drnuncheon
Explorer
Just some random replies after reading the 7 pages of this topic...
Deadguy
"Others, notably mmu1, Numion and Tsyr, are of a different school of gaming, and they prefer to see the rules as a framework to help them run adventures. Consequently, they are happy to flex rules to make the story better from their own and their palyers' perspectives."
I am generally this type of DM as well - but I completely agree with Fusangite on this situation. In my campaign I have beaten PCs down, had them sold into slavery and subsequently shipwrecked without their gear (for several sessions!), forced them to continue on in encounter after encounter without a chance to rest or regain their spells.
Why?
Because I thought it made for a better story. The players were challenged. They were forced to think a little more. They had to use their brains instead of their plusses. The fighter/wizard wound up with a spellbook (not his own) that had a very different selection of spells from his own, forcing him to develop some new tactics. (For the record, we use the spellbook mastering rules from Magic of Faerun.)
In this case, I might have done the same thing: forced the players to make a choice between safety and high armor class on the one side and acting like a hero and saving people on the other.
After all, nobody is forcing them into melee (which the insta-change advocates seem to ignore) either! Turning is not a melee touch attack. You can kill a vampire with a ranged weapon. You could hit them with holy water. You could cast negative energy protection spells. You could run to other churches and attempt to rally the clerics. You could get in range and start casting spells to help the people that are engaging in melee - bless, prayer, summon monster...I'll bet if I could see their sheets, I could think of half a dozen more things for those characters to have done that wouldn't have involved bending over and greasing up for the vampire's energy drain.
Scarbonac
"Since you apparently didn't correctly understand how elves still have to trance for four hours a day, which is functionally equivalent to sleep, and how sorcerers, like wizards, still need 8 hours of rest (so, trance plus four hours of rest, basically, for Super-Vichy) plus a brief period of concentraton in order to regain spell slots, I wouldn't talk much, ya dig?"
I'm not sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China, because we don't know how many spell slots the Duke had used up the previous day. They don't just go away spontaneously, you know. If he hadn't cast anything, then he'd be at full capacity, and there's no point in caring about whether his sleep was interrupted.
Numion
"Of course the PCs have to pay for their bad decisions. Nowhere I did I contradict that. In fusangites example, however, the players paid the consequences for wanting to dress their armors. they missed all the action and wasted the evening."
Forgive me if I missed it, but if the players that chose to don their armor rather than heading out at the first sign of trouble were allowed to fully participate in the combat, then in what way are the PCs paying for their bad decisions?
Aside: This kind of reminds me of playing a Final Fantasy game on the Playstation. Someone is running away from you, and you can stop at the save point, change your armor and weapons, set up your tent and camp for the night, and when you wake up, they'll still be in the same place they were. (I did this the other day.)
Think about this: what if it had been the wizard/sorcerer who was complaining? "I don't have all my spell slots. I want to rest for 8 hours to get them back." Would everyone that is in favor of making the action wait for the heavy armor people also make it wait for the casters? After all, isn't going into combat with a bunch of vampire wizards when you aren't at your full spell resources just as unacceptable as going into the same combat without your armor?
It seems that a lot of people are arguing on the grounds that he is being 'unfair' to the heavy armor people. Well, yes...that was the point. The situation was set up to put them at a disadvantage, just like the third combat in a day puts the wizard at a disadvantage since he's already used half of his spells, or an underground cavern is a disadvantage for people without darkvision, or a dungeon is a disadvantage for a druid.
So what? As long as the entire campaign isn't set up to screw one player or set of players over, then it's hardly as big a deal as some people are making it out to be.
J
Deadguy
"Others, notably mmu1, Numion and Tsyr, are of a different school of gaming, and they prefer to see the rules as a framework to help them run adventures. Consequently, they are happy to flex rules to make the story better from their own and their palyers' perspectives."
I am generally this type of DM as well - but I completely agree with Fusangite on this situation. In my campaign I have beaten PCs down, had them sold into slavery and subsequently shipwrecked without their gear (for several sessions!), forced them to continue on in encounter after encounter without a chance to rest or regain their spells.
Why?
Because I thought it made for a better story. The players were challenged. They were forced to think a little more. They had to use their brains instead of their plusses. The fighter/wizard wound up with a spellbook (not his own) that had a very different selection of spells from his own, forcing him to develop some new tactics. (For the record, we use the spellbook mastering rules from Magic of Faerun.)
In this case, I might have done the same thing: forced the players to make a choice between safety and high armor class on the one side and acting like a hero and saving people on the other.
After all, nobody is forcing them into melee (which the insta-change advocates seem to ignore) either! Turning is not a melee touch attack. You can kill a vampire with a ranged weapon. You could hit them with holy water. You could cast negative energy protection spells. You could run to other churches and attempt to rally the clerics. You could get in range and start casting spells to help the people that are engaging in melee - bless, prayer, summon monster...I'll bet if I could see their sheets, I could think of half a dozen more things for those characters to have done that wouldn't have involved bending over and greasing up for the vampire's energy drain.
Scarbonac
"Since you apparently didn't correctly understand how elves still have to trance for four hours a day, which is functionally equivalent to sleep, and how sorcerers, like wizards, still need 8 hours of rest (so, trance plus four hours of rest, basically, for Super-Vichy) plus a brief period of concentraton in order to regain spell slots, I wouldn't talk much, ya dig?"
I'm not sure what this has to do with the price of tea in China, because we don't know how many spell slots the Duke had used up the previous day. They don't just go away spontaneously, you know. If he hadn't cast anything, then he'd be at full capacity, and there's no point in caring about whether his sleep was interrupted.
Numion
"Of course the PCs have to pay for their bad decisions. Nowhere I did I contradict that. In fusangites example, however, the players paid the consequences for wanting to dress their armors. they missed all the action and wasted the evening."
Forgive me if I missed it, but if the players that chose to don their armor rather than heading out at the first sign of trouble were allowed to fully participate in the combat, then in what way are the PCs paying for their bad decisions?
Aside: This kind of reminds me of playing a Final Fantasy game on the Playstation. Someone is running away from you, and you can stop at the save point, change your armor and weapons, set up your tent and camp for the night, and when you wake up, they'll still be in the same place they were. (I did this the other day.)
Think about this: what if it had been the wizard/sorcerer who was complaining? "I don't have all my spell slots. I want to rest for 8 hours to get them back." Would everyone that is in favor of making the action wait for the heavy armor people also make it wait for the casters? After all, isn't going into combat with a bunch of vampire wizards when you aren't at your full spell resources just as unacceptable as going into the same combat without your armor?
It seems that a lot of people are arguing on the grounds that he is being 'unfair' to the heavy armor people. Well, yes...that was the point. The situation was set up to put them at a disadvantage, just like the third combat in a day puts the wizard at a disadvantage since he's already used half of his spells, or an underground cavern is a disadvantage for people without darkvision, or a dungeon is a disadvantage for a druid.
So what? As long as the entire campaign isn't set up to screw one player or set of players over, then it's hardly as big a deal as some people are making it out to be.
J
