My poor, unfortunate players...

[dreaded_beast]

Yes, after the invis-o-text, everything makes much more sense.

So, my big question is, why did the sorcreress do this in the first place?

Did anyone ask the player why they did such a thing if they already knew the outcome?

This may prove enlightening.

 

[MerricB]

I think the reply was something on the order of "I didn't think it would kill the Big Bad Guy".

For me, Railroading is when the entire adventure is "you must do this", "you must do this", "you must do this". Feast can be run in such a manner, but it allows for the PCs not acting in such a manner. It's plot and event based, not just a dungeon-crawl, but not so much that it can't be adapted.

Invis-o-text ON!

Spoiler

Actually, Feast of Goblyns has the PCs being consistently being lied to and manipulated. It's great fun for a DM with gullible players - as mine were. I'll add that they really enjoyed the module as well: they enjoy being lied to and manipulated! Weird people...

However, by the end of the adventure they were pretty sure about what was going on. There was no doubt in any of their minds about what they had to do. Unfortunately, the sorceress was stupid!

The manipulation of the players might give some people the idea that they were railroaded; but it's not true. They well could have discovered the deceptions at an earlier stage; though there are compelling reasons to complete various parts of the quest unrelated to the reasons they were given by the manipulators.

Cheers!

 

[shilsen]

I had told the players what they had to do. I said that above. I said it extremely clearly.

Hell, I'd repeatedly told them what they had to do. I'd even told them the consequences for them mucking it up: their 8th level PCs would have to fight a 13th level necromancer with a maximised circle of death spell. (Think you people can make a DC 22 Fortitude save? Go ahead!)

And they found out about the maximised circle of death spell and the DC in character? Wow! My players would love access to the divination magic your PCs have

 

[MerricB]

I lied about the maximisation. They didn't find out about that. In or out of character.

(If you ever want to make a scary enemy, give them the Sudden Maximise feat from the MHb; one spell/day of any level can be maximised...)

Cheers!

 

[dreaded_beast]

I think the reply was something on the order of "I didn't think it would kill the Big Bad Guy".

Heh, well, we've all heard that one before.

Well, for me it was the DM and replace Big Bad Guy with you.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

I think the reply was something on the order of "I didn't think it would kill the Big Bad Guy".

This is why it's always a bad idea to write a module as if it's a novel. This module allowed exactly one way to defeat the big bad. One player messed up, and everything goes to heck. It's not exactly railroading, but it's bad module design, IMO.

 

[MerricB]

This is why it's always a bad idea to write a module as if it's a novel. This module allowed exactly one way to defeat the big bad. One player messed up, and everything goes to heck. It's not exactly railroading, but it's bad module design, IMO.

No, it's bad play.

If the sorceress had cast hold person or something similar, and disabled the Big Bad rather than killed it, then it would have been fine. There are plenty of ways that the party could have completed the adventure successfully, but there was one thing they couldn't do.

You didn't have a Big Bad that was going to kill itself - the only threat it faced was from the players.

Invis-o-text On!

Spoiler

Of course, we are talking about destroying an artefact here. Traditionally, there's only one way of doing it, and it's not like it should be easy.

Actually it was. Radaga is a wimp once her minions are destroyed - her melee skills are negligble, and she was out of spells, the PCs having survived all that she could throw at them.

If you don't like there being consequences for bad play, then fine. However, I believe that the PCs and players should have to face up to the consequences of their actions.

Cheers!

 

[Pbartender]

If you don't like there being consequences for bad play, then fine. However, I believe that the PCs and players should have to face up to the consequences of their actions.

As a card carrying member of the Rat Bastard DM's Club, I am all for appropriate consequeces for PC actions and in-game verisimilitude.

But...

Be very aware that you are punishing the entire group for the idiocy of a single player. That's not going to endear you to your players.

 

[MerricB]

As a card carrying member of the Rat Bastard DM's Club, I am all for appropriate consequeces for PC actions and in-game verisimilitude.

But...

Be very aware that you are punishing the entire group for the idiocy of a single player. That's not going to endear you to your players.

Oh, absolutely. That's why I banished them to another plane rather than get my third TPK.

They'll be able to get back, but it'll be hard, and I hope that they make life very tough for the player of the sorceress!

Cheers!

 

[kamosa]

IMHO it almost never works to have a goal that only one player in the party can accomplish. There are a couple reactions from the other players, but what you described is one of the most common.

Players hate thinking that they are second rate in the party. When you set a goal like "John is the only person that will be allowed to have glory this game" many players will dislike this. Now you may believe that it is story driven, or your not playing favorites, but the message received by the players is "We are bad players and John is a great player".

So, they react by being very passive in the adventure or trying to disrupt the railroaded ending of the adventure. You get either "Let John do it, he's the big freak'n hero" or "I just ruined the adventure by being useful, Ha ha!"

Sounds like you got the later.