Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elvinis75" data-source="post: 931034" data-attributes="member: 4379">So the players are wrong for not sending out one scout and the others helping with the armor (even though it was stated that there were servants to help with the armor).  Well he did say he planned for that: Of course then they would of let all the guards be killed, it sort of seems the whole point was to save the guards who were being slaughtered. But once again how is it the DMs fault the group decided to split up? This was not something he could change, it was the PCs decision to split up, four saw things one way three of them saw things another way. Which group should he of forced to change their actions?If there are servants than we should be taking about 20 rounds not 40.  If they sent out half the group to scout and never talked before they left is a serious flaw in roleplaying.  Metagame or not.  “If were not back in x rounds come running”.It isn’t the fault of the DM that the party split up.  It isn’t the fault of the DM that the some of characters stayed.  Neither.  But I would account for this as a true choice in the future.  There are going to be times that characters refuse to let the DM totally control the flow as they have personal reasons to do things.  The important thing to learn is to think on your feet and roll with the punches.Even when some of them don't mind and the other walks away from the table?: If the players make a choice to not play then what do you do? At that point he could only change the rules to give the angry player what he wanted, the player refused any other options but for him to get his armor on instantly. I guess that I just feel sad for him that his characters are totally ok with missing the better portion of the night because of the planned encounter.  I think that none of my players would have been down with this.Your saying that the whole premise of the adventure is bad because it contained a choice of saving people or letting people die? No I saying that it was bad for him to assume that there was little chance of the characters buying everything that was happening.  The vampire have a high int yet they do things that are incredibly stupid.  Thus some made a third choice that they are not likely to make again.  (Summon Monster 5:Celestial Dire Lion; Summon Monster 7:Fiendish Dire Tiger; Summon Monster 6:Celestial Dire Bear. Wouldn't the fact that the wizards had obviously used all their high level spells nullify the chances of this happening?) Ever heard of scrolls?  Just because PC 1-4 show up with certain high level spells going doesn’t mean that they cast or did our PCs sit there and watch this all happen?.  So I don’t know how it was clear that anyone knew anything just by showing up.  I’m sorry but everything is just too convienent for me to believe.  I like the little saying that says all things being equal the simplest explaination is the correct one.  I put that to be (from the players perspective ) that this is a setup.  You all say that they chose to sit out.  I think that is a tossup given their perspective and the things that they “knew”.  I think that they chose to play it safe and sat the session for it.The guy left the room probably because he got bored or knew that he was going to have to wait.  Either way I have already address the quality of this one guy.</blockquote>

Verification