DMs Don't Kill PCs. PCs kill PCs.

[Marauder]

and then you know what the crafty evoker does?

without even thought or hesitation he moves his flaming sphere into the square occupied by the dying owlbear and the grappled rogue. owlbear fails save. grappled rogue gets no save.

dms don't kills pcs. pcs kill pcs.

beware the killer pcs!

elf with a 19 intelligence my arse!

The DM erred in this instance.

An owlbear has a face of 5ft by 10ft. This means that an owlbear occupies two squares, due to its size category of Large. While grappling, it stands to reason that the rogue would have been pulled into the first of the owlbear's two squares.

The flaming sphere could then have been manouvered to the owlbears second occupied square, which the rogue would not have been in, thereby affecting the owlbear only (by burning it's hindquarters). Furthermore, there wasn't any reason for the rogue to not get a saving throw if the owlbear was allowed one.

This one is a case of DM error...

 

[Y.O.Morales]

Similar situation here:

When the party arrived to a frontier town, the Ranger spots a suspicious man following him. He also follows the man until they arrive to a cemetery. The ranger asks the man who he is and he lies, but nothing bad happened after all. Then the ranger returned to the rest of the group who were praying at the church.
When they exit the temple, they see a note saying: "Those who are hunters and those who are prey... its how nature works. Survive for a day and your life will be granted". This note was from the man who was a member of cult who venerated the deity of hunt. Indeed, he took tha PCs (specially the ranger) as the prey for their rituals.
A few days later, the PCs find that they are being tracked. By the end of the day they set camp and this is when the cultists finally catch up. Thus the battle begins. The PCs see that the group of cultist were lycanthropes so this was a very difficult battle, but still they wanted to fight to the end when running was the best option. After all, what the cultists wanted was a good hunt, not even to kill the PCs. They only wanted to chase them in honor of the deity of hunt. I even gave clear hints in-game and out of it. But still they wanted to fight. At the end they beat the lychantrophes (with two PCs unconcious), but because I fudged a LOT of damage rolls so no more PCs die of stupidity in the campaign.

In my opinion, this kind of approach from players comes from two perspectives. First, they may think that the DM will not kill them because they are the PCs and whatsoever. Second, they may think that fighting is what the DM expects (and designed) the encounter to be and thus deciding other things could unplease the DM. So players out there, read me well, the DM is not the only one in charge of the game. You also get to decide what you want.

 

[Y.O.Morales]

Re: Re: DMs Don't Kill PCs. PCs kill PCs.

Furthermore, there wasn't any reason for the rogue to not get a saving throw if the owlbear was allowed one.

If I recall correctly, being grappled does not allow Ref saves. But again, if I recall correctly 'cause I dont have the books right now.

 

[Volefisk]

Re: Re: DMs Don't Kill PCs. PCs kill PCs.

The flaming sphere could then have been manouvered to the owlbears second occupied square, which the rogue would not have been in, thereby affecting the owlbear only (by burning it's hindquarters). Furthermore, there wasn't any reason for the rogue to not get a saving throw if the owlbear was allowed one.

This one is a case of DM error...

Possibly, but not necessarily. Perhaps the caster wasn't able to move the sphere into the second occupied square; the sphere can only be moved 30 feet a round, and the controls (SRD: "rolls in whatever direction the character points") are admittedly awkward.

Furthermore, as Y.O.Morales pointed out the saving throw is a reflex save, and the rogue was restrained.

Besides, the area of effect is a three-foot radius sphere: perhaps the extra one-foot of area was enough to damage the rogue in the second square.

OK, now I'm reaching...

<volefisk>

 

[rounser]

Some DMs take great delight in not giving enough perception information to players that would be obvious to the PCs, and then hitting them with the consequences. Sometimes all that's needed is a warning from the DM if it would be obvious to the PC that he or she is about to do something dumb. Arguably the player was looking at the battle grid and could have noticed the result without DM help, but nevertheless, it would have been much more obvious to the PC, IMO...

