Armour Dilemma: Am I Wrong Here?

[NPC]

I'll reiterate why we will never reach consensus: mmu1 and his folks believe that the rules should be broken for the betterment of the players, to make sure everyone is having fun.

The other side believes that the rules should not be broken, except in rare instances. Both are valid gaming styles. And never the twain shall meet.

Also, there's a fundamental difference of opinion here about free will. jdavis says that the PC's who sat out are at fault because they chose to continue donning armor. mmu1 thinks those PC's were forced into making a bad decision, and therefore had no free will.

These differences of opinion will never be bridged.

fusangite, thanks for the chiding. I shouldn't have posted what I posted. mmu1, Elvinis75, Scar, my apologies.

 

[jdavis]

I don't see what you're basing this on, if you've read the entire thread...

Yes, the encounter, in terms of its basic design, was impossible. The vampires quietly and fairly cleverly put themselves in position to wipe out the guards and turn them into spawn. The players, who weren't on watch, should have learned of the whole thing after the fact. (If you want to go with a popular theme in this thread, the players "made a choice" and "made a mistake", since they knew about the vampire threat.)

However, Fusangite arbitrarily (no value judgement being made here, by the way) introduced an explosion that (from what I've read, automatically) woke the characters up and gave them a chance to participate in the encounter.
He also intentionally had the vampires expend most of their highest level spells, to make the encounter easier for the players.

Which means that the players managed to emerge victorious from an encounter they weren't ready for, and which could have easily been impossible for them to stop in time (or too much to handle) not because the Duke intervened, but because of a pattern of DM decisions designed to steer the encounter to a fairly predictable conclusion.

Which to me, at least, makes justifying not letting some of the players get to the fight in time by claiming reluctance to manipulate events and stray from simply setting up a situation and then letting the dice fall where they may somewhat inconsistent.

How can you, given the fairly elaborate Deus Ex Machina, claim that adjusting the timing in any of the ways people proposed would consitute a violation of the rules of the game?

So because he planned everything to a tee and had every detail worked out in advance then he should of had no problem changing it all (including the whole point of the encounter) just for the sake of simplicity? Your arguing that he carefully wrote the adventure to get the players to one place (even though he did say that he planned for two totally different scenerioes) so he should of had no problem fudging the rules and ignoring his carefully laid out scenerio? He stuck to what he had planned and tried to keep his adventure in tact and keep the point of it all relivant, why would he decide to manipulate things in game to go against that.

look this is played out, you will never change what you believe and you will keep digging to prove your side, obviously your not presenting anything new to change anybody elses opinion that they formed a half dozen pages ago. We all read it and we all obviously see completly different things, I can't even comprehend half of the points being made and we keep going over the same ground with the same exact arguments. You won't believe or accept my stuff and I have not seen anything new in two pages to make me do anything but become even more firmly entrenched in my view of this. It's a stalemate, it's going nowhere, it's played out. I catagorically reject your arguement and you catagorically reject mine. No new information is being brought up no new ideas or views or slants on the information is being given (by either side). Nothing I say will change your mind so why should I keep trying? The great thing about EN World is that maybe we will agree in the next thread.

 

[jdavis]

I'll reiterate why we will never reach consensus: mmu1 and his folks believe that the rules should be broken for the betterment of the players, to make sure everyone is having fun.

The other side believes that the rules should not be broken, except in rare instances. Both are valid gaming styles. And never the twain shall meet.

Also, there's a fundamental difference of opinion here about free will. jdavis says that the PC's who sat out are at fault because they chose to continue donning armor. mmu1 thinks those PC's were forced into making a bad decision, and therefore had no free will.

These differences of opinion will never be bridged.

fusangite, thanks for the chiding. I shouldn't have posted what I posted. mmu1, Elvinis75, Scar, my apologies.

Beat me to it, what's funny is that my personal game and taste for how the game should be played is actually closer to what the other side describes, it's just that I don't see where fusangite did anything wrong. Just because I don't agree with his style doesn't mean I think his style is wrong, that's the great part of D&D, you play it how you like it.

 

[jdavis]

I just went back and read this thread again and realized the problem. Metagaming! Metagaming breaks and bends the rules all over the place. Clairsentence(sp) for everyone. Why didn't they just tell the other PCs to retreat? After all people can see things that they are not privi(sp) to why not ESPN hearing too? I really thought that at some point the players talked among themselves about what was going to happen. No offense fusan, the problem isn't the players it is the system. Allowing a little metagaming here and there is different that incouraging it and expecting player to act omniscient(sp), man I can't spell tonight, all the time. Rules out the window because you aren't using the ones that should be governing this conversation. Why are the player limited to only knowing the inner monolog of the other players? I'm sorry for all the sarcasm but there has to be a little basis in the rules for a discussion to take place. How would I fix the situation in the future? Don't allow metagaming as a rule rather something that happens from time to time when players forget who knows what. Without that flaw none of this happens. The scouts leave and never come back. All the more reason for the other to keep putting on their armor. They sit the pine because of the other PCs that aren't doing there jobs right.
Further did it really take all of the other four people to scout?
Metagaming isn't the devil but it is a close cousin.

Don't care for the Meta stuff either but there is nothing wrong with it game wise. They play how they like, this seems to be a long running and sucessful campaign, it works for them. It's the metagaming point to this that is the basis for why I'm saying they made their own decision, they could see the same game as everybody else, they had all the same information, they knew exactly what was going on heck other party members were probably telling them to forget the armor and get a move on but they choose not to go. Whether you like that type of play or not it was stated directly close to the beginning of this thread and I haven't seen any wavering on this. You change that point and you completly change the whole arguement, but that point was established from the start, It's a part of their game.

