D&D General Critical Role Ending

[Parmandur]

Well, he murdered the Scourger personally to cover his tracks (2X77) clearly, and under the various felony murder rules out there he would be liable for all the deaths in the war caused by his thefts. So ... you might argue mass murderer may not be technically true under some definitions, but under others it is clearly true.

Regardless, what he did caused horrific deaths on a monsterous scale - and the only thing he has ever said he regretted was betraying his new friends. He even called regret a new sensation to him.

He recognizes there is no redemption for him. And when he notes that, his focus is on his own safety, not on morality.

Matt has hinted that the ability to avoid death forever using the beacons allows some beings more freedom to be immoral as there is no punishment in the afterlife to 'pay' when the end comes. He did not say he was speaking of Essek specifically, but Essek's complicitous role was unknown at the time.

Essek seems to be neutral evil. "... do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms..." That is exactly how Matt played Essek. There is no concern for the greater good - just what is good for Essek. Amongst what is good for Essek is the benefits of a friendship with the Mighty Nein... so he is not the epitome of Neutral Evil, but he is clearly Neutral Evil.

Well, according to the book, which was finalized before the Mighty anein even got to the Dynasty, Essek canonicaly is indeed Neutral Evil.

I thinknitnis genius DMing that Mercer let his players essentially will a bit of a conversion out of him.

 

[pemerton]

You seem to be doing a lot more trying to win an argument than trying to hear people’s experiences, so I’m done here.

Huh? Someone else in this thread assert that D&D is uniquely appropriate for improvisation compared to other well-known RPG system. I don't agree, and have given reasons that are based on my experiences with the systems in question. What's your problem with that?

 

[robus]

Hit points impede improvisation like knocking a guard unconscious from behind.

Only if you decide that it’s a combat. I would instead adjudicate the players declared action and if I deemed it had a chance of failure, the consequence would be rolling initiative. For me initiative is rolled when the fighting starts. Knocking someone unconscious is not necessarily starting a fight.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Huh? Someone else in this thread assert that D&D is uniquely appropriate for improvisation compared to other well-known RPG system. I don't agree, and have given reasons that are based on my experiences with the systems in question. What's your problem with that?

The method of argument is one I don’t have the energy for. I’m not here to go point by point nitpicking someone else’s arguments in order to win a rhetorical contest.

The topic itself is also nearly always overrun by acrimonious arguments about gameplay preferences.

Only if you decide that it’s a combat. I would instead adjudicate the players declared action and if I deemed it had a chance of failure, the consequence would be rolling initiative. For me initiative is rolled when the fighting starts. Knocking someone unconscious is not necessarily starting a fight.

This.

 

[Parmandur]

Huh? Someone else in this thread assert that D&D is uniquely appropriate for improvisation compared to other well-known RPG system. I don't agree, and have given reasons that are based on my experiences with the systems in question. What's your problem with that?

It does seem to be uniquely suited to qctual play streaming, having watched non-D&D games.

 

[pemerton]

Only if you decide that it’s a combat. I would instead adjudicate the players declared action and if I deemed it had a chance of failure, the consequence would be rolling initiative. For me initiative is rolled when the fighting starts. Knocking someone unconscious is not necessarily starting a fight.

To me, that adjudication seems to sit in a curious space vis-a-vis the assassin's Assassinate ability.

 

[pemerton]

This is true for pretty much all games, though. Unless the game's only rule is that there are no rules, the rules that are in place to give the game structure will constrain in some way, which will impede improv. The best you can say is that this game over here impedes less than that one over there.

Perhaps what you say is true. And someone did indeed assert that D&D 5e impedes improve less than Fate or PbtA-type games. And I disagreed with that assertion (and also expressed puzzlement that anyone would bundle Fate and PbtA together, given that they are mechanically completely different systems).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

To me, that adjudication seems to sit in a curious space vis-a-vis the assassin's Assassinate ability.

Why would a subclass ability determine how basic stuff in the game is adjudicated?

Beyond that, how? The Assassin might not have to roll to succeed at taking out that guard, since he will obviously hit and in hitting crit, and in critting do massive damage. Or they might have advantage.

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

I don't think the story should have been FORCED to go anywhere. But I think it's not unreasonable that there would turn out to be in-game consequences to cozying up to a mass murderer.

Yes. But that's you as the DM deciding to make that happen. Choosing your personal logic over the story or the player's choices.

He didn't crash someone's car. He started a war in which thousands of people died. The consequences would be something you'd run into almost daily in either country. In most towns, in both countries, there will be traumatized family members of people Essek caused to get killed - VERY recently. As a DM, I wouldn't have hand-waved all that just because they got in a hot tub with him. And I think it was also a case of the players liked their Essek jokes and just kinda didn't want to deal with bringing him to justice, so as a result their characters behaved in largely inexplicable ways. Veth certainly should have wanted his head on a platter. As a game, fine. As a show, I hated this part.

Why?
None of those people are real. No one was really traumatized. No real justice will be had by having the fictional character arrested and painfully executed by the state

The only real people are the players. The ones you're choosing to compromise for to enable and support their good time. Instead, you're declaring their choice of NPC is wrongbadfun and saying they should feel guilty for not punishing a war criminal

Obviously, it scarcely matters what I think of CR. But this particular issue is something I was never able to get over in the past third or so of the campaign.

And I hate how chummy everyone is with Shaw despite him killing Han. And how everyone just forgave Spike for a couple seaons of BUFFY despite him being a mass murderer
Sometimes the decision you'd make as a writer doesn't match the decision the actual writer make

 

[pemerton]

Why would a subclass ability determine how basic stuff in the game is adjudicated?

Beyond that, how? The Assassin might not have to roll to succeed at taking out that guard, since he will obviously hit and in hitting crit, and in critting do massive damage. Or they might have advantage.

At 3rd level an Assassin's crit damage is 2x weapon die plus sneak attack. Let's call it 6d6, or an average of 21.

In the 5e SRD the CR 1/8 guard has 11 hp, the CR 1/2 thug has 32 hp, and the CR 3 veteran has 58 hp (oddly more than the knight with the same CR).

So the chances of the critical hit killing the guard (or rendering them unconscious by reduction to zero hp) vary quite a bit depending on how the GM chooses to stat up the guard. And in the normal course of things seem to depend on making a hit roll (unless the GM waives it) and making a damage roll. Both of which use the combat rules.

So ruling that a character can make a non-combat based check to knock out a guard seems to sit oddly with the Assassin ability, as I said.

And as I also said, I'm not seeing anything here that seems markedly conducive to improvisation compared to other RPGs.