My poor, unfortunate players...

[Pbartender]

You are making unwarranted assumptions.

Eh... I said that I might be myself.

I've that problem myself, though, on occasion. The players don't always know what you're thinking, and sometimes they just interpret it very differently from what you meant.

Another interesting way of dealing it, might have been to simply have the (new) BBEG simply dismiss the PCs. They've released the Ultra-Bad Guy, who doesn't even see the PCs as a threat (because they probably aren't yet), and proceeds to conquer and/or destroy the world piece by piece. The PCs are left to puzzle out a way to fix this problem that they've caused... And rumors begin to spread around the general populace that all this fire and brimstone is their fault.

My point is... I don't think it's fair to complain about the entire group of players, when it was really just the one that was being stupid.

 

[FireLance]

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?

Heh . Couldn't resist:

DM: You finally arrive at the destination of your quest: the Crack of Doom in the heart of Mount Doom, the one place where the Ring can be destroyed. What do you do?

Player1: You know what, I'm sick of this. I've been pushed around by men, bitten by spiders, tormented by orcs, and I haven't earned one single miserable XP on this stupid adventure. I'm not going to destroy the Ring. I'm going to put it on and become the next Dark Lord.

DM: (thinking fast) Okay... you put on the ring... but, make a Spot check.

Player1: Huh? 19.

DM: You fail to see Gollum lurking in the shadows. He rushes at you, (roll, roll) beats your miss chance for being invisible, (roll, roll) succeeds at a melee touch attack to grab you and attempts to start a grapple. Make a grapple check.

Player1: Um... 12?

DM: (roll, roll) Sorry, he's now grappling you. Make an initiative check.

Player1: 14.

DM: (roll, roll) He beats your initative and attempts to grab the Ring from your finger. (roll, roll) A critical hit! Gollum bites off your finger with the Ring, releases you from the grapple and dances in glee at the edge of the Crack of Doom, (roll, roll) but he makes a bad Balance check and falls into the lava with the Ring. The Ring is destroyed! Middle Earth is saved!

(long silence)

Player1: Do I at least get XP for Gollum?

 

[Parlan]

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.

I guess it s a matter of taste. In this adventure, you re not just trying to kill the BBEG ASAP. Instead, you have a serious complication. I would like that b/c it makes it a lot more interesting.

The PCs apparently knew that whoever possessed the crown had to kill the BBEG.

So there wasn’t just one solution. Anyone in the party could have been in the spotlight, the PCs chose to make that person be the Paladin. So if the sorc really had such a big problem with the Pally carrying the crown she should have carried the crown herself. Instead, the Sorc chose deviate from the plan.

And if I m reading Merric’s last post correctly, it sounds like she had plenty of opps to shine already.

Sounds like there should be some kind of consequences for her stupidity, and I would consider a TPK myself. (Although if I could come up with a believable way to make only the Sorc pay the price I would. Maybe the Liche wants to have the person who freed him participate in his coronation ceremony... as the human sacrifice...)

 

[MerricB]

There's a couple of PCs who'd like her familiar to meet an untimely end.

Cheers!

 

[Christian Walker]

I dunno. This thread has bugged me from the get go.

Maybe it's the tone of the original poster, berating his "poor, dumb" players in a public forum. One of my players did something similar once and he's no longer a member of the gorup.

Maybe I'm irritated because I despise canned modules that set in stone certain courses of action. So who cares if the wrong PC killed the bad guy. The SOB is dead. I've been married for 6 years and I've learned that you never, ever tell a woman what she can and can't do. I say, "Go, sister. Spank that bad guy like it's his birthday."

Punshing the group seems very heavy-handed and unnecessarily imperious. Somethink like the great Oz threatening interlopers from behind a curtain.

 

[Gnarlo]

I think it was probably an unfortunate choice of words on Merric's part and a (purposeful?) misunderstanding on the part of those condemning him. I read "my poor, dumb players" the way I'd cringe and say (and have heard other people say) "that poor, dumb bastard" if I saw a player get blindsided on the field in a football game. Do I mean that he's poor, dumb, or a bastard? Nope, I'm using verbal hyperbole to commiserate with the feeling of "oooo, that's gotta hurt!"

Assuming we give the sorceror the benefit of the doubt and accept her word that she didn't think the spell would kill the BBEG, I think only she would have a chance to have the dumb label attached to her, and probably only her actions at that (I believe he's already said that the entire party knew that the killer had to be wearing the crown). Perhaps we should instead call her actions overexuberant instead of dumb?

I think it's just his choice of the "dumb" word that has got the hackles of the Player's Rights Faction(TM) up Just because an adventure takes a turn that screws the players doesn't mean that the DM is a killer DM out to screw the players.

