My players are going to hate me...

[LostSoul]

To me part of the reason for gaming is to have fun and cool scenes where the GM shows off some tactic or other he thought of in the shower is just not my idea of fun.

It is, however, some people's idea of fun. These people may include KM's group. I'd assume that KM knows better than I what his group finds as fun.

The only problem I might have as a player is that old medieval windows aren't the same as modern ones, and (for me) it isn't a given that you can see through them so easily (ie. concealment modifier). As far as I know; I could be wrong. That's a campaign thing, though, and your typical campaign assumes modern windows and glass.

As far as KM "not rolling"... I definiately give him the benefit of the doubt. I think that not doing so is rude; if you think he may have fudged the rules in favour of the NPC assassin, at least get confirmation from him first.

Regarding "save-or-die" spells... In certain sitations, Sleep can be a save-or-die spell. It's a completely valid tactic, depending on the type of game you're playing, to have NPCs cast Sleep on a party, Coup de Grace one of the PCs, and retreat.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Last session, I was one round away from killing the barbarian with a vrock (8th level party by the way) and then the vrock using greater teleport to get away. The vrock was very injured, and the barbarian got healed, so the vrock teleported away before finishing the barbarian to save himself. After the battle, I commented on that to the players, and they thought that would have been quite amusing if that had happened. Even the player of the barbarian noted how ironic it would be.

Different strokes.

 

[Agback]

The only problem I might have as a player is that old medieval windows aren't the same as modern ones, and (for me) it isn't a given that you can see through them so easily (ie. concealment modifier).

Good point. We can't guarantee that windows in the original poster's world are anything like mediaeval windows*, but if they were this trick would be hard to pull off.

Windows in most mediaeval buildings of everyday occupation (ie. not cathedrals, not the palaces of the very wealthy) were simple openings that were when necessary closed with a wooden shutter to keep out wind, rain, and snow. Yes, the interiors of buildings got dark and stuffy in bad weather. Most likely mediaeval 'window' in the situation described would be covered with half-inch hardwood boards.

The next grade up, used by the middle class, was that the windows were covered with wooden frames (or even casements) over which was stretched parchment than had been made translucent by rubbing it with grease. This kept out wind and rain, and let in a diffuse glow. But it didn't retain heat very well and the window would probably have been shuttered if it were snowing outside. If the window were not covered with boards, next most likely is that it would be translucent, functioning in effect like invisibility both ways.

Top grade would be glass windows, which would consist of small (up to 4" across, and probably smaller) panels of highly irregular "broad sheet" or "crown" glass 3/8" to 5/8" thick (thickest around "bullseye's" in the middle of each panel) set in a framework of lead strips. Such windows let in a lot of light, and keep out cold better than oiled parchment. But they would still likely have been draped at night and while it was snowing. And you can't recognise a person by looking at them through the window (unless they are right next to it), beacuse of the distorions produced by the irregular glass. In mediaeval times glass windows were fantastically expensive. John of Gaunt, a duke of Lancaster so wealthy that squabbles over his estate brought downt he kingdom of England in the 14th Century, owns a set of such windows that he took with him as he travelled around the countryside, and fitted to the windows of his quarters whichever of his castles, manors, or palaces he happened to be staying in from time to time.

Plate glass (such as you find in old-fashioned windows with several panels set in a wooden framework) was not invented until 1620. Technology steadily improved from then, with panels getting larger, irregularities slighter, and glass less expensive. But the invention of float glass (which put single-pane window sashes within the budget of the common person) was not invented until 1959.


*For example, I estimate that a 9th-level wizard with the skill Craft (glassbowing) could use the Fabricate spell to produce good-quality window glass (equivalent to polished plate c. 1900) for 1.3 gp/square foot wholesale. Whether this spell lets a caster make products in advance of campaign-contemporary finishing techniques is not discussed in the rules.

 

[Gronin]

Cool bit of dialog but the whole thing seems a bit forced. Save or die is never fun and can make the player angry or upset when it goes bad. A real RBDM (and here I am in the camp of Shilsen) makes the player(s) angry. There is a very big difference, one makes for a tough night at the table and the other opens up the game to some fantastic role-playing.

Have the players save the wrong guy, have them do something for someone they think is a good guy and then have it come back to haunt them.

A long time ago (pre-Buffy good vampire days) I had the party encounter a vampire just before sunrise. He was far from his den and was frantically digging a whole to hide from the sun. He was able to convince the party to help him with stories of being good and only drainng the life force of rodents etc. This vampire later resurfaced later in the story line and caused no end of trouble for them and more than one village. Anyway long story and off topic. The point is make the characters angry and you have a good story, make the player think you are a RBDM and he's not having a good time.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Ok, as the description is read the pc was asked for a fortitude save before the shot was fired, before the glass broke, before the assaisgn made the shot. It's very obvious that the DM rushed through the scenerio because he was so happy to come up with this scenerio. All he needed at the start of the scenerio was a bothed fortitude save and he was in there. You can almost see him salivating in the post. I'm not saying he didn't make all the rolls. Hell, he probably made all the rolls well before the scenerio and got all giddy once his attack beat the pcs AC. I'm saying his overeagerness to move through this scenerio caused him to screw his players of the right to defend themselves. The scenerio reads like boxtext at a convention rather than interactive storytelling.

Histrionics, I tell you! What an amusingly slanderous characterization of someone you've never met before based on a bit of florid descriptive text. Seriously, where are you getting all this from?

