Re: Re: Re: Re: ?
A general point that I think may have been lost:
One of the features of this ambush was that I wanted to create a situation in which the vampires were disadvantaged, in order to provide the characters an opportunity to take them on. Thus, I came up with a scheme whereby the high level casters amongst the vampire wizards would have used-up a large portion of their high level spell slots with mind-control spells cast on NPCs rather than hitting the characters at full strength. Furthermore, I had the vampires doing a time-critical task that required the vast majority of their attention so that they couldn't focus it all against the PCs. It therefore seemed only reasonable to me that given that the vampires' own strength would be drastically depleted for this encounter, that the party should also be caught somewhat off-balance.
Let's start by responding to Numion,
So, even though the encounter ended up not happening for a large part of the group you think that the encounter couldnt've been run better? I'm not denying it wasn't run by the rules - I'm just saying that the encounter would've been more satisfying for all participants with a little common sense (the Dukes reaction time seemed ridiculous) and loose interpretion of the rules.
So you think my game would have been more enjoyable if, in addition to the heavily-armoured characters not showing up, the duke hadn't shown up either, the sorceror hadn't returned to the melee and a rogue, a bard and a wizard had been left to face down the vampires on their own?
It seems to me that you cannot simultaneously make the case that it was unfair for me to enforce the rules for putting on armour and make the case that I should have superseded the rules in order to prohibit the characters from receiving the aid of an NPC because receiving it (even thought it was within the rules) was "unrealistic."
If I had decided to waive the rules and allowed people to don their heavy armour instantaneously, would it be your position that this rule should never be enforced in my campaign again or that it should be randomly enforced based on "mood"? Would it also be your position that rules for donning light armour should also be thrown out the window?
In my mind the consistency of the rules aren't as important as running an enjoyable game. Being correct, right or realistic (terms used quite a lot in this thread) isn't as important as running a good game.
Some people who have a tactical emphasis rather than a role playing or puzzle solving emphasis (see above post on this distinction) cannot have fun if the rules are arbitrarily changed on them all the time. Tactically-focused players like to know that the rules are always applied equally both to themselves and to their adversaries. So, it's not simply a case of waiving rules willy-nilly and everyone being happy because of that; some players won't want to continue in a group where they don't know whether it will take them 40 rounds or 0 rounds to put on their armour -- and, by extension, where they don't know whether it will take
their adversaries 40 rounds or 0 rounds to put on their armour. How could tactically-focused players plan an ambush if they couldn't rely on knowing whether I would apply the armour donning rules to the people they intended to ambush?
thought it was rather kind allowing the Duke to get there and help out the abusive player's buddies since the abusive player clearly wasn't going to get there. Kinda seemed to me like fung was making sure the other players didn't suffer for one player's stubbornness. Did I read all of that incorrectly?
Yep. I cannot say that didn't influence my decision. I didn't see why I should punish the heroic characters who tried to save innocent lives. However, I made sure that getting the duke's aid did not involve breaking any rules.
In response to Drezden327,
4) I think the timetable you laid out is just flat unrealistic. There is no way all of those things could have happened in such a short span. To get past the Duke's servants in 2 rounds (12 seconds)? It probabaly takes that long to open the door.
Opening a door is a move-equivalent action (ie. 2-3 seconds) according to my recollection of the PHB.
then the Duke is going to need to get aclimated and get an explanation - another 30 secs, etc. etc. The specific actions aren't important - the entire sequence you laid out would take a lot longer than the time you alloted for it. Non-combat time should not be marked off round by round like combat time.
The sorceror had had 4 rounds to think up the shortest-possible things to say both to the guards and the duke which took about 20 minutes of game time. Thus, his statements were incredibly terse; in fact, he simply flew over the guards' heads after two rounds, conversation only partly concluded.
Why would the duke need a detailed explanation of what was happening? He'd just conducted a 1 hour public meeting about it 5 hours before?
5) Since you planned this epic battle for 10 hours, one would presume that you wanted to see the battle with the entire party. Therefore, I think you could have played a more pro-active role to change the situation, by a) telling the PCs flat out - "There is no time to put on heavy armor. If you don't come IMMEDIATELY all will be lossed."
Well, I thought saying "it will take 40 rounds to don this armour. You can stop putting it on any time," 20 times would have been sufficient. I have to tell you, this thing hit me right out of left field. Similarly, the other players kept commenting that if people took the whole time to put on their armour, hundreds of people would die. At one point, the bard practically yelled at the whining player (whom she's been common-law married to for 5 years) who was complaining that the other PCs didn't wait for them, "People are dying! What are we supposed to do!?"
or b) Adapting, and penalizing the PCs by making the battle harder - since they didn't come immediately - but letting the battle go forward anyway. Since you delayed, the vampires have re-grouped, etc etc.
That would likely have happened if the whole group had decided to sit at home while the armoured characters put their armour on.
That eventuality I
had planned for, complete with different locations, available spells, etc. for the vampires. The group would have found the tower heavily fortified and well-defended with the guard pretty well wiped-out.
In response to Valiantheart,
Elves enter a reverie state. It is cross between meditation and sleep, but it is effectively sleep. An Elf requires 4 hours of reverie compared to other humanoids 8 hours of sleep to gain rest from fatigue BUT all races require 8 hours of rest in order to memorize spell/regain spell slots. So while an elf does not need 8 hours of reverie to recover from fatigue, he would need another 4 hours of relative rest and solitude before being able to regain any spells he used from the previous day.
To further clarify, an elf would need 4 additional hours after their reverie of non taxing relaxation to recharge. Any thing strenuous, like combat or running for instance prevents them from regaining spells.
I'm not arguing that the duke had regained all his spells or that no rest of any kind is required by elven sorcerors. All I'm telling you is that he wasn't asleep.
