Armour Dilemma: Am I Wrong Here?

Re: last thoughts!

Elvinis75 said:
jdavis said:


That is a true and real accounting of the enemy forces. And if the players knew this then the opinion of the matter changes however I really don’t believe that they knew that that there weren’t a couple 10th level vampire fighters in that group. If there was then that changes a lot in this which the players didn’t know for sure. A group of the spawn and the fighters sweep in on the clerics. Without their armor. More than likely they hit twice each against the unarmored PCs making 4 checks a round. If they fail once it becomes easier each time to beat the resistance. They have a 45% chance to beat the NEP prayer and 10% more for each hit. Reducing the chance of turning and quickly becoming ugly. Don’t the vampires have d12 for HP? I thought that was in the template? Thus they might not rush an armored foes but an unarmored one probably. I’m really not sure where the battle was going to go tactically but I’m fairly certain that the PCs didn’t know the exact levels and make up of their foes based on a flyby from their scout. All in all it is hard to say because I wasn’t one of the PCs and I don’t know what they knew about fighting the vamps and their knowledge of the enemies strength. Do you?

Good thread! :)

He said they were reoccuring villians, he said they were wizards, he said that they had obviously many of their powerful spells. You are right that they didn't know if there was a fighter vampire in there heck they didn't know there wasn't a god in human form roaming around looking to smite them either, the fact of the matter is that they are supposed to be heroes and people were obviouly going to die every round they waited, you can always loose any encounter and you can always get in over your head, the risk is the fun part, is the game fun without the risk? I am assuming that they had a pretty good idea what they were up agianst, they were reoccuring villians and it seems they were major villians that they had been fighting for a long time, they should of had a good idea of what they were up against. It was stated that it was obvious that the vampires were preoccupied and the characters were not attacked when they showed up, it was stated that metagame discussions do happen in the game and he is ok with that, so the 3 with armor had the knowledge the others had. They are Clerics and a Paladin they are the ones best prepared for a fight with undead. What would of happened to the rogues and wizard if your vampire fighters and spawn had attacked them? They didn't even have the magic defense against the energy drain that the clerics had, the clerics without armor were better prepared for that attack than the other PCs who they hung out to dry. If they were fighters then The armor would be more important to them but as Clerics couldn't they just blast charging vampire fighters or turn them? Why is the armor the only way to win? They have a vast supply of clerical powers at their disposal, why would they ever have to get close enough to be attacked like that?

It's all about perception and we don't have a story hour of this campaign to look at to see just how familiar they were with the vampires, but by what has been stated they were very familiar with their opponents. When other PCs were in danger, why didn't they go to help. When your told "it will take 40 rounds to do something then you know the combat will be over before you get there, they are supposed to be heroes, just how many innocent people needed to die just for them to play it safe? Were they in character when they were sitting there letting people die when they could of been out there making a difference? They didn't trust their ability to win without the armor, they put thier armor ahead of innocent lives, they left the other PCs hung out to dry for 40 rounds.


Do you believe that the character fighting at a subpar level are always meant to win? Thus making the choice fight or sit out because there is no way that I could die. That is insanely stupid metagaming.

Do you believe that characters fighting at a sub par level are always meant to loose? I never said there was no way they would die, I said that it obviously wasn't a suicide mission. If fusangite said that he always did this to them then this would be completly different, but the whole point to this adventure was to make that choice, this adventure was the exception, the challenge of the adventure was to do it without the armor, this isn't a they should always win thing, it's a they should know that the DM isn't sending them into a unescapable death trap. Every encounter isn't on a 100% level playing field. Your point was that it was sure death to go without the armor, your point was that it was assured suicide for the characters, my point was that no it was in no way assured death (or even a probable death), and that Clerics who only think they are as good as their Plate Mail are missing out on all the other things they can do.



As far as the rule for player discussions go, that I agree with but it doesn't apply here because it's already been stated that meta discussions were ok in this game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ?

Numion said:


Whats with the attitude?

You get what you give. So far I have seen two responses from you:

Numion: My position/argument is X.
Me: I think X is wrong because Y.
Numion: No no and no. Thankyou for missing the point.

Good one! That sure countered me! And:

Numion: Where did you get the idea I was of position A?
Me: When you advised this course of action consistent with position A.
Numion: But I also advised this other course of action similarly consistent with position A, yet not the course of action you cited, though I still did advise that, too. Therefore you are obviously confused. I accept your apology.