This was a "destroy the artifact, kill the BBEG, end of the world" type scenario; they tend not to have a multitude of choices ("The Ring cannot be destroyed, Gimli Son of Gloin, by any craft we here possess"). This adventure in fact seems to offer more option than many; there is no Golden Child or Chosen One PC or NPC, no PC has to choose to sacrifice him or herself for the Greater Good, and it's not set up so that only one type of character can achieve a victory. As railroads go, this one is kinda weak. All that is required is the Crown. Anyone coulda wore it. Apparently, the sorceror shoulda wore it

Of course there should be Consequences(TM), this is an epic adventure here! (meaning the tone, not necessary the level of characters) In terms of Consequences(TM), Merric's gone very lightly on them. I don't mean this in a DM vs the Players sense, where the poor little ingrates should be thankful that the Godlike DM doesn't visit His wrath upon them for messing with his pet NPC. I mean in terms of what the BBEG could have realistically done; I think Merric has shown how much he cares for the fun of his group in coming up with an "out" for them that will lead to more adventure and fun that the (much more realistic IMO) TPK would have done.

That's why I can't see the suggestion of the ultra-BBEG dismissing the party as unworthy of his notice as working. He's been released as a direct result of the party's actions, he therefore knows that they are capable of Great Deeds(TM). Had the Nazgul captured Frodo, I truly can't see Sauron taking the Ring and then saying "Pshaw! You see, you are no match for me, little hobbit, and are beneath my notice. Now you just scurry on along home before I spank your bottom." Azothoth? Sure! I bet he isn't in the slightest bit aware of those pitiful ants called humans he destroys in his wake. But Sauron would Get Medieval(TM) on your ass

 

[MerricB]

Firelance - I love your LotR sketch! Very, very funny!

For the information of those who don't understand the Australian culture, "poor dumb players" is an amusing way of referring to my players. It would appear as such to my players, especially given the way that I wrote my initial post.

Perhaps I could have chosen better words, but I don't really want to speak American or British idiom. Ignore them and move on.

Cheers!

 

[Kae'Yoss]

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!

There's a couple of PCs who'd like her familiar to meet an untimely end.

How very nice of you. (BTW: I'm using English in the "sarcastic " idiom)
So the player of the sorc screwed up. You wouldn't kill the whole party because of that, because you're such a nice guy. You banish them far away, so they live to be screwed up. And you make it clear who is responsible for this. Not only that: You hope and maybe even encourage that the rest of the party will now hate the sorceress (and even her player). You sanction player bullying. I think that's far worse than a TPK. If you had just blasted them, they would be mad (but not too mad) at the player for a while, but would forgive him. But now chances are they will continue to harass and punish both the character and the player (killing the familiar is more than bad form - if I were DM, this would push you right out Lawful or Good alignment, maybe into Evil and Chaotic, and earn you an XP penatly for being a petty little bastard). It is entirely possible that the player will be frustrated for being that badly punished by his friends for one single error. I wouldn't be astonished if he leaves the party, maybe even stops playing altogether. Some people can put something like that away, but others can't.

I don't consider it too much of bad DM'ing if you railroad a little - sometimes it is needed, sometimes a DM hasn't that much of a time to plan for every action the party makes, or sometimes DM's haven't enough experience to deal with that sort of player freedom.
But I really consider it the worst DM'ing to encourage or even tolerate player bullying. I really hope you have just exaggerated here.

(Although if I could come up with a believable way to make only the Sorc pay the price I would. Maybe the Liche wants to have the person who freed him participate in his coronation ceremony... as the human sacrifice...)

Boooring. It's like killing her on the spot. Don't forget the staple of Playing-Ugly-But-Powerful-BBEG's. She's a Sorceress. So she has high Cha, which means she's beautiful, charismatic, pretty, well-mannered, or all at once. I'm sure that the Lich would like to have a pretty mortal concubine at his side to spend quality time with, especially after all this time being trapped in some dull bauble

 

[billd91]

I guess it s a matter of taste. In this adventure, you re not just trying to kill the BBEG ASAP. Instead, you have a serious complication. I would like that b/c it makes it a lot more interesting.

The PCs apparently knew that whoever possessed the crown had to kill the BBEG.

So there wasn’t just one solution. Anyone in the party could have been in the spotlight, the PCs chose to make that person be the Paladin. So if the sorc really had such a big problem with the Pally carrying the crown she should have carried the crown herself. Instead, the Sorc chose deviate from the plan.

Now that we've got more information on what happened and the situation, I think it's perfectly reasonable. Sometimes there is only one (or one set) of solutions to a problem and failure comes with penalties. Or really, I should say that the sorcerer has, in fact, solved one problem by killing a BBEG. Too bad that the way the BBEG was killed leads to a nastier problem. Ah, consequences. Gotta love them.
As far as punishing everybody. Makes sense to me. Even if only one of them screws up, if they create a situation that will affect everyone, then that's what has got to happen.

 

[Arnwyn]

I thought it was Dragonlance modules that did most of that...

No, the Dragonlance railroaders were 1e adventures. The 2e ones weren't bad at all.

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.

Actually, if the players are rational, then the correct statement is "that's not going to endear her to the other players".