Bad GM rulings? How would you rule?

[Infiniti2000]

I tried to explain that the question came up as soon as the BBEG jaunt'd, then again a few rounds later after she had taken her fateful actions.

Wait, so the CDG occurred while in combat, right?

So, what's the problem? Combat stopped at the point when it was irrelevant.

 

[sirwmholder]

...I'm betting the inability to intervene is what rubbed people the wrong way.

This statement has a high degree of truth to it... though I have sucessfully ran campaigns were characters have to make the hard choices. Are they going to let the village be overrun while they chase down the BBEG to end it once and for all or do they stay and fight off the invading horde? It gives real weight to their decision knowning that they can't be everywhere at the same time.

I can see how a lingering party not thinking of checking on their friends might would be upset. Though they should be upset with themselves for failing their companions not with the DM.

To the OP... good job though if you are going to run a deadly game make death hurt and not just a speed bump.

William Holder

 

[glass]

Well, that doesn't make sense, and I guess that's fairly important if you want to make rulings based on making sense

It makes perfect sense. The spell description quite clearly states that it damages creatures, it doesn't say it damages objects so it doesn't.

EDIT: Or, what KD said.


glass.

 

[azhrei_fje]

Wait, so the CDG occurred while in combat, right?

So, what's the problem? Combat stopped at the point when it was irrelevant.

BINGO! That's exactly my point! We played up to the point that the damage had been done. What else was expected?

I agree with the reply that pointed out that "friends don't let friends lay unconscious in the enemy's stronghold."

I'm trying to start a dialog with a couple of the players to ask them what should have been different. I may need to relate information that the players shouldn't know (in fact, I did that once and said I wouldn't do it again, but this is really the same instance so perhaps I can ignore the "never again" statement).

You know the real kicker? I didn't realize until the battle was over, but the protection from evil that prevented a compulsion spell (greater command) had run out for 4 of the 6 PCs about 5 rounds earlier! Those four should've obeyed the command and fallen asleep as soon as the PfE ran out. The fact that I missed the spell expiration prevented a TPK.

Now, TPKs are an entirely separate topic and I don't want to start that here. Just let me say that my goal is to challenge the players and have fun doing it. I can't challenge a party if they're dying all the time. There was an "almost" TPK in this module back when the party assaulted a mine entrance. Only two survived -- and under somewhat strained reality -- and ever since then the group has played much more carefully and with more thought. Unfortunately, no one from the current group was there during that near-TPK back in late 2004.

 

[Eldragon]

Am I the only person who rules that Forcecage (not talking about wall of force) when in Windowless Cell mode blocks vision since the name implies its Windowless? So unlike Wall of Force, Resilient Sphere, or other spells, the Windowless Forcecage uses walls that are opaque.

 

[Nail]

"Windowless" in this case means "without even the tiniest gap".

Windows, after all, may be clear, translucent, or opaque(mirrored). So saying the Forcecage is "windowless" says nothing about how easily you see through it.

 

[Shallown]

In the Blade barrier Question I had a Thought and reread the spell. The spell, unlike some, does not grant a free move. So imagine the spell splits a 5 foot square. Therefore someone in that 5 foot square has an option of which side they are on. Why can't they person stay in the square and just be in half the square. Most creatures do not take up all their foot space. This solves lots of other "Issues" with moving. They then choose to stay in the square and continue to be attacked on their action or move out. I wonder how well that would work. Imagine a wall that is micro thin to several inches would levae enough room. If you had treated people squized in half squares (which My group does) then they could stay and be squeezed.

On teh Initiative. In that situation I finish that round and then drop into a round by round movement and actions where initiative is no longer in place but what you do is restricted by one round's worth of actions. This actually comes up a fair bit when in places where support or reserves may show up at any Minute (or round in this case). Then it is easier to apply fiarness to the issue.

I think that may be a mtter of applying whatever rule the group decides on and using till everyone is use to it and agreeable. D&D covers lots of things but couldn't cover everything its surprising how many "House" rule things just stick after a while and becomes a rule in your mind.

Later

 

[jaelis]

Am I the only person who rules that Forcecage (not talking about wall of force) when in Windowless Cell mode blocks vision since the name implies its Windowless? So unlike Wall of Force, Resilient Sphere, or other spells, the Windowless Forcecage uses walls that are opaque.

No no, that just means it's running OS X :rimshot:

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I believe that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as long as the neither one is getting special dispensation.