Another sound statement!

Rather than trying to argue anything you're just trying to be right. Fusangite has taken all kinds of flak just for saying that the majority of people agree with him, which is a comment you prompted by implying that the length of the thread was somehow indicative of the degree to which he had failed as a DM. I resisted the urge to scream democratic fallacy at you then, but you can only have so many lapses in logic before you stop being taken seriously. A majority can elect someone to office, but it can't make something objectively right, a fact which should make you happy after having it turned around on you in a way that obviously annoys you to no end (since you're still bringing it up).

Numion said:

No you wouldn't. If D&D is about manipulating the game in the name of solidarity and fun to you, I wouldn't DM for you. Why would you even do that? The point of this game is to have fun, why would you undermine that, even if you did have the opportunity to do so?

See reply to Tsyr. Not that it's an issue, as my group of 12 has no interest in playing in other games. Friends first, gamers when we don't feel like hitting up some scene or other.

Numion said:

Hey, even we agree on something. 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.

Hopefully they won't make that mistake again eh?

Numion said:

It means that while fusangite wanted absolution from the general community in this thread (and got it by 70% as he likes to remind) from being wrong, I'm more intrested in how the encounter could've been DMed better. With all players participating. I'm against the idea that the players needed to be taught a lesson instead of the PCs. I was looking to learn a lesson as a DM from this whole thing.

Having said that, the one player who threw a fit actually needs to be taught a lesson on manners.

Yeah, I get you. If they choose to put on armor let them come fight anyway, so they aren't sitting there bored. It makes sense. But they didn't have time to put their armor on, and chose to sit the fight out doing so. Fusangite isn't a bad DM for forcing them to deal with the consequences of that decision, rather than glancing over them to get things moving again. There's no graduated scale of DM quality.

It's not a position I would ever find myself in (thanks to my players, not my forethought), but if it magically happened my solution would be to bring the fight to the heroes sitting it out. Any rules for how much it would suck for a bunch of vampires to come attack you while you were in the middle of putting your armor on?
 

mmu1 said:

. . . my primary suggestion was to stop the game for a few minutes when the session started coming apart at the seams and talk about it with the players to try to get everyone on the same page, off their butts and into combat...


I can see the discussion now . . .

DM: Let's see, jdavis, drnuncheon, and Mark are heroically fighting for their lives against the evil vampires. Elvinis75, mmu1, and Scarbonac are donning their armor.

Elvinis75 to mmu1: If we complain long enough we'll get to don our armor faster. After all, the DM won't let us have no fun for the entire evening . . .

mmu1: Cool. We don't have any free will anyway, so we can't be blaimed for this decision.

Scarbonac: (burp!) Oh, belched up a loogie. Mmmm. Tasted like clam.

DM: It will take you 40 rounds to don your armor. No more no less. 40 is the number of rounds it takes to don armor and the number of rounds it takes to don your armor is 40. That means you won't be able to fight until 40 rounds later.

Scarbonac: I think that Duke guy is pretty cute.

DM: (frowns) Okay. What are you guys going to do?

mmu1: Change the rules so we can have fun. Can't you just teleport us there, fully equipped and fully buffed?

Elvinis75: Yeah, me too. But don't put me somewhere in the middle of combat, though. Put me in a safe place where I can cast my spells with impunity.

Scarbonac: What's impunity?

mmu1: It means fun.

Scarbonac: Cool. I want some impunity, too, and pass me the chips.
 
Last edited:

mmu1 said:

Do you even like your players? Some of what we've been arguing about might be "DMing style issues", but again, I can't imagine letting people you like and respect just waste the whole session without even trying a more direct way of getting them involved then telling them putting on armor takes 40 rounds and that they can stop at any point... You've either handled this situation badly, or you're playing with the wrong group of people.

I have to strongly disagree with this, your judging his group, his game and him as a person based on the fact that he didn't change everything about his game instantly and do it they way you would have. This type of statement is exactly the problem here, your never going to agree with anything, you don't care about the facts, this is just a plain all out attack on his DMing ability. Do you think this will change anybodies mind? Do you not realize that this automatically taints your viewpoint as something personal? This one statement makes it appear that your whole point of view is that he is a bad DM because he doesn't do things like you do, it has nothing to do with game facts or anything logal, it's just a attack on his person.

