Armour Dilemma: Am I Wrong Here?

[Elvinis75]

One thing is sure I don't like people telling me how I DM or that I'm DM (lite). Yes no one said this but it was implied that cave to help the PC out. This couldn't be further from the truth. I push them and make them face disadvantages all the time.
On the other hand I do think that fusen. could learn something from this.
1. Without a doubt a player should not be yelling at the DM.
2. Armor rules are based in RT. Whereas much of the rest of the game is not.

3. There are no rules one way or the other saying that discussion or assessing a situation cannot use RT. (thus more time would be possible

4. GT should not be used to make players sit idle for long periods of time. Like a person that uses wilderness lore and is out hunting shouldn't be idle for 3 hours because he was out hunting.

5. Suggestions have been given for ways in which his players can avoid this in the future. He can chose to pass them on or not.

6. Though 70% of people in here agree that you did nothing wrong. Three of your player still sat around for a session doing nothing. I doubt that you would want that to be the norm. So think about the advice the other 30% are giving. It isn't like we are all bashing you. We are trying to help. At least I am. If the one players is always a problem and won't change after talking to him then give him the boot.

Hey Fusen,
Are you going to suggest any of the armor suggestions to your PCs?

 

[Zogg]

I just want to put my vote in for your actions being OK by me.

The situation you presented did NOT exclude anyone. It excluded the use of ARMOR. Your real life "friends" that got mad need to be reminded that they are PLAYER CHARACTERS not PLAYER ARMORS.

They also need to stop coveting their material loot - items come and go and sometimes may be of no use in particular situations. And it's the DM's job to present a variety of unique and interesting situations, which you've done quite well.

Screw all the whiny babies in your gaming circle and in this thread. You are too good for them.

 

[Elvinis75]

Re: Re: caliban

"No gun was being held to their heads. Going with less than optimal armor is not "completely unnaceptable" unless your a crybaby. "

Somehow losing a 2 levels on every other hit makes a player a cry baby huh? Glad your not my DM.

"They chose not to prepare. They set themselves up for the situation.
They had a choice, even before the fight occured, and chose poorly. I'm afraid it IS the point. The hard choice only came about after they flubbed the easy choices. "

So the price of a really bad choice earns you the rest of the session in the not playing penalty box.
What is the going price for a bad choice? 45 minutes?
Doesn't sound like a fun way to run a campaign. I'm not saying that is the situation here but if this was completely acceptable then it would likely happen again in the campaign.


"They weren't forced. They could have started acting like heroes at any time. "

There is a fine line between acting heroic and taking stupid chances. 4d6 six times for the people that always take the approach that the DM isn't going to put us up against anything that we can't handle, without our armor or spells ...etc.

"It's a two-way street. Having a fun game is just as much the responsibility of the players as it is the DM. Being the DM does not mean catering to the players whenever they make mistakes. "

Correct but it does mean keeping the ones that want to play the game playing it. The DM can't make the player play, however he can set it up such that the players are forced to deal with situation or not. In this case the players played the game and got screwed by a rule that uses RT in a game where most other things don't(thus a good number of people talking about the timeline)

"This is untrue. As pointed out by a few other posters, they had ample magical defenses they could have used in place of armor, if they had worked as a group. Really? Why not? It can protect against the level drain, and damage the vampire who hit you.
Sounds like an excellent defense to me. Actually makes getting hit almost desirable. "

Please go back and read the prayer. Is doesn't guarentee the protection. Hits can and likely will penetrate the barrier and either way the damage goes through. Any hit that goes through is a double punch to the nut in that you lose two levels and take the damage. If the number of vampires is large then the characters, IMHO they did the smart thing, though I agree that the Paladin is not supposed to play smart. He has his code to live up to. Further there are references to turning. The turning isn't going to make them dusty unless they are low level. Thus is just forces them to run away unless you are lucky enough to get them into a corner

"The fact of the matter is that PC's will not always be fighting under optimal conditions. Those that insist on doing so, deserve to sit out a fight or two until they learn how to deal with it. Sometimes wizards have to do without their spells, and sometimes fighters have to deal without their armor. "

True. Those who insist on always fighting regardless of the disadvantage die frequently and are annoying to most normal PCs. It takes time to keep reintroducting characters. I played in a campaign where a guy died 6 times and the DM said that after this next one your done. So a players has to see that not every fight is one that should be fought at a disadvantage. Sometimes retreating and fighting another day is part of the game. If the battle was set up for 7 players why weren't the other 4 getting there arses handed to them?

It is also worth noting here that this isn't some little fight its a major battle and going to into one of those without full gear isn't usually smart.
Time is a big deal. Someone sits for 1-20 minutes once in a while not a big deal. Someone sits for 20-60 minutes once not a big deal. Someone sits for 60 minutes once in a while or the whole session once is big deal and should be avoided. Sitting around isn't much fun and thus as a DM this time should be kept to a minimum. Agreed?

 

[Steverooo]

Re: yes!

They had lighter armour they could have put on.

Please note that this is entirely inconsequential... It would only have taken less time; they still would have missed most of the fight (20 rounds or so).

Fusangite did nothing wrong. It even sounds like he set the situation up with the PCs' abilities in mind... Regardless, if MY PC had been there, I wouldn't have gone to battle unarmored... Then again, I doubt he would have set it up that way for him (with no spells), and he wears light armor, anyway. So, I guess I would have gone with the Bard.

If I wore heavy armor, though, I would have donned it. Not much I could've done without it, probably.

