OK -- I'm running a campaign for 10th-12th level characters.
I'm trying to ascertain whether I'm missing something in a conflict with a player. In the second-to-last episode of my game, the characters were awakened by a horrible explosion in the middle of the night. Those who did not wear armour or wore armour they could sleep in sped off to discover the source of the explosion. They quickly discovered a horrible situation whereby the vampires (all former wizards) they had been battling all campaign had orchestrated an elaborate trap to annihilate the City Guard garrison hemming them into their tower.
Quickly, it became apparent that if the characters did nothing 140 people would be turned into vampires. The problem was that all those with Negative Energy Protection or the capacity to turn undead were stuck at home putting on their heavy armour for the next 40 rounds. The characters who arrived at the scene quickly ascertained that if they waited 40 rounds, 100+ guards would be dead or turned into vampires, having been affected by Mass Suggestion and Mind Fog in addition to the Dominate power of vampires and having been hemmed-in by walls of stone, fire, etc. So, they decided to stay and fight, figuring that once a few rounds had elapsed past the 4 it would take them to get back and warn their compatriots, their friends would realize that they were facing some sort of emergency and rush in to aid them.
Given that I'm a DM who does not enforce metagaming prohibitions, I figured that the armour-donning characters could also see that I'd set up the entire episode to resolve this combat. Or maybe they would even take the hint when I repeatedly asked them if they really wanted to keep donning their armour. However, it became increasingly clear that given a choice between donning their armour and saving 100 people from a fate worse than death, they would choose their armour. So clear that by the time the party's sorceror realized that help was needed, it didn't even occur to him to rush home and try to persuade his friends to leave their armour behind; instead, he rushed off to enlist the aid of the city's evil duke who, for his own reasons, opposed the vampires.
Now, I have no quarrel with my players' choices. The fact that 3 turned down participating in a combat I spent 10 hours setting up is not my problem. My problem is the abusive verbal outburst from one of them who told me that I had ruined his evening and wasted his valuable time by enforcing the armour donning rules and that by not allowing him to don his Full Plate instantaneously, I had decided not to let him play. He insisted that I was a lousy GM because a good GM would have "let everybody play." When I suggested that any time he wanted to stop putting on his armour, he could have participated, he became more abusive and stormed out.
It seems to me that perhaps he could have found fault with his fellow players for not doing more to cajole/persuade him into coming to the battle without his armour. But I have real trouble with the idea that I was a GM was wrong to give the characters a time-critical emergency where they had to weigh their own safety against others' lives. Am I wrong here? Are armour donning rules often ignored? Is it unreasonable to give characters a choice between putting on their armour or participating in the adventure?
I'm trying to ascertain whether I'm missing something in a conflict with a player. In the second-to-last episode of my game, the characters were awakened by a horrible explosion in the middle of the night. Those who did not wear armour or wore armour they could sleep in sped off to discover the source of the explosion. They quickly discovered a horrible situation whereby the vampires (all former wizards) they had been battling all campaign had orchestrated an elaborate trap to annihilate the City Guard garrison hemming them into their tower.
Quickly, it became apparent that if the characters did nothing 140 people would be turned into vampires. The problem was that all those with Negative Energy Protection or the capacity to turn undead were stuck at home putting on their heavy armour for the next 40 rounds. The characters who arrived at the scene quickly ascertained that if they waited 40 rounds, 100+ guards would be dead or turned into vampires, having been affected by Mass Suggestion and Mind Fog in addition to the Dominate power of vampires and having been hemmed-in by walls of stone, fire, etc. So, they decided to stay and fight, figuring that once a few rounds had elapsed past the 4 it would take them to get back and warn their compatriots, their friends would realize that they were facing some sort of emergency and rush in to aid them.
Given that I'm a DM who does not enforce metagaming prohibitions, I figured that the armour-donning characters could also see that I'd set up the entire episode to resolve this combat. Or maybe they would even take the hint when I repeatedly asked them if they really wanted to keep donning their armour. However, it became increasingly clear that given a choice between donning their armour and saving 100 people from a fate worse than death, they would choose their armour. So clear that by the time the party's sorceror realized that help was needed, it didn't even occur to him to rush home and try to persuade his friends to leave their armour behind; instead, he rushed off to enlist the aid of the city's evil duke who, for his own reasons, opposed the vampires.
Now, I have no quarrel with my players' choices. The fact that 3 turned down participating in a combat I spent 10 hours setting up is not my problem. My problem is the abusive verbal outburst from one of them who told me that I had ruined his evening and wasted his valuable time by enforcing the armour donning rules and that by not allowing him to don his Full Plate instantaneously, I had decided not to let him play. He insisted that I was a lousy GM because a good GM would have "let everybody play." When I suggested that any time he wanted to stop putting on his armour, he could have participated, he became more abusive and stormed out.
It seems to me that perhaps he could have found fault with his fellow players for not doing more to cajole/persuade him into coming to the battle without his armour. But I have real trouble with the idea that I was a GM was wrong to give the characters a time-critical emergency where they had to weigh their own safety against others' lives. Am I wrong here? Are armour donning rules often ignored? Is it unreasonable to give characters a choice between putting on their armour or participating in the adventure?
Last edited:
).