And this is where I would disagree with you because D&D is NOT a competition. Everything is geared (or should be) to what THEY do, what happens to THEM, how people react to THEM, not to enabling the PC's just happen to fit into everything else that's going on. It also means that NOT everything must be applied to the PC's and everything else equally, coldly, rationally, and without favortism. The very fact that you have a player who is upset that he has a dead PC and (rightly or wrongly) thinks it unfair that there was no chance to save him should indicate that even in a game where you're warning the players of dire consequences and that you're going to be a RBDM you can't deny that players will STILL be upset when things like this happen. Even when you want to be a RBDM you STILL may need to bend over backwards to accomodate certain players.

Just because a player doesn't immediately and openly object when you tell them you're going to get cruel and Medieval on their asses doesn't mean he's not going to take it hard when you ruthlessly execute his PC. Maybe it isn't rational... in fact it ISN'T rational, it isn't REASONABLE for a player to get bent out of shape if he's been given adequate warning (and it sounds like you did), but it still doesn't mean it's NOT going to happen and that you don't need to consider it.

Whether those house rules are there or not, the combat actions taken by the BBEG are perfectly in keeping with her personality as I've created it. She had healed up her companion once during the combat, but when he went down again, she thought to herself, "screw this!" and decided to leave when she had the chance in order regroup and return.

And I would argue this way:
I would definitely speak to a PLAYER who created a "disruption" in the game using the explanation that, "I'm just roleplaying - being faithful to what my character WOULD do as I've well-established." Roleplaying and being faithful to your character isn't an excuse for a PLAYER to be a jerk (not that I'm CALLING you that... this is how I would phrase it to such a player.)

I don't see how I, as the DM, can absolve myself of the same standard. I can't be... inconsiderate of the meta-game consequences of FAITHFUL roleplaying of ruthless, BBEG NPC's, even when the character has been well-established and players have been warned of potential cruelty.

Now, having said all THAT, there IS a point where a DM should draw a line in the sand. You warned the players. You established the ruthlessness of the NPC. You gave the players the opportunity to search outside the visible area - even if they COULDN'T have reached the bound PC in time to effect a rescue. You've allowed the player to get angry and vent his frustration. And now he needs to... shut... up.

I will also say that I have run into situations where, because of things the PC's simply do not - and could not - know the players have gotten SERIOUSLY bent out of shape over in-game events. Even when told, "There are simply elements involved that you don't know of," they refuse to accept it and continue to whine. Sometimes, yes, I have had to spill EVERYTHING, explain my DM "secrets" in detail to get them to stop being jerks. I've never liked doing so but it's preferable to having upset players (even if their upset is NOT reasonable). Also, sometimes in those situations they have then indicated FATAL FLAWS in my own actions and I have had to concede that I screwed up.

In any case, communication with all the players is again required. Whether the player is justified or not - he IS UPSET. You can't just proceed silently, secure in the knowledge that you ARE in the right. Whether you tell him to shut up because he has no cause to continue to carp, or you find out that he's not the ONLY player who doesn't care for the consequences of the more ruthless approach to a given NPC, adventure or the campaign in general, you need to keep up that dialogue with all the players.

BTW, it sounds like I WOULD love to be a player in your game.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Honestly, people. Where's this whole "we must not kill unconscious characters left behind inside the BBEG's lair" come from? I mean, the way you guys post it seems like the GM decided to teleport a sleeping character from their own bedroom into a dangerous area and *then* directed the BBEG there out of pure evil.

As I noted in another post, if the DM wants to win - he wins. If he wants to kill a PC for any reason - they die. Players will understandably get upset if they find their PC in a situation where the DM has "engineered" there to be NO CHANCE of escape, rescue, or other success. It doesn't have to be true that the DM has in fact done so. Players will get upset merely if it APPEARS so.

For players to continue to draw enjoyment out of the game, even when the game is supposed to be harsh, they will need to feel that their characters are given reasonable chances for success. That includes for captured characters to escape or be rescued. What one player considers reasonable will almost certainly be a bit different from the next - and ALL will be somewhat different from what the DM feels is reasonable. Open, frequent communication with players is the best way to prevent it from ever being a problem. And no, simply telling them, "Be careful - your PC's REALLY might die in THIS dungeon," is not enough if a player FEELS like he's gotten the shaft (even if he's wrong).

Nobody is saying captured PC's must never be killed. We're saying, "Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD." The fact that the player is upset rather indicates that the player and DM are NOT on the same page here.