Forcing a confrontation or a legitimate interpretation?

[Quasqueton]

What do you think of this:

The party (five 5th-level PCs) is travelling across wilderness country, escorting a small caravan of mostly non-combatants. The druid, scouting in eagle form, spots a big creature following the caravan's trail. He flies down to warn everyone. It is determined that the creature is a bulette, and the party would like to avoid fighting it (too dangerous). The bulette is a couple miles behind the caravan, but gaining, so the party sets a trap for it.

They leave a horse, tethered to a stake in the ground, in the middle of a spike growth spell. The caravan continues on, but the party keeps a watch over its shoulder.

That night, they make camp in a lightly wooded area. Just in case, they leave another horse staked to the ground about 400 yards behind them (but no spike growth this time). A standard watch is set up, but everyone is ready to jump up and go on a moment's notice -- even the horses and wagons are left saddled and harnessed.

A few hours into the night, the watch spots and hears the bulette coming. The alarm is sounded. Non-combatants, with a handful of NPC hired guards, mount up on horses and wagons, and move forward as fast as the dim light allows. The PCs take up positions to fight off the monster.

The battle rages, and the bulette dies. No PCs are killed.

In describing what happened with the two light war horse sacrifices, the DM said the bulette approached the first horse until within 60', then burrowed under to attack it from below. It took 2 rounds for the bulette to kill the horse, and in that time, it took damage from the spike growth, and failed one of the two Reflex saves. So it's ground movement was reduced to half.

The bulette then continued on after the caravan, but at a pace now only equal to the wagons. The landshark continued on a forced march, making the fortitude saves for an extra 3 hours, and repeated its attack on the second horse. It then continued on after the caravan.

My question is this: Was the DM forcing a battle on the PCs with this monster, or is this how a bulette would probably act? The DM said that is how he was interpreting the descriptive text in the MM -- a relentless predator, with a voracious appetite. A virtual eating machine.

Quasqueton

 

[Greatwyrm]

It sounds a bit forced, but not unreasonable. If there hadn't been much for it to eat in the area before and then it sees a mobile buffet coming through, I'd say it might to that.

 

[Goobermunch]

The DM's interpretation seems reasonable to me.

--G

 

[arwink]

I'd be inclined to do much the same sort of thing. You leave food out for the shark, and it's going to come after it. Wounding it will only make it meaner.

And, of course, your DM is pretty free to do what he wills with his monsters

 

[Rel]

I think this was fair GMing from a couple of perspectives.

First off I think it is a legitimate interpretation of the description of a Bulette's attitude as listed in the MM. They are describes as voracious, relentless hunters particularly when after their favorite food, horses.

Also it seems like this was one of the encounters that the GM had planned for the session. Perhaps he felt that if it were circumvented by the PC's that he didn't have enough material prepared for the remainder of the session. So, he had the Bulette push forward with the attack even if it was a bit questionable.

I don't think this is a good idea in every circumstance. If the party had the means to virtually insure that the creature couldn't pursue them or if it had been grievously wounded by the Spike Stones, then having it continue to attack simply for the sake of having the encounter smacks of railroading.

I'd also interject that I personally would rather let the party avoid an encounter when they strenuously attempt to do so (provided that it seems reasonable for it to work) and just come up with another encounter on the fly. Perhaps by fleeing from the Bulette the caravan blunders into a bandit ambush.

If a GM isn't good at coming up with these sorts of encounters on the fly, then he should have a small stack of them prepared in advance so that he doesn't have to think on his feet too much.

But again, for the circumstances described above, the encounter doesn't sound too forced to me.

P.S. Quasqueton, we hope that you will be able to attend the next ENWorld NC Game Day. A link to the planning thread is in my sig. Most of the games are currently full but I've just gotten word that another will probably be opening up soon. See you around.

 

[alsih2o]

sounds like leaving a reeses pieces trail into the closet for em.

if i was a big predator and folks left me defenseless horses i would keep following

 

[Quasqueton]

Thanks for the comments folks.