I saw:
* DM sends careful NPC to end PCs' lives, based on good in-game reasons.
* DM follows rules (including well-known and PC-utilized house rules) to carry out plan
* No evidence of fudging or faking to manipulate or railroad PCs
* Dead PC, fair & square, leading party to be more friggin' careful next time

You saw:
* Snidely Whiplash-like DM snickering over his DMPC who was sent to ruin his players' lives for no good reason, because PC deaths are the work of sociopaths who become aroused at the thought of their players' wailing and gnashing of teeth
* DM sets rulebook on fire, tells player to do same to character sheet because character is dying right now no matter what!
* Forlorn player now turned off of characterization forever because characters are now disposable at whim of evil DM

I detect a subtle difference in the way we interpreted this situation. Perhaps you're reading too much into it?

The only thing that saves this campaign is the even more broken rule of having free death in a game (and having a great npc who can make resserurcts happen cheaper) .

Boy howdy, now you're badmouthing his group's house rules? Here's a bit of advice: house rules are sacrosanct. If a group decides they like their house rules, nobody has the right to suggest that their house rules are somehow wrong. To do so is to tell them that they're playing the game wrongly, and that they should stop playing it the way they want to and start playing it the way you want them to. Which, I believe goes without saying, is hubristic.

That allows the players to not give a care if their character is killed, maimed or turned into chiapets. The only reason KM didn't here anyone complain about the scenerio in his party is because they've already become complacent with not really caring about death.

Or, perhaps they enjoy the status quo in their game and are now both ashamed of letting their guard down so carelessly and fired up for catching the bastard and writing their names in the snow with his entrails to avenge themselves upon him. There might actually be a possibility that KM knows his players better than you do.

For DMs whom care about player backgrounds and weaving pcs into the story, this scenerio woudln't have worked. As previously stated, my players wouldn't provide any backgrounds of note and caution would be thrown to the wind.

Well, too bad for you, having such jaded, peevish players.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Save or die is never fun and can make the player angry or upset when it goes bad.

Save or die is a part of D&D. This doesn't mean you're not allowed to dislike it. Lots of people dislike it. I'm just sayin'. So, not having death effects are something that should be hashed out before the game begins, and if they arn't, they should be assumed to be in. KM's group doesn't seem to be one that dislikes the save or die effect, so I think your statement here isn't accurate.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Oh, yeah. I really AM assuming the DM didnt make all the necessary rolls for his assassin NPC. Why am I assuming? Because the information isnt in his text. And they way it is written, it gives the impression to me(and I can see to others as well) that the encounter wasn't a fair one. Assuming things is not wrong. I dont have to check my brother's DNA everytime I see him, or get his fingerprints, so I am sure it IS him infront of me. I will just assume that if it looks and smells like my brother, that it is my brother.

We all do it all the time, every single day of our lives. There is no such thing as complte information.

That's true. But there is such a thing as "the benefit of the doubt," which means that you don't go off half-cocked accusing people of being rotten D&D players based on incomplete information.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Okay ignoring the weirdness of house rules etc I see 2 problems with the proposed scene (which hasn't happened yet as far as I can see. 1: assassinating 1 character doesn't remove the party. 2: Assassinating a character who will be up and alive within a week or so is pointless. There are better targets to be found. As this doesn't really affect the party at all there just isn't any point to it, besides trying to laugh at your players. You have to think of what the assassin's goals are, not just to annoy the party.

Well, if I were an assassin, I wouldn't be trying to take them all on at once, if that's what you're suggesting. I'd try to pick them off one by one when they least expect it and then steal away before the others could catch me. Once it became clear that they had a solution to my strategy (i.e. quick and easy resurrection), I'd change it. Which is exactly what seems to be going on here. The assassin will soon find out he's going to have to remove not just a PC's head, but his whole corpse as well, or find a way to do in the lot of them in one fell swoop.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I wonder if DMs don't show their rolls in the Stroy Hour if people think that they've fudged everything to create the plot as they see fit. I see nothing different here than that, and I don't think the Story Hour thread writers are horrible DMs with megalomaniacle complexes. Except Piratecat. We all know both pirates and cats are megalomaniacs.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

But the DM didn't cast the spell on the window and that area, he cast the spell on himself. Heck if he would have cast it on the window or the area of the window i am betting a number of people would have taken notice as a whole portion of the room suddenly fell really quiet.

Hello? Read the Silence spell. It creates a 20' radius area of silence. It does not silence one creature. It does not silence one object. There is no option to silence either a creature or an area. It just makes a 20' radius of silence that either moves with a creature or object, or is stationary in space. If you're going to criticize someone else's use of rules, make sure you have your facts straight.

Also there's no such thing as ranged death. It's broken.

Sez you. This particular group believes otherwise. If you don't like it, you don't have to play that way in your game. Where do you get off telling people what they should and shouldn't decide to include in their own game?

The KM also goes a bit of a ways to describe what he did to acheive his "ultimate feat" which I"m confident how he performed the maneuver. He even goes as far to explain the action used and the roll of the pc against the fatiquge. I'm pretty sure because he included the pc's fortitude roll that the fortitude roll was the only roll made by the pcs during the entire encounter. As a matter of fact, if you read the text, it is not a dm telling it to us "not in the game." It sounds like box text KM specifically wrote for the scenerio.

Or...get this...he specifically wrote it to make for an interesting description on these message boards. Because it's more fun to tell the story that way.