 

[Hawkshere]

You mean beer isn't flammable ???

 

[Scarbonac]

I'll reiterate why we will never reach consensus: mmu1 and his folks believe that the rules should be broken for the betterment of the players, to make sure everyone is having fun.

The other side believes that the rules should not be broken, except in rare instances. Both are valid gaming styles. And never the twain shall meet.

That's close enough to the reality of the situation (and what is reality but a collective hunch, anyway?) to stand in for reality during the dress-rehersal.

Also, there's a fundamental difference of opinion here about free will. jdavis says that the PC's who sat out are at fault because they chose to continue donning armor. mmu1 thinks those PC's were forced into making a bad decision, and therefore had no free will.

Yeah, the 70%-ers say ''You made your beds, you lousy ingrates, now lie in them!'' (and not without some justification) while the 30%-ers say ''Uh...hello? This isn't the military or summer-camp -- no beds to be made here. It's a game...y'know, like it's s'posed to be fun...for everybody...?''


A choice between equally-bad options is no choice at all.

These differences of opinion will never be bridged.

Pretty much, yeah, although the 30%-ers have generally said that the players were at least partly at fault and tried several times to meet the 70%-ers partway, only to be generally-rebuffed, and most of the problems held with fusangite stem more from his nigh epic-level inflexibility and his obviously-deep frustration over the armor thing (not the PCs donning their armor in this adventure, but the stuff that led up to this jolly debacle).

fusangite, thanks for the chiding. I shouldn't have posted what I posted. mmu1, Elvinis75, Scar, my apologies.

Accepted (at least on my part); heh, I've written (and had acquaintances, both ''friend'' and ''foe'', write) more vicious fanfiction about some of my other Internet personas. My buds from one of the other message-boards that I infest usually write much more revolting stuff than that.


You have no idea (and I just got an idea for a new icon -- yippie!).

 

[Marshall]

Then you need to pay more attention, because they weren't sleeping in their armor.

Depends on how you read his description and wether or not he gave them the option. As it seems he didn't.

Sleeping in armor (even light armor) is uncomfortable, and unless you are in hostile territory or expecting trouble you probably aren't doing it.

(These guys should have been expecting trouble, but from the DM's description it's pretty clear that they made no preperations for a night attack. Which is why I think they deserved what they got.)

If thats the way it happened I'd agree with you. My take is that they had at least taken minimal precautions.

sure, for a breasplate that's not a part of a set of fullplate.
Now show me where it says that you can easily detach the breastplate from a set of full plate and wear it alone.

Theres a difference? Thats like saying that Chain Mail doesnt involve a Chain Shirt.

Fraid not. If someone tried pulling that BS on me I'd laugh in their face.

You do not "instantly" don leggings and greaves, and in fact I would probably rule that it costs you extra time because you aren't putting the armor on properly.

Thems the rules. I didnt write em and I'm not the one whos advocating enforcing them to the exclusion of all common sense.

 

[Wayside]

I don't see what you're basing this on, if you've read the entire thread...

I have, though surely not as closely as I would an essay of Barthes'. What leads you to believe that the way the encounter played out (aside from the fraidy cats) was not how it was designed to? The vampires are effecting an escape. Spells were thrown; commotion was caused. How is this implausible?

(If you want to go with a popular theme in this thread, the players "made a choice" and "made a mistake", since they knew about the vampire threat.)

Don't mind if I do. It is, after all, a fact. I like to go with facts.

However, Fusangite arbitrarily (no value judgement being made here, by the way) introduced an explosion that (from what I've read, automatically) woke the characters up and gave them a chance to participate in the encounter.
He also intentionally had the vampires expend most of their highest level spells, to make the encounter easier for the players.

Was it arbitrary? If the players had been on watch, would there then have been no explosion? If Fusangite deemed it loud enough, is it not ok to have battle-hardened warriors wake up instantly? Is there actually a rule for this, based on decibels, phons, distance, temperature, intervening materials etc.?

I would think the vampires would have had to expend many spells effecting their escape.

Is there some difference between meticulously planning out an encounter so that foes much more powerful than the PC's are reduced to a similar strength, and setting up encounters by CR and EL with all parties involved at optimal strength, other than that the former is just cooler and more realistic?

How can you, given the fairly elaborate Deus Ex Machina, claim that adjusting the timing in any of the ways people proposed would consitute a violation of the rules of the game?

I don't (though from what I remember there was no deus ex machina because the encounter was planned out quite thoroughly, hence a rules slip is not a related issue). Most of the suggestions have been fine. There was nothing wrong with Fusangite's actual handling either, though.

 

[Steverooo]

Also, under 3.5, you probably won't be able to sleep in ANY armor, not even a chain shirt, unless you have the Endurance feat.

Based on what, Endur?

 

[Numion]

You're entire arguement has devolved into "I'm a better DM than you, just admit it!"

It's really not helping, and it's not "constructive".

Nah, I never said I was a better DM. So your statement here has no basis, and just serves to overlook my valid points by generalisation.

Now thats not constructive.

Your style of DM'ing is not inherently better than his, so get over yourself.

I never said it was. I was just looking for a better way of handling this 1 encounter. The one comment that you ripped into here was made to point out that fusangite saying "I was in the right" doesn't mean that there wasn't room to improve.

Actually I think that you need to get over yourself, If you let this thread to get to you that much.