Was he supposed to force them into combat? Was he supposed to stop the game and lecture them? They chose to set there when it was obvious that it would keep them out of the combat. How is that his fault? Why are you getting personally angry about this? I'd never stop the game to point out that the players were not making the right choices, does that make me a bad DM too? They chose to set there, one of them was fine with it, one of them said he made the wrong choice after the game, and one acted childish, but it's all his fault because he didn't force them to change their minds and force them into combat, or that he didn't change the rules just to cater to them.
 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ?

Wayside said:


It's not a position I would ever find myself in (thanks to my players, not my forethought), but if it magically happened my solution would be to bring the fight to the heroes sitting it out. Any rules for how much it would suck for a bunch of vampires to come attack you while you were in the middle of putting your armor on?

I think he covered why the vampires couldn't attack the house where they were getting into the armor. It would of been a good move if it was possible.
 

jdavis said:

I'd never stop the game to point out that the players were not making the right choices, does that make me a bad DM too?

Oh, come on... There's a world of difference between the characters making "wrong" choices in-game, and the players doing something that's disrupting the game session... It's the difference between messing up my fictional adventure plans, and screwing up my real, perfectly good afternoon of gaming.

Are you seriously telling me that in this situation, you'd have just spent the whole gaming session sitting across the table from three (or two, or whatever) unhappy people, and pretended nothing was wrong? That's not a "DMing style", that's a neurosis. :)

As for saying that I'm just being confrontational for the sake of being confrontational... You can only expect people to be polite so long in the face of "Show me where it says in the rules I'm wrong, or go away", "Here's how many percent of the posters agree with me, which is why I'm just going to dismiss anything that doesn't agree with me out of hand", and so on - all after asking a fairly subjective question.
 
Last edited:

Everyone who is tired of reading Scarbonac's stuff, don't bother reading this post.

As far as I understand elves, they don't sleep. As far as I understand sorcerors, their big mechanical advantage is that they're almost always equally prepared.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how the racial feature and class ability both function; elven trance is more like sleep than not-sleep and elven arcane casters still have to get their eight straight of rest in order to refill their spell-slots.

No. It isn't. The only variable which affects sorcerors is how many spell slots they have used up; they are not affected by which spells they have memorized as long as they haven't cast a large number of spells, they are almost always equally prepared.

More importantly, elves really do not sleep. You even admit this. I am completely baffled by your insistence that my statement that elves do not sleep is a misinterpretation of the rules. How can it be a misinterpretation of the rules to state something that everyone agrees is true!?

The ''big mechanical advantage'' that sorcerers enjoy, as we all lnow, is their ability to cast spontaneously, not that they nearly always have a full compliment of spells at hand.

Yep. Look at my statements; where am I implying that they almost always have all their spell slots useable?

These flawed understandings could very easily have informed his decisions on how the Duke was played...which was apparently as an Uberelf super-sorcerer who needed no sleep and could take off at a moment's notice to fill in the shoes of the PCs and Save The Day by blasting 20 vampires (or spawn...or helpless guards-it's hard to tell from his description).

On what basis do you suggest that my statement
(a) that elves do not sleep; and
(b) sorcerors are almost always equally prepared
is a misunderstanding of the rules. You have just admitted that sorcerors do not have to prepare which spells they're casting and that elves do not sleep. You are really stretching here to argue that the context in which I have made indisputably true statements indicates that I must believe patently false things.

And, just to clarify, the duke killed about 20 innocent guards along with the 1 vampires and 2 spawn he killed.

Dunno about anyone else, but to me, that ain't how the game should be played; back in the day I had a few bad DMs whose idea of a good adventure was us trailing after an NPC who made us all look like chumps, while they wasted the opposition in the twitch of a nostril-hair.

So, of the vampires who died that episode, one, I repeat, ONE was killed by the duke. How does that fit into your deus ex machina theory? He killed one 7th level vampire while the PCs managed to take out the 14th level archmage and some other vampires.

It also makes his insistance on adhering to ''the rulez'' less defensible, since he himself is wrong about some of them; I have difficulty buying the ''IMC'' explanation that he gave in his last post; it's awfully convenient.

Ok. Which rules am I wrong about? Are you really contending that because I said elves do not sleep that I meant elves never rest? Are you contending that my stating that sorcerors are almost always equally prepared that I meant that sorcerors don't need to rest, as opposed to the more obvious meaning that sorcerors don't need to choose and memorize the next day's spells every night?

