My poor, unfortunate players...

[Rel]

I guess this was my issue. I was trying to understand why sticking to the consequences of error as written in the module was worth having people actually being upset out of game.

It seems like what you're saying is "Adherence to the module is the primary priority for me", so that's cool. I wouldn't try to convince you to change your preferences. People have different priorities in playing and DMing.

I'll chime in here late to say that I think you are slightly off in your assessment of MerricB's "primary priority" here. He did NOT adhere to the consequences indicated by the module. He (in my opinion based on what's been posted here) did some pretty good thinking on his feet and came up with a way for the failure of the PC's to have both negative consequences AND a way to make things right.

They have been booted to another plane. Is this an inconvenience? Of course. Will the PC's be upset with the Sorceress? Of course. Will the other players be upset with her player? Probably a little bit for a little while. So what? What that shows is that the players care about what happens to their characters and the goals that those characters are trying to accomplish. That says to me that they are invested in the game and my guess it that this incident won't spoil their fun for long if at all.

The problem for many players (myself and most of the gang I play with included) is that if you always make things come out just right so they are always happy, they aren't happy. Personally I would not want to continue playing in a game where, when we screw up our mission (especially if it was due to silly action like this rather than just bad rolls), the GM says, "Uh, - And you all live happily ever after anyway!"

Just as you are not telling others how to play, Sweeny Todd, I'm not telling you how to play. I'm just saying that if MerricB has had a generally positive experience running games for this group, and if they keep coming back for more, even after two previous TPK's, he's probably doing something right. I think his reaction to the situation he presented was more of him doing something right.

 

[MerricB]

It seems like what you're saying is "Adherence to the module is the primary priority for me", so that's cool. I wouldn't try to convince you to change your preferences. People have different priorities in playing and DMing.

Not even that. It's "Bad things can happen if you do the wrong thing".

This wasn't arbitary in the sense of "Oh, you turned left rather than right... you die!" This was something that the PCs knew about, the players knew about, and I made sure they were reminded about it.

If I then let them off, what signal would that send to the players? "Oh, it doesn't matter what we do, Merric will always make things right..."

At that point the players become irrelevant. I'm telling a story with which they're not involved. And that's dull.

Cheers!

 

[Kae'Yoss]

They have been booted to another plane. Is this an inconvenience? Of course.

If I might chime in here: I have no problems with there being inconveniences. I have a problem with the sentence "And I'm going to make things very bad for that sorceress. Her player needs to learn a lesson or two about paying attention." MerricB said in Post 1. That sounds less like inconvenience than like "living hell"

Will the PC's be upset with the Sorceress? Of course. Will the other players be upset with her player? Probably a little bit for a little while. So what?

That's also understandable. My problem lies with MerricB's "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!" from Post 29. He encourages infighting, and bad infighting in the group. A whole party picking on one player isn't nice, and shouldn't be tolerated by the DM, much less encouraged.

What that shows is that the players care about what happens to their characters and the goals that those characters are trying to accomplish. That says to me that they are invested in the game and my guess it that this incident won't spoil their fun for long if at all.

I doubt it, for in Post 44, you can read this: "There's a couple of PCs who'd like her familiar to meet an untimely end.;-)"

That's more than a just little hard feelings. This will seriously harm the sorceress in question (and her familiar, of course). Especially considering there's a paladin in the party, this had better be a joke they're having.


I think the only thing worse than a whole party picking on a single player is the DM tolerating or even encouraging this (and it's the worst thing by far if the DM helps them). Depending on the player, this could very well cause him to leave the party (and might cause him to stop roleplaying altogether).

 

[Gez]

Just a question, would this be considered as bad railroading?

"To disarm the bomb, cut the blue wire between the detonator and the explosive. Don't cut the red, yellow, black, etc. wires! Cut the blue and that baby is harmless, cut anything else before and you're all turned into vapor."

"OK, I'll start by cutting this green wire there, it'll give me an easier access to the blue wire."

"OK, this ends the campaign. You won't need these character sheets anymore."

After all, there's just one way to disarm the bomb.

 

[MerricB]

I think the only thing worse than a whole party picking on a single player is the DM tolerating or even encouraging this (and it's the worst thing by far if the DM helps them). Depending on the player, this could very well cause him to leave the party (and might cause him to stop roleplaying altogether).

Oh, I can think of something far worse: because of one player, the rest of the group breaks up and never plays RPGs again.

I'd much rather lose the one player than lose the group. I doubt either will happen in this case, because I'm going to keep an eye on things - and I'm much better positioned to understand my group than you are, KaeYoss.

