My poor, unfortunate players...

[MerricB]

Possibly. Of course, they were all participating in the rest of the adventure, and in the final combat they were up against 40 enemies apart from the Big Bad - and they couldn't get to the Big Bad until most of the other enemies were destroyed.

They had a lot of fun in the last combat, and the Sorceress was using her fireballs and other spells like mad, whilst dodging silence spells and similar. Everyone was involved.

Spoiler

Of course, the paladin could have just tossed the Crown of Souls to the sorceress if he thought he couldn't make it to her. It was also a group decision to let the paladin wear the Crown.

Cheers!

 

[Parlan]

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.

What? As long as everyone has a chance to participate in the combat meaningfully, what’s the big deal? I think it would actually add a cool twist to the fight, giving Frank the Fighter a reason to do subdual damage or grapple the BBEG (w/o even having Imp Grapple, ye gods!) so Percy the Pally can finish her off.

Obviously if your BBEGs always have to be killed by Percy, then Frank might get flustered. But Merric has always seemed pretty savvy as DM, so this should not be an issue.

This chapter, it’s Percy’s time to shine, next time they’ll be a trap that only Theo the Thief can disarm. It’s called sharing the spotlight. If your players can’t handle that concept, then next session give ‘em a binky, change their nappies and keep them in the playpen.

 

[Pbartender]