Ok. Let's suppose that my words don't mean what their lexical definitions indicate but in fact mean the fiction that you've dreamed up. If the duke cast no spells the previous day, given that casting spells is not a normal everyday thing for an aristocratic ruler to do, how would things be any different based on your misinterpretation of my words?

Re: the Duke and what he was doing- According to fusangite, he was having a meeting with someone. in the middle of the night, and was apparently unconcerned about the horrible explosion nearly at his doorstep until one of the PCs showed up.

The PC arrived 54 seconds after the explosion. How do you know whether or not the duke was concerned?

See, that's another thing; he's the Duke, it's his city, and he knows the Vampires are a Big-Ass Threat™. The city had a meeting and everything that very day. Someone else already brought this up (and forgive me for not remembering who), but why wasn't the Duke already there when the PCs showed up initially? Why would anyone have to go get him?

Good question. Maybe it had something to do with the nature of the meeting he was having. I could explain what the meeting was about and with whom it was being held but I somehow know that you will then attack the plausibility of the meeting and somehow use it to argue that my campaign reality is flawed based on that.

You see, the real problem here is that you continue to make outrageous assumptions about what is going on in my campaign world based on nothing other than your apparent resentment about other campaigns that have over-involved powerful NPCs and your oft-declared lack of sleep.

I find the fact that he suggested that they take time to put on lesser armor, cast several spells, gather up magic items to defend themselves with, saddle up the griffin, et cetera, instead of just letting them armor up and get to the scene in time to whale on the Vamps anyway suggests to me that he simply wanted to pimpslap them around without their armor

No. I never told them to put on any armour. What I kept saying was "you can stop putting on your armour any time." How is that telling them to don different armour? I didn't tell them to cast any spells. What I did was inform the people in this discussion that they had Negative Energy Protection, a spell whose duration suggests that one wouldn't cast it until after one had arrived at the combat, Lesser Restoration, a spell that wouldn't have been useful unless someone was already damaged by an energy drain attack, and Searing Light and Cure (various) spells which were touch attack spells that again, shouldn't have been cast until after arriving at the combat. Why did I mention the griffin? Well, because riding the griffing would have been the fastest way to get to the combat.

Since the party didn't have the characters whom he was counting on to be there with their turning and spell-powers that may have ultimately saved the day after much harsh correction via the Vamps, he needed another option or everyone was toast and the campaign that he'd slaved over so lovingly would go down the crapper.

So Super-Duke is pressed into service (thankfully, the stage for that had been set with his standing invite to the PCs to ''come up and see him'' anytime, so it wasn't horribly scenario-busting) and whoosh! Away he goes.

You seem to forget that for the first half of the combat, the duke wasn't even there.

Now, there's your story about your capacity to wake up in the middle of the night and react... While it's very interesting that you, who do not live by the sword, cannot wake up and be combat ready, I don't think it can be generalized to argue that no one can wake up and be combat ready. Think of all the Hollywood movies in which people sneak up on tough guys in their sleep and the tough guy wakes up and puts them in a choke hold. That's the reality D&D is interested in replicating -- not your hotel room in DC but the reality in compelling violent hero narratives.

Originally posted by fusangite
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

You meant to say ''I don't have any good answers to his questions, he isn't going to shower me with unconditional acceptance & affirmation, so I'll pretend to ignore him after I make an insult or two.''

Well, this insulting little statement made me actually bother to respond to your latest missive point by point. But the fact is that when you try to argue that my completely true statement that "elves do not sleep" is proof positive that I don't understand the rules might make you consider the possibility that not all of your points actually merit a response.

Originally posted by fusangite: the fact that he finds it implausible that evil NPCs meet with other evil NPCs at night

I had no idea who or what he was meeting with, let alone that he was meeting with an evil NPC. For all that I knew his Mom could have been there to wish him ''Happy Birthday''.

Right. And what did you assume? You assumed that because it was after dark, the duke must be resting alone in his room in his bedclothes. Why? Not because you had any evidence either way but because you are predisposed to believe whatever I do in my campaign must be absurd, unfair and against the rules.

You then go on to state that the following statements contradict eachother:

Originally posted by fusangite: that permission to see someone might not include permission to interrupt their meeting is just the latest indication of this.

Originally posted by fusangite: Well, I've repeatedly stated (a) the palace is guarded; (b) the guards had standing orders to allow the characters to see the duke.