It would probably be visually obvious to the spellcaster that rolling the sphere into the owlbear would fry his friend. The DM should probably warn the player with an "are you sure? It looks like you'll fry your rogue friend" before letting it happen - if he notices the discrepancy between player intentions and what the PC would find obvious, because he's there, looking at the scene.

I note the lack of sufficient information in the "dumb player" thread as well. Saying it's a "bright green wall" isn't sufficient for a player to notice it's a jelly - add "partially transparent, slick-looking, and soft-looking bright green wall" and you'd have, as a player, enough visual cues to make an informed decision that this isn't just a painted wall, but maybe a gelatinous cube.

DMs who hit players with consequences without describing what the PC would be able to see as the likely consequence of an action are a pet peeve of mine. For example, riding after a goblin into the woods requires a DM to mention "It looks like you'd get hit by branches if you rode in there", rather than just smiling evilly, saying "OK" and rolling for damage. It's a stylistic thing, but personally I get somewhat frustrated by DMs who don't tell you what a character can see as a likely consequence of a proposed action.

In some cases, it won't be obvious to the PC what's likely to happen (and you might want to penalise low wisdom PCs especially in this way, due to a lack of grasp of cause and effect causing them to do something foolish), but in many cases, I think it is.

 

[Victim]

Similar situation here:

When the party arrived to a frontier town, the Ranger spots a suspicious man following him. He also follows the man until they arrive to a cemetery. The ranger asks the man who he is and he lies, but nothing bad happened after all. Then the ranger returned to the rest of the group who were praying at the church.
When they exit the temple, they see a note saying: "Those who are hunters and those who are prey... its how nature works. Survive for a day and your life will be granted". This note was from the man who was a member of cult who venerated the deity of hunt. Indeed, he took tha PCs (specially the ranger) as the prey for their rituals.
A few days later, the PCs find that they are being tracked. By the end of the day they set camp and this is when the cultists finally catch up. Thus the battle begins. The PCs see that the group of cultist were lycanthropes so this was a very difficult battle, but still they wanted to fight to the end when running was the best option. After all, what the cultists wanted was a good hunt, not even to kill the PCs. They only wanted to chase them in honor of the deity of hunt. I even gave clear hints in-game and out of it. But still they wanted to fight. At the end they beat the lychantrophes (with two PCs unconcious), but because I fudged a LOT of damage rolls so no more PCs die of stupidity in the campaign.

In my opinion, this kind of approach from players comes from two perspectives. First, they may think that the DM will not kill them because they are the PCs and whatsoever. Second, they may think that fighting is what the DM expects (and designed) the encounter to be and thus deciding other things could unplease the DM. So players out there, read me well, the DM is not the only one in charge of the game. You also get to decide what you want.

I don't mean to be rude, but a note threatening the lives of the PCs with "Those who are hunters and those who are prey... its how nature works. Survive for a day and your life will be granted" is one nice clue to convince them that the were-beasts hunting them aren't interested in killing them. Especially since most lycanthropes are evil.

Also, this hunting thing sounds very much like a Malar ritual. Was this an FR game?

In my experience, most critical player stupidity results a misperception or the player being on a different wavelength than everyone else. Of course, there are exceptions. One player in my group wanted to attempt to make a katana with a campfire, rock, and hammer, when he was playing himself. This same person wanted to make improvised explosives without accurate thermometers.

 

[rounser]

In my experience, most critical player stupidity results a misperception or the player being on a different wavelength than everyone else.

A much more common scenario IMO is that of DM expectations that aren't conveyed correctly, resulting in a seemingly "stupid" response in the DM's eyes, but which might actually represent poor communication skills or too much assumption on the DM's part.

In my experience, the players collectively misunderstanding what the DM wants from them is a lot more common than a single player being on a different wavelength to "everyone else" - I guess this is why we need a "Stupid DM expectations" thread.

 

[Sulimo]

i don't understand why so many players have a negative relationship with the dm. my dm is good, and he is willing to play in a game some one else dm's. if you don't like your dm, then why don't you try to run the game?

Your DM doesnt happen to frequent these boards does he?

 

[tleilaxu]

i don't think so. he is a morpheus fiend