DISCLAIMER: If you didn't want spoilers to this module, you shouldn't be reading this by now anyway. I'm not going to bother hiding anything. Sorry.

~~~

Looking at it again, Merric, it seems that it was mostly a lack of clear communication. The way you reminded them (assuming that what you posted is pretty close to what you actually said to them), might have irritated the interparty rivalry of a bored, irate, and/or stupid player...

Instead saying, "If the paladin doens't kill him, it's very bad."
Say, "Don't forget, it is very important that whoever is wearing the Crown kills him."

You take the emphasis away from the characters (which is bound to cause jealousy, etc.), and place it on the Crown. That way the characters can say... "Well, the Paladin is tough and can dish out as good as he gets, but the Sorceress is our heavy artillery. She'll be most likely to kill him anyway with her fireballs and lightning bolts, so let's give her the Crown for this battle. If she starts running out of magic, she can hand it off to the one of the fighters."

According to the module, anyone who is wearing the crown can 'safely' kill the BBEG. According to what you said to them, only the paladin could 'safely' kill the BBEG. Part of that is how you reminded them, and part of it is how they interpreted your reminder.

 

[MerricB]

Looking at it again, Merric, it seems that it was mostly a lack of clear communication. The way you reminded them (assuming that what you posted is pretty close to what you actually said to them), might have irritated the interparty rivalry of a bored, irate, and/or stupid player...

You are making unwarranted assumptions.

I never said anything in terms of the paladin to the players. I've posted in that way in this thread to avoid spoilers. (Note how I don't mention the Crown at all in non-spoiler text until now). It was always in terms of the Crown.

The Sorceress was thinking "Oh, this won't kill him", despite my description of the Big Bad as very badly hurt. The rest of the party looked on in disbelief as she cast the magic missile spell. Given the Sorceress had spent the rest of the adventure as the leading character for most of the play...

Cheers!

 

[Sir Whiskers]

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.

Perhaps, but I still think it's bad design in the first place. Players will always do the unexpected - that's precisely why the game is fun. Because players can write their own stories, instead of just being pawns in someone else's. When I read this part of the module, I saw a train-wreck just waiting to happen. And guess what? It did.

Let me put it another way - when the session was over, did the players have a bitter taste in their mouths? If so, what can be done next time to avoid it? I'm not suggesting that actions should not have in-game consequences. I am suggesting that, whenever possible, it's better to allow characters multiple paths to success. Otherwise, sooner or later, they're liable to get frustrated.

Please don't read this as a criticism of your dm'ing. It's just a particular pet peeve of mine in adventure design - the author creates only one way for the party to succeed, that information generally has to be spoon-fed to the characters (or rammed down their throats), then the players have to go along. No wonder many players end up doing something that looks "dumb" in hindsight - they're playing their character, not a part in a play.

 

[SSquirrel]

After a particularly bad session of Vampire, I came up with the mantra, "never under estimate the stupidity of your players". Though I suppose I was talking about my group mostly. On the plus side, they haven't done anything quite that bad since, except the incident with the fireball and necklace of missiles.

You too huh? I think we threw one of those into a bonfire behind the baddies actually *grin* Wasn't pretty.

Hagen

 

[MerricB]

Oh, I've had players in my group do stupid things before. I loved the dwarf who walked into a disintegration field without doing a proper search of the area before. (They'd detected it as a strong transmutation aura, and it was giving off bad vibes). He failed his save, and poof, they were a PC down. If they'd done any searching of the area first, they'd have found the secret way past the field.

Then there was the illusionist who, in the same adventure, cast a fireball spell on a bunch of commoners when several powerful undead were sitting on a stage in plain sight. The kicker was that he didn't tell the other players that he was about do do that - they'd been infiltrating the crowd and were getting nearer to the stage. Suddenly their element of surprise was lost and that was a TPK to me!

There was the 10th level barbarian who charged a group of 8 hill giants... without checking to seeing what the rest of the group were doing. (They were casting invisibility and haste on each other). By the time they entered the battle, a couple of rounds later, the barbarian was dead.

Mind you, they do play intelligently and excellently well from time to time as well...

There was the Priest of Trithereon (god of independence and freedom) who had to sit through a banquet with slavers, with a Priest of Hextor telling him that slavery was the will of the gods. He had to remain undercover, and only just managed to keep his temper under control.

There was the player who managed to remember the way out of the dungeon, after their mapper had been teleported elsewhere (along with the map), even though I'd used revolving rooms, false stairs and elevator rooms to confuse them all... he just took the perfect way out.

Of course, my favourite dumb thing of all time: the rogue who decided that one of the guests at the slaver's dinner was actually a slave. (She wasn't) He then "rescued" her. (She played along). They became lovers, and eventually he led her to the secret stronghold of her bitterest foe. "Thanks, my dear. It's been fun!" she said, before teleporting away to tell the rest of the Scarlet Brotherhood where to attack...



Cheers!

 

[kamosa]

What? As long as everyone has a chance to participate in the combat meaningfully, what’s the big deal? I think it would actually add a cool twist to the fight, giving Frank the Fighter a reason to do subdual damage or grapple the BBEG (w/o even having Imp Grapple, ye gods!) so Percy the Pally can finish her off.

I'm just speaking from experience. It "seems" cool, but seldom works. One of those theory vs reality at the table things. Players rarely enjoy being pushed out of the spotlight so that someother character can get the glory. It just seems to go badly.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

To the original poster: Pardon me for being obtuse, but could you explain why you play this way? I would assume it's because you want to focus on sticking to the module as written, or possibly making sure your players are always tactically sound. Does that get at why you did this?

I don't mean this as an accusation or an attack; I just want to understand. I personally don't understand why a DM would want to punish the entire party for one player's miscalculation. (From what you described, they were just trying to mortally wound the NPC so the paladin could get the killing blow; is this correct?)

I can just chalk it up to different priorities in play and go on my merry way, but I'd like to understand this. I know Ravenloft modules are often set up to hose PCs if they make mistakes, but this just seems odd to me.

 

[MerricB]

Whenever you have a "save the world" plot, there must be the chance for failure. It'd be nice if the player was the only one to suffer for their mistakes, but it doesn't work that way in many campaigns. If you try to bluff past a guard, and one of the party insults the guard while you're doing this, causing an incident, the entire party is in for it - same principle.

A group of adventurers has to work together. Notice that I didn't kill the entire group (as I certainly could have), I just put them in an uncomfortable place with the strong possibility of new adventures.

If I change the adventure after already stating the consequences, then I'm fudging badly and undermining the thrill of the adventure. There isn't a deux ex machina here - the other players know that they'll have to deal with the problems themselves. And if one of the problems is one of the PCs, then so be it.

Consider the end of the Lord of the Rings. If it were done as a role-playing game, with Gollum an NPC, how cheated would the players feel?

No, this adventure has ended up in a manner that makes the world more interesting (if not safer) for the players and the ongoing campaign.

Though I'm reluctant to change the details of published modules, I'll do so if the situation warrants. I didn't think it needed it in this case, and throughout the final fight (all three hours of it!) the players were discussing and reminding themselves of the restriction they had - which really is a tactical one as much as anything.

Cheers!