Originally posted by fusangite: (the character had already been given the duke's blessing to come to see him whenever he wished)

So, if the duke is having a private meeting, perhaps even about a confidential matter, what is your problem with the guards being unsure about whether they should stop someone from coming to see the duke with an urgent message? The guards know the duke would normally want to see the character but are not sure whether this should supersede his desire to have a private meeting.

Plus, there was the horrible explosion only a few seconds previouslly about 120 yards away from where the guards were standing, in the direction of The Evil Tower Of Bikini Vampire Archmages™.

So, does that make this individual itching to see the duke more or less threatening? It might be a tough judgement call to make for a member of the Ylyvian Guard, mightn't it?

Why should they think that it might be important that the guy, whom the Boss apparently gave carte blance to come and see him at any time, 5 hours after a city meeting on the subject of the Looming Vampire Menace™, seconds after a horrible explosion (your term, not mine) that was loud enough to rouse the sleeping party-members (but apparently, not their servants, nor did it seem to pique the interest of the guards, the Duke, or anyone else in the bloody city) that issued from the direction of the Looming Vampire Menace's Tower Of Doom™, get in to see the Boss, especially if he says it's an emergency?

Do you recall your original position was that it should have been impossible for the sorceror to come in and speak to the duke without being attacked or otherwise stopped? I'm now finding it rather amusing that you're arguing that it is completely outrageous that the guards could be unsure after a 12 second verbal exchange about whether to allow the sorceror to interrupt the duke's private meeting.

This is what I meant earlier about your extreme contrariness indicating that perhaps your posts do not merit point by point responses.

Originally posted by fusangiteThere 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.

That's not what you said; this is what you said:

Originally posted by fusangite: As far as I understand elves, they don't sleep.

Ok. Here's another reason I stopped responding to you point by point before. You are repetitive.

So, I guess I have to be repetitive. You chose to read between the lines of my statement and conclude that I was taking the position that elves never rest. Look, the sorceror who went to get the duke is an elf as well. I know what the rest requirements are for elves because he rests almost every night. You have decided to conclude that when I say "sleep" I mean "rest" while when you say "sleep" you mean "sleep."

1) Not knowing whether he actually cast any spells, my best guess would be that if he's a sorcerer, is an elf, runs a city, has a fair number of reasonably-powerful enemies, is evil and probably has several good reasons to fear for his life on a daily basis, he's probably cast some spell or spells during the period when he's awake, if only to gather information on the opposition or to have some sort of protective magic up in case someone tries to cack him.

Actually, he's not much into divination and enchantment spells -- he's more into evocation and the like (the spells that got him the job as opposed to the ones that keep him in it); those spells are generally cast by Jamuansi, his Supreme Secret Councilor. The everyday uses of Wall of Ice and the like are surprisingly limited when ruling a city.

That seems a perfectly reasonable assumption to me, but I know that as a DM there's a tendency to play our NPCs with a full complement of spells, regardless of the logic involved.

Well, I actually maintain spell spreadsheets for all my major villains and NPCs; they took a while to set up but now I can go into every game, with only 20 minutes' work and know precisely how many and which spells are available to most of the key people in the city.

2) We don't play in your games; you can reject anything that you choose, but we don't know all of your house rules, so we can only assume the default unless otherwise informed -- elven trance is defined in the PHB as deep meditation, filled with dreams/reflexive mental exercises; in other words, a 4-hour period of sleep with elven flavor text.

I've studied some monastic traditions which involve deep meditation. Part of the discipline is developing the capacity to enter and leave the state with relative ease while at the same time being able to meditate deeply. I've also worked with two hypnotherapists and this capacity to move between these two states of consciousness with ease is a much valued aspect of the training.

Ok. Now I'm done. This is the last point by point response to you on which I'm going to expend my time.
 
Last edited:

mmu1 said:


Oh, come on... There's a world of difference between the characters making "wrong" choices in-game, and the players doing something that's disrupting the game session... It's the difference between messing up my fictional adventure plans, and screwing up my real, perfectly good afternoon of gaming.