He encourages infighting, and bad infighting in the group. A whole party picking on one player isn't nice, and shouldn't be tolerated by the DM, much less encouraged.

And one player spoiling the fun for everyone else should be encouraged? What a wonderful proponent of RPGs you are, KaeYoss.

If you think I'm being too hard on you, be assured that I know you don't have a clue as to my motivations or methods.

 

[Berandor]

Late to the discussion, but:
I've recently played that very adventure, and I remember the stupid crown (stupid in a good way ). We also gave it to our paladin (surprise) for fear of being possessed by the wizard in the crown.
And the final fight was terribly cool! We all had to see how we'd kill all of the BBEG's minions, and then tackle her without killing her. And I'm playing an archer - how do I do subdual damage with arrows? Finally, me and our rogue grappled her, our cleric bull rushed her, and our paladin killed her off!
That was one helluve cool fight, especially because of the teamwork required to kill the BBEG.
Of course, we also killed a vampire, and he turned into dust or gas or something, so he was clearly defeated, even though there was no body (I'm dreading that we'll have to pay for our lack of vampire knowledge - and for the cleric missing that day - later...)

 

[Ace]

HMMPH stuff like what happened in Merrics Ravenloft game is why I don't use or buy modules or adventures ,sorry publishers

As a DM I would rather not have a plot that requires the PC's to do (or not do) something .

As a player I highly resent railroading --

I understand the creativity gap mind you -- and as a DM I know it can be hard to come up with adventures on the spot but IMO canned adventures just aren't fun.

I find that a few hints -- some stat blocks (tailored to my players) and a lot of mad improvization works much better YMMV

 

[Hardhead]

As a player, I completly agree with Merric. If my DM told me there was a trap in cubbyhole, where there was a blade that was going to slice my hand off if I tried to get at the contents, and then I stuck my hand in it anyway, I'd expect to loose my hand.

D&D would suck if there were no consequences for our actions. If I know I'll die if I do X, then when I do X, I should die. I don't want the DM to save me.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I would wager that those of you berating Merric for calling his players "dumb" have no problem calling DMs "rat-bastards"?

If his players don't take offence why should you?

Oh, and my characters sometimes do stupid things that give the party a hard time. Doesn't everyone?

Rat-bastard DM is a title that almost any DM who's heard of it would be proud to own.

"Dumb bastard" is not. Do you understand the difference here?

Also - your characters sometimes do stupid things that annoy everyone. Does your DM make it routine to come onto the messageboards, insult you and later on directly punish your character for it in an in-game manner? Do they incite the other players to trash you?

As a player, I completly agree with Merric. If my DM told me there was a trap in cubbyhole, where there was a blade that was going to slice my hand off if I tried to get at the contents, and then I stuck my hand in it anyway, I'd expect to loose my hand.

Would you expect that DM to then come online, crow about how stupid you are, and punish you later in the campaign? Would you expect him to encourage other players to roast your familiar or otherwise plot against you for putting your hand in the cubby hole? no.

D&D would suck if there were no consequences for our actions. If I know I'll die if I do X, then when I do X, I should die. I don't want the DM to save me.

The consequence is: The characters go to some other plane, where life will be difficult for them.

The consequence should not ever be "the DM takes pains to make the game less fun for me".

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Oh, I can think of something far worse: because of one player, the rest of the group breaks up and never plays RPGs again.

I hardly think that they would stop playing because of one error one player made. The worst thing would be a TPK, being mad at the sorceress (but no hard feelings really) and then go on to play another campaign (chances are, that would have been the case anyway, for you'd finished the storyline with the destruction of an artefact). I don't think they'd be so upset about this as to quit playing forever.

But if my whole party turned against me for one fault, both in game and out of game, with the DM helping them all, I'd consider them a bunch of bastards and never play with them again.

I'd much rather lose the one player than lose the group. I doubt either will happen in this case, because I'm going to keep an eye on things - and I'm much better positioned to understand my group than you are, KaeYoss.

It sounded otherwise. All that "I hope the others make her life living hell" and "hee hee, how funny, they're gonna kill her familiar" didn't soudn like "keeping an eye on things" - unless you mean that in the way an evil ruler keeps an eye on his minions by personally attending their executions...

And one player spoiling the fun for everyone else should be encouraged? What a wonderful proponent of RPGs you are, KaeYoss.

I'm not saying that you should encourage anyone spoiling the fun. That's my whole point. You can berate the player for doing a stupid thing. I'd probably be mad at her right after she did it. But I wouldn't dwell on it, keep on berating her and encouraging the