DM vs. Player

[Goonalan]

DM describes the action, and the consequences of the Players actions.

Out of Game, or in game (find an NPC or have the big bad state the truth once again- "one move and I'll decapitate the stumpy-one") the DM makes it clear the likelihood of the player's actions, not a problem.

What the players do with that is entirely up to them, I watched a party implode recently due to a similar situation, no fun (x10) at the time but the new party (with one player dumped, and newbie added) is just ace.

If the nasty player (if indeed s/he is nasty, and not just playing at it) is responsible for the Dwarf's death then so what, who's to say tables turned it would have played out differently. Obviously the Dwarf player may have something to say about that- be a nice DM, give the Dwarf a moment of consciousness, some last words, or begging the other players to "do as he says... please."

If the rest of the players are against the Dwarf killer, and can't stop him- role initiative somebody (although he didn't really kill the dwarf, he just chose to roleplay his character in such a way as to make it difficult to save the dwarf) then they can punish the Dwarf slayer at their leisure. Alternatively-

Resurrect the Dwarf with some Divine purpose, and bump his/her powers, a sort of two fingers thing at the bad player (nasty GM).

Bring the Dwarf back as a recurring villain later in the piece, undead/shadow whatever and make it certain that the player understands the consequences. The undead creature will of course single his slayer out at every possible opportunity.

If the ex-Dwarf remains unhappy then have the two players strip to the waist and wrestle, the rest of the players jeer and call to their hearts content- let it all out, then see below.

Otherwise after the game have a nice chat with the players, cup of tea and a biscuit- debrief and get the players to talk through what went on, and how to play nicely in the future, if they can't resolve the situation the the least of your problems is a dead Dwarf.

Also remember to repeat the scenario with the "dwarf-killer" as soon as possible, let's see how that one works out for him.

PR

 

[Greg K]

I have to say that this is a bit of an overreaction. People get into fights and adventures knowing there are risks. Could there be extenuating circumstances like availability of healing/raising magic or the general threat from the boss monster to other people that might make the death of a fellow PC warranted? There certainly could be.

If other lives were at stake, then I would have reacted different. However, we were not told that . We were told the following:
a. the group had a negative reaction to being put in the situation;
b. they think everything should fight to the end; and
c. they were "mercenary" about the entire situation to the point that they intended to kill the boss no matter what and let the dwarf die.

However, the OP gave no indication of extenuating circumstances. All indications from him were that the group was going to let the dwarf die, because they simply wanted to kill the boss and see him dead.

As for healing/raising being available, the availability of healing/raising is not a good reason to me for the group's behavior without some other factor (e.g., lots of other people would die).

 

[Asmor]

A readied attack is an immediate reaction, not an immediate interrupt. If one of your ranged characters want to try to make a called shot to knock her out, or one of your stealthy characters wants to take advantage of her shifting attention to get behind her and wrench her stabbing arm, that's fine.

...also what kind of boss only does 9 points of damage on a critical hit? Was she a caster?

Well, it seems likely the character might have been level 1, too. After all, the hostage would have been killed at -16, so couldn't have had more than 32 hp...

If the boss was level 1-3, 1d6+3 is "low" damage for a normal attack. So assuming the weapon wasn't her primary form of attack (e.g. she's a caster, and the dagger is a last-resort), then that seems okay.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I agree with Umbran's earlier post. There is no win here. The dwarf was hostage and if the party attacked then the drawf gets it. While the player was metagaming on the 'sword to the throat is no big deal' they should be allowed attack but then live with the consquences. The dwarf dies and so forth.
After all there is something to be said for the Dirty Harry School of hostage negication.
I thought it was good play on your part and something I will keep in mind for the future.

 

[S'mon]

Is Coup-de-gras not a full round action any more in 4e? You can do it as a readied action?

 

[brunswick]

Coup de Grace is a Standard Action in 4E and you can therefore Ready it. The PHB suggests, if you want to interrupt an opponents action, that you Ready your Action in response to an opponents movement. I'm assuming that the player characters in the OP had to move before they could attack and therefore the readying of the Coup de Grace is perfectly reasonable.

 

[Kzach]

If the boss was level 1-3, 1d6+3 is "low" damage for a normal attack. So assuming the weapon wasn't her primary form of attack (e.g. she's a caster, and the dagger is a last-resort), then that seems okay.

She was an elite lurker. She had two attacks at +6 that did 1d6+3. If both hit, she invoked a bleed effect for 5 (save ends). She also had minor action shift and a diverting attack (adjacent ally of hers cops the hit instead of her) and lastly a healing ability that boosted herself and her allies.

She was designed to work with soldiers (there was an elite soldier with her) and her minions. The group had already taken them all out.

Trust me, she was a tough cookie

Coup de Grace is a Standard Action in 4E and you can therefore Ready it. The PHB suggests, if you want to interrupt an opponents action, that you Ready your Action in response to an opponents movement. I'm assuming that the player characters in the OP had to move before they could attack and therefore the readying of the Coup de Grace is perfectly reasonable.

She moved out of range of everyone just before readying her action. Having said that, I wasn't aware of this rule so two of the characters (the ranger and wizard) could both have attacked before she could get the coup de grace off. With only two of the three remaining characters attacking, it would've been a very big roll of the dice (literally) as to whether she'd die before she got the attack off (22 hit points remaining).

*shrug* anyway, I was also hoping to see or hear about other people's experiences with similar situations.

 

[hopeless]

I was put in this situation when the dwarven fighter was left prone and had a villain pretty much on top of him and he was helpless, I was running a cleric of Helm whose prompt response was to try and smash the villain off the dwarf and was told only a natural 20 would work, guess what I rolled?
It could have been a failure but wasn't, in my case I simply reacted there was no deliberate attempt to kill off another character I was just acting as I thought my character would and later on in that campaign this backfired when my character deliberately stepped between the dwarf and a pit fiend because he refused to abandon his friend in hell.
Ultimately all you can do is wing it and hope for the best, and I'd have voted for the player because even if they were being an ass they have to learn from their mistakes and trust me the players won't be the only ones making them.

 

[Freakohollik]

The problem occurs when one of the players says that his character doesn't think a sword to the throat is a big deal and that he reckons the dwarf will survive it so he wanted to attack. I told him that his character most definitely knows that the sword thrust will kill the dwarf outright so by his action, he'll essentially be killing the dwarf. He then argued that I can't tell him what his character thinks or knows, and that he's "roleplaying" that his character thinks the dwarf would survive.

So, which one is it?

I would say that the DM shouldn't outright tell the player not to be an idiot. If the player thinks that a sword to the throat of someone at death's door won't be a problem, he is allowed to be wrong.

 

[The Little Raven]

However, the OP gave no indication of extenuating circumstances. All indications from him were that the group was going to let the dwarf die, because they simply wanted to kill the boss and see him dead.

As for healing/raising being available, the availability of healing/raising is not a good reason to me for the group's behavior without some other factor (e.g., lots of other people would die).

So, the players reacting to a moral quandary in a way you do not like is an excuse for you to end the entire campaign, then and there?

Sounds like an incredibly overreaction to me.