Are you seriously telling me that in this situation, you'd have just spent the whole gaming session sitting across the table from three (or two, or whatever) unhappy people, and pretended nothing was wrong? That's not a "DMing style", that's a neurosis. :)

No I would of pointed out they had 39 rounds left and that combat had already begun. I'm actually fine with them sticking to their choice to wait 40 rounds my point was, is and will be that it was their choice, they had all the information, they knew the combat wouldn't last 40 rounds, they knew PCs were in over their head, and they chose armor, so they didn't get involved. They made the same choice every round for 40 rounds. They were not coerced either way, there were no outstanding reasons that forced them one way or the other. They chose to sit so they sit, the disruption came when one of them got childish and that is a whole separate issue here. I would of tried to get them to get frustrated incharacter instead of as players and to role play it out. I wouldn't of penalized anybody for their choice either way, and they got full EXP so he really didn't penalize them either, them sitting out was not a penalty to them, they chose to sit it out on their own. To me this situation would actually add to the roleplaying of the situation, I'm sure the 4 who were waste deep in vampires were a little angry that they got no help and I'm sure the three with the armor should of been a little defensive about their decision, and maybe a little mad the rest of them ran off without them, as long as it's incharacter that's just good role playing. They had 40 chances to go help, they could of stopped at anytime and ran to help the others, it doesn't bother me that they sat there, they chose to. Heck by what was said one of them had plenty of enjoyment out of watching the other's squirm. It does bother me that one got mad about it because the rules were not changed to let him get his way and join in. The choice was plain fight without the armor or sit there for 40 rounds, it wasn't a suprise to them , they were not asked to leave the table, they could of changed their minds and joined in at any time. They were not excluded from the game, they chose to wait 40 combat rounds before joining the combat. All the rest of it doesn't matter, they made a choice and stuck to it, so they had to wait 40 rounds. People end up sitting there all the time, it happens in a lot of games, and it is quite common when the group likes to split itself up, I'm sure they wished they were in the fighting (well at least two of them) but not enough to forgo the armor. It really is that Black and White of a decision, the only thing more he could of done is flat out stated that he didn't think they would get there before the end of this session (he stated they picked up the next session with them arriving and continuing the fight into the tower.). Of course it's real hard to judge how long a session will take, if things had speeded up they may of gotten there during that session, but 40 rounds is 40 rounds.

I think the thing here is that you are assuming that the game disruption was caused by their choice and not by a player acting poorly, the only disruption of the game I saw was the player getting mad (which apparently he did when things didn't go his way). Their choce didn't disrupt the game, it changed the adventure but it didn't disrupt the game. Sitting there for a hour or even two because you choose not to do what has been clearly stated as necessary to join in is not the DM's fault.
 

jdavis said:

There is a fight going on, people are in combat, how can you change time for the three and not for the other 4?

Man, this thread is still going on?

Well, since I was the one that started asking the questions about the whole timing situation and since Fusangite asked for others opinions of how people would have done it differently. I guess I'm going to have to explain how I would have done it differently and still kept it to four minutes for donning armor.

The first thing that I'd like for people that will obviously disagree with me to do is to go read my first few posts. At the beginning of this thread I agreed with Fusangite. Heck as far as running the encounter I still agree with him. Ruleswise he still did everything by the book. As a matter of fact when someone argued about the application of Haste I argued in favor of Fus.

Where I obviously disagree with Fus is in style. And that is all a matter of opinion. To demonstrate my point I will use a very succint quote from Monte Cook and a quote from the DMG. Both quotes which I tend to agree with more and more as I see these discussions carry on and on about how this rule or that rule needs to be applied. Meanwhile a sort of disregard for the fact that this is a game and it should be fun for most of the people involved has crept in. If that is not the primary reason for playing then why play at all?

Monte Cook wrote:
Don't let the rules get in the way of fun. And don't let them be a replacement for creativity -- creativity is an essential element in running a game.

Emphasis Mine

That quote can be found at Monte's Site under the DM's Only archive.

From DMG p. 6
You get to decide how the rules work, which rules to use, and how strictly to adhere to them.

Once again Emphasis Mine

First of all I'll clearly state that the reason I disagree with the application of the "letter" of the rules is that it became obvious, early on, that almost half of the player's would sit out the whole night.

In my view that is just plain unfun and clearly not part of the equation for my definition of a game. As a DM I much prefer to have my player's involved even if their PC's are for some reason not involved. Heck, if I know a PC will be out of commission for a long time (dead or unconcious, away from the party, etc.) I'll have the player run a few NPC's or monsters.

I view my role as DM to be the provider of the fun. That might be where my contention with this whole line of resoning lies. If I'm not doing that (providing a fun game), then I feel I have done the player's a disservice. Playing D&D in my campaign is not just my game. The player's are obviously a big part of the game. If half my player's had to sit out the critical combat of the night because they made a "stupid" decision I'd try to find what went wrong.

