules I probably shouldn't, on both sides of the screen. Basicly, I'm still me, regardless of if I'm a player or DM. And I've seen plenty of people who shouldn't be on the other side of the screen to begin with, and that works both ways... Good DMs who make horrid players, and good players who make horrid DMs... So to say a DM is automaticly beyond reproach, or somehow "better", strikes a raw nerve to me.

And I get a little irked when I see some DM claiming the players have no right to complain, because they are doing a favor for the players. (You, fus, have not done this, really... But I've seen shades of that in this thread from others) While technicly they might have a point, in that they aren't really getting payed for what they do, and that should buy them a bit of tollerence, that does *not* equate to "I can do whatever I darn well please, and you can't say anything because you're just a player, nya-nya-na-boo-boo!". Even ignoring the fact that DM's are replaceable almost as easy as a player, if the players in question truely want to game (One of them can take on the role), that's just not how you should behave towards friends.

I've seen far too many DM's let the DM screen go to their head. Even DMs who are otherwise great people. I'm sorry, I don't see it that way... DMs are really just another player in the game, one with a bit more options, in a different role, but still just another player. You're all there with the same goal, right? To have fun? Well, darnit, I guess I just feel that normaly, fun shouldn't involve one person being absolute tyrant over other people. The game is a group effort... The DM might do a little more work (But, sorry, I know MANY DMs who do less work than a lot of players in their game... I know, I've been in games like that.), but it's still a group effort.

Gah.

/rant off
/ramble off
/preach off
/hit_self_with_mousepad_to_shut_up on

 

[Tsyr]

Darnit, fusangite, Valiantheart... Can we keep politics and personal attacks out of this? It's been a good discussion thus far. It would be nice if it didn't get closed.