*rips off Player mask* I was the DM in this game.

Shortly after the battle, I started questioning my own motives. Did I force that encounter? It was a randomly rolled wilderness encounter -- no forethought or intentions with it. I could have just gone on with more random rolls, no effort or planning lost on my part.

The next day, for some reason, it crept into the back of my mind that I was playing the bulette too heavy. At the time, I saw the leaving of sacrificial horses as like leaving breadcrumbs on the trail. And though the spike growth did reduce its movement to half, it only did 4 points of damage (out of 94 hit points).

But what if a PC had died to a creature that they actively tried to avoid? I would feel real bad about that, even though at the time I was trying to think as a bulette.

Fortunately, no one died, and the battle actually turned out to be a team-building, tactics-solidifying experience for the party. Plus, they gained 6th level for it. So, all in all, the encounter was a good thing. And no Player complained about it, during or after.

But it could easily have been a very bad thing. And I wanted to put this up for unbiased opinions on the situation. It never hurts to have outside observers critique one's skills. I think, if I were to DM this situation again, I wouldn't have the bulette quite so dogged in its pursuit of the caravan. A horse meal would probably satisfy it for at least overnight. Maybe then it would again take up tracking the caravan, but not immediately and constantly. *shrug*

Quasqueton

 

[Rel]

But what if a PC had died to a creature that they actively tried to avoid? I would feel real bad about that, even though at the time I was trying to think as a bulette.

I find this to be an interesting notion. I guess I can see a point about feeling better about a PC death if they picked the fight rather than the fight picking them. In my campaigns, often the PC's go looking for trouble and sometimes troubles comes looking for them. Either way can end up with characters dead and I don't really differentiate between the two.

Fortunately, no one died, and the battle actually turned out to be a team-building, tactics-solidifying experience for the party. Plus, they gained 6th level for it. So, all in all, the encounter was a good thing. And no Player complained about it, during or after.

I don't often toss "random encounters" into my games but when I do I try to weave them back into the bigger picture as seamlessly as I can. I think you've got a great opportunity for that here.

When the characters get to the next town, maybe they are hailed as heroes for slaying the Bulette that had made that particular trade route almost impassable for any caravan using horses. They don't have to be showered with money and magic items, but perhaps the local innkeeper (who makes his living off those plying the trade routes) puts them up in his best rooms for free and provides warm, fluffy towels for their baths and feeds them like an Italian mother would.

Or maybe another group in town had made quite a bit of money by importing goods through another, more difficult trade route that was only utilized because of the danger the Bulette posed. The slaying of the Bulette now threatens their trade monopoly and they are not happy about it.

Or maybe both.

By the time you're done with it, the encounter with the Bulette could go from a simple random encounter to a pivotal (if minor) point in your whole storyline.

 

[Umbran]

Look at the description of the bulette in the MM(3.5e):

"The bullette has a foul temperament - stupid, mean, and fearless. The size, strength, and number of its opponents mean nothing."

In addition, the thing is described as the sort of critter who will eat everything it can get it's maw upon, until the territory has no more suitable prey. So, I think the encounter above is very much in character for the monster.

 

[Keith]

Well, there is this question: after laying what is a pretty clever and effective trap, I think, what if the party had outdistanced the Bulette? Would you have given them the XP for defeating it (since they had, in any sense that mattered to them)? If not, then I would agree that the reward for the trap should have been the Bulette spotting something else to eat along the way and not managing to keep up.

Perhaps more effort should have been made to pick up the pace. Or horses released to move AWAY from the caravan. That is probably why, as DM, you felt that the creature might still have hung in there. You gave the players plenty of time to try and get away. Other DMs would just have a Bulette pop up right under people having dinner...

As long as you admitted to yourself that escape was a possibility, I think you DMed it nicely. Suspense, tension...good stuff. Nothing wrong with fighting a creature you are prepared for, either, from a player’s perspective.

Every DM knows the feeling you had. It comes with the difficult job of being responsible for having things happen without too overtly making everything happen. It’s not like it is easy.

Cheers