Why? Because I'm the DM. I'm the provider of the fun. If I stick to the "letter" of the rules just to keep my players from getting to the critical combat (one that took 10 hours to prepare in this case), where is the fun in that? I believe Fus started this thread to get two questions answered. The rudeness of the player has already been answered. The other part is what keeps this discussion going. Did he do anything wrong?

Three players (almost half the party) obviously decided to put armor instead of joining a combat. A combat of which to this point they were not aware.

First of all let's look at the metagaming that is obviously occuring at all levels here. The guy that goes and gets the Duke went there because the other players were obviously not going to come to the combat. That is blatant metagaming. Should the party that was putting on armor have assumed that they had all the information about the encounter and sped off to the tower? That would have once again been an even worse case of metagaming. If they decided to stay because they were afraid of the vampires, of which they knew nothing about, then that is more metagaming. Take your pick I'm not going to address the metagaming issue any further.

How would I have fixed it and still kept it down to 4 minutes?

All of them hear an explosion. The unarmored ones decide to investigate. The others decide to put on armor and join the rest when they are done. Up to this point there doesn't seem to be any obvious level of metagaming.

My first question as DM would be; why start counting rounds now? Is it really important? In the DM's view it obviously was. This is where we disagree. I would have not counted rounds at this point. They were irrelevant. That would have been my first change. I know it's going to take four minutes to put on armor. Let the clock run down as much as possible to get all the player's involved. This was the first opportunity to let the armored ones get involved sooner rather than 40 rounds later.

The ones heading over towards the explosion start moving. Do I really need to count rounds? Not in my opinion. Just say it takes 30 seconds to a minute to get there. Keep the clock running down. I have 3 minutes to go.

They arrive at the scene. The scene gets described to them. How long does that take? Let's say that it took 10 game minutes to describe the scene. Why does this assessment phase have to be near-instantaneous? Keep the clock running down. Arbitrarily estimate that assessing the situation took 2-3 minutes. I will err on the side of caution and call it 3 minutes. Is that in any way wrong? Is it unreasonable? Is it an unfair characterization that it will take 3 minutes to figure out where the Vamps are and what exactly they are doing. Now I only have 30 seconds of armor donning to worry about or another 30 seconds for the rest of the group to get there. Depending on how I counted time at the beginning.

Now start the combat clock. In either case the armor donning PC's arrive a bit later. In most cases they will not miss the whole combat and still stay involved. Best case scenario they arrive in 30 seconds (5 rounds later) worse case scenario they arrive in one minute (10 rounds later).

Was that an unreasonable way of handling that encounter? Did it break any of the rules?

Not only did it not break the "letter" of the rules; by far I think that it accomplished the "spirit" of the rules much better.

Maybe I'm wrong but I prefer to keep my players involved.

My questions to those that so vehemently agree that it was the players' fault and that they should have sat the encounter out, that they should pay the consequences, ride the pine, warm the bench, etc. I digress, the questions are:

Would you as a player like to sit out a whole game night because your PC is playing within what you believe to be his character?

Would you enjoy doing it because you made a stupid decision?

Would you like sitting it out if your PC was obviously not aware of the situation?

I personally don't like going to a game where I get to sit out the whole night while the rest of the party is in combat. For any of the reasons mentioned above. Maybe that is just me.

As a DM I try to avoid these situations.

If the purpose of the encounter was to teach the players that armor is a crutch and that they should have been heroic and carried on without their equipment; how does awarding them with any XP for this encounter promote that agenda?
 

mmu1 said:

As for saying that I'm just being confrontational for the sake of being confrontational... You can only expect people to be polite so long in the face of "Show me where it says in the rules I'm wrong, or go away", "Here's how many percent of the posters agree with me, which is why I'm just going to dismiss anything that doesn't agree with me out of hand", and so on - all after asking a fairly subjective question.

You took it personal, it's obvious by your reaction. He didn't agree with your statementand you got mad. Nobody told you to go away, the only people I have seen fusangite be rude to were people who were rude first. He has been fairly civil here, even when attacked on a more personal level than what is acceptable. He can disagree with you, and he has went to great lengths to point out why several suggestions would not work in this situation. It's not that people don't agree with your suggestion, it's the tone you use and the fact that you are getting defesive. Not everybody has been nice (on both sides) but I haven't really seen fusangite try to be confrontational or start any rudeness, and your suggestion that he must hate his players is just uncalled for.
 

Remove ads

Top