DM Advice: handling 'he can't talk to me like that' ~cuts NPC throat~ players.

[Helmet]

When I think of people who react that way, I don't think "hero", I think "psychopath".

No, in the scenario presented, it is an evil act.

Wow, suddenly I realized something that I had been wondering about for years. In the name of all that is holy, why oh why did George Lucas edit Star Wars and change Han Solo from shooting Greedo first, to Greedo shooting at Han first?

The answer is now so clear. An easily upset, hyper-sensitive subgroup of his fans must have pestered and cry-babied him to death. "Waaah waaah, Han Solo is a psychopath! Han Solo is evil! Not a good guy! I don't care how much good he did, Han shot first! He is evil! And because he killed Greedo, he is a murderer! And a psychopath! A PSYCHOPATH!"

There are two types of gamers in the world. The beer and pretzel woohoo Han-shoots-Greedo-first type, and the ballet slippers and bon bons waaah waaah Han-is-a-psychopath type. Make no mistake, the first type has waaay more fun playing D&D.

 

[Kishin]

(BTW, yes, Vincent trying to take the baby away from the PCs was an insult. It's like as if the PCs had a beer on their table and they told Vincent not to take the beer, but he reached for it anyway. It's totally an insult. If they let him walk away with the beer or baby, they would be humiliated. Ergo, they can kill him if they want. It's the code of the violent hero.)

I'm sorry, Hong has the monopoly on wordplay and faux wit in this thread. You continuing with this is the equivalent of trying to write an epic novel about a white whale.

Also, the white hats do not come with diplomatic immunity.

Maybe, just maybe, you people who think having NPCs insult adventurers is sensible and commonplace and realistic, when in fact you are wrong and wrong and wrong.

Badwrongfun much?

 

[Chimera]

There are two types of gamers in the world. The beer and pretzel woohoo Han-shoots-Greedo-first type, and the ballet slippers and bon bons waaah waaah Han-is-a-psychopath type. Make no mistake, the first type has waaay more fun playing D&D.

Dude, this is so over-the-top as to be cringeworthy. There are many shades of grey between those two positions and you discredit yourself with your insistence on illogical polarities.

Personally, I not only do not want "kill anyone who looks at me funny" players at the table in any game I play in, but I do not want to know those people in real life. My game table is not an outlet for psychopathic behavior that you can't get away with in real life, nor am I or anyone else obliged to allow it. Especially when doing so disrupts the fun that others (including the GM) are having.

Angry outburst and insults in defense of what others consider anti-social behavior only tends to reinforce the negative judgement of the person engaging in those behaviors.

 

[Storm Raven]

Wow, suddenly I realized something that I had been wondering about for years. In the name of all that is holy, why oh why did George Lucas edit Star Wars and change Han Solo from shooting Greedo first, to Greedo shooting at Han first?

The answer is now so clear. An easily upset, hyper-sensitive subgroup of his fans must have pestered and cry-babied him to death. "Waaah waaah, Han Solo is a psychopath! Han Solo is evil! Not a good guy! I don't care how much good he did, Han shot first! He is evil! And because he killed Greedo, he is a murderer! And a psychopath! A PSYCHOPATH!"

Wow. Are you off base. The scenario wasn't:

Greedo: Han, you are a poopy head.
Han: BLAM!

Which is what it would have to be in order for it to be equivalent to what you are advocating. Instead, Greedo told Han to give him all his money or he would kill Han.

Han: Over my dead body.
Greedo: That's the idea.
Han: BLAM!

You see, this is an entirely different situation. Furthermore, the scene, as originally shot, shows that Han is NOT a good guy. He's presented as a ruffian, a rogue, a character who is, at best, morally gray. Han, throughout the first movie is a greedy, morally bankrupt man - until the very end when he has a character transformation and comes back to help Luke destroy the Death Star.

In truth, the type of character you are arguing for is much more like another character in the cantina: that's right, the guy who attacks Luke and Ben because he doesn't like Luke's face. I'd like to see you come up with any reasonable label for that character other than "psychopath".

There are two types of gamers in the world. The beer and pretzel woohoo Han-shoots-Greedo-first type, and the ballet slippers and bon bons waaah waaah Han-is-a-psychopath type. Make no mistake, the first type has waaay more fun playing D&D.

Yeah, you keep thinking that. I'm sure that when you have time to actually think about the subject you will realize how silly you sound right now.

 

[Storm Raven]

Which of course has nothing to do with the fact that you used the EL/CR guidelines incorrectly. In fact, you reversed the actual rules so that the NPC's win all the time, and the PC's are nothing more than a resource speed bump.

Nope. I used them entirely correctly. The 9th level good party is looking for a EL appropriate challenge. The 5th level evil characters fit the bill perfectly. It is called having a dynamic campaign in which events happen outside the sphere of the PC's control.

Further, it is an actual response to the OPs question, in which he said he didn't want the PCs in his campaign sliding to becoming evil. The best way to do that is to confront evil PCs with the consequences of their choices. If those consequences are simply "you play the same way, just with rape, murder and mayhem", that's not much of a deterrent.

 

[Mallus]

Nope. I used them entirely correctly.

For certain exceedingly small values of correct (apologies to hong...).

The 9th level good party is looking for a EL appropriate challenge. The 5th level evil characters fit the bill perfectly.

This statement would be correct if the 9th level party were the PC's. In which case the 5th level party should lose and the 9th level group be down %25 of their resources. Stop me if you think that you've heard this one before...

Unfortunately, the situation is reversed. Which makes it a DM-engineered TPK.

Can you honestly claim that a group of 4 9th level characters is fun, balanced encounter for 4 5th level PC's?

It is called having a dynamic campaign in which events happen outside the sphere of the PC's control.

Or having a poor grasp on how the EL guidelines work.

 

[Storm Raven]

Can you honestly claim that a group of 4 9th level characters is fun, balanced encounter for 4 5th level PC's?

Sure it is a balanced encounter, for the heroes. If you want to be a villain, don't expect fairness.

 

[Slife]

Sure it is a balanced encounter, for the heroes. If you want to be a villain, don't expect fairness.

If you want DM controlled characters to be the heroes, go write a novel.

 

[Kraydak]

Sure it is a balanced encounter, for the heroes. If you want to be a villain, don't expect fairness.

I'm with Mallus here, you are making an extremely common misreading of the EL system. An EL 9 encounter is *not* designed to be a "balanced" encounter for a lvl 9 party. It was, deliberately, designed to be a walk-over encounter for the lvl 9 party (the idea was 4 EL=party level encounters=1 adventuring day). Complain about counter-intuitive design if you wish, and you won't be alone in that; but for any reasonable definition of balanced, a 5th lvl party vs a 9th lvl party is, obviously, not balanced.

 

[Storm Raven]

If you want DM controlled characters to be the heroes, go write a novel.

Well, the PCs always have the choice not to become notorious murdering cutthroats. Then the world reacts to them differently. I'm not writing the story here, I'm just having the campaign world in which the PCs live react to them in a manner that reflects their own choices. If choices don't have consequences (good or bad), then they aren't really choices now are they?

P.S. If I were writing the story, then the PCs wouldn't become brigands to begin with.