As for not predicting how the PCs will jump; "Players always run the wrong way!" is an infamous saying, around here! IIRC, I believe it started when a GM sent 12 cops down into a basement being explored by two PCs in a Sci-Fi game, to "rush them out". The other guy went up to talk to them, and got himself arrested. My usually pacifistic PC ended up taking out 10 of them with his homemade tranquilizer dart gun, while the other PC shot the remaining two...

 

[Mark]

Re: Re: Re: caliban

If the battle was set up for 7 players why weren't the other 4 getting there arses handed to them?

I wonder...?

It is also worth noting here that this isn't some little fight is was a major battle and going to into one of those without full gear isn't usually smart.

And yet...

If the battle was set up for 7 players why weren't the other 4 getting there arses handed to them?

Bottom line, some players chose to dive into the battle, others chose to play it safe.

Fung- How many died? Did I miss the death count somewhere in all of this mess? Will the three players that chose to not fight be joined by four new characters next game?

 

[fusangite]

Wow! I never imagined this would turn into such a vibrant thread. I guess I know what kind of discussion really interests ENWorlders now.

Hey, Deadguy -- look at the effect you've had. The civility quotient is already on its way up!

These days I find I plan specifics much less and put more effort into background development. The upshot is that I have fewer things that I want the PCs to do ('want' in the sense of this takes the story in the direction I am thinking of). Instead I am much more responsive to player ideas - I incororpate their ideas of the adventure events into the storyline, since this seems to produce a tale with more subtlety, imagination and satisfaction for all parties.

Well, in both of my styles, this is the case. However, the shape of this autonomy is different between D&D and my other games. In my rules light grail quest game, the characters could decide to go anywhere in ancient North America but wherever they went, they would ultimately approach the next of the seven cities of the quest. There was no way they would ever be allowed to reach the City of Frustration before they reached the City of Riches. However, where this city was situated, which clues they followed to find it and what it was like when they got there was all up to the players. While the characters felt they had boundless free will, the nature of that free will was that they defined the terms on which the next fixed event would happen.

In this campaign, the characters are pretty well stuck battling the Vichys and the other evil factions of Kovaus. However, in this campaign, they don't just define the terms on which things happen, they can determine what happens in a much more substantive way. I guess it's kind of like dating: one cannot really determine whether the person who asks or the person who responds has more power; it's two different types of power.

Because of this new tone of civility in the thread, I'm going to do my best to be restrained in replying to the latest set of comments by Scarbonac. It's clear this individual is taking an absurdly contrary position; the fact that he finds it implausible that evil NPCs meet with other evil NPCs at night or that permission to see someone might not include permission to interrupt their meeting is just the latest indication of this.

There seems little point in continuing the point by point debate here, except to clarify something about my understanding of elven sorcerors: sorcerors, like wizards, need 8 hours of rest to re-memorize spells. Not 8 hours of rest every night. So, if a sorceror didn't cast any spells the day before, there is absolutely no reason he would need 8 hours of rest. Furthermore, I reject the idea that an elven trance is as incapacitating as human sleep; such a trance is a form of meditation -- thus, is usually performed sitting up or standing, while the elf is fully conscious. The elves in my games typically perform this trance fully dressed.

In response to Elvinis's question:

Are you going to suggest any of the armor suggestions to your PCs?

Everyone is planning to buy chain pijamas at the earliest opportunity (except for the paladin who already owned them). Were there other suggestions?

 

[fusangite]

oops -- duplicate post

 

[Elvinis75]

fusen

Yeah
the instant on magical armor (a say a +1 modifier to the cost)
the feat that allows them to sleep in heavy armor(if you allow it).
more expensive armor that uses a faster put assembly system and cut the time down to say 20 rounds 10 with help or if hasted.
They would be things that help the PCs and make them feel that their character learned something and are prepared next time.
What do you think?

 

[LazarusLong42]

I think you and I share what one might call a Schroedinger's NPC approach. Until the moment that the PCs interact with an NPC in some fashion, you and I would say that his state is undetermined.

I nearly feel out of my chair laughing at that. I can just see the scene:

PC: "I fly into the Duke's house to see if I can find him."
DM: "All right. The Duke's waveform is currently in an overlapping state. Are you absolutely certain you want to collapse his waveform?"




On armor options: Elvinis, I think Called Armor (from DotF) is a +2 enhancement, not +1... but at 13th level, I think the characters could afford it.

I'm not sure about the "faster assembly system" armor though... it seems to me that full plate is already designed to put on/take off as quickly as it can be. (Any SCA people who actually wear this stuff occasionally may want to contradict me here though).

 

[Caliban]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Deadguy
I think you and I share what one might call a Schroedinger's NPC approach. Until the moment that the PCs interact with an NPC in some fashion, you and I would say that his state is undetermined.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I nearly feel out of my chair laughing at that. I can just see the scene:

PC: "I fly into the Duke's house to see if I can find him."
DM: "All right. The Duke's waveform is currently in an overlapping state. Are you absolutely certain you want to collapse his waveform?"

In all honesty, this is the approach that I usually use myself, unless I have something specific planned for that NPC.

BUT I think it's a choice on the DM's part, and not one that should be expected by the players. It's perfectly valid to set up a situation ahead of time, and just see how the players deal with it, without fudging anything in their favor. That's part of the fun and the frustation of being a DM: watching players come up with unexpected solutions to your scenarios, or completely failing to see what you think is the most obvious solution.

On armor options: Elvinis, I think Called Armor (from DotF) is a +2 enhancement, not +1... but at 13th level, I think the characters could afford it.

Nah, it's a +1. One of my PC's has some Full Plate with this enhacement. It takes a lot of the pain out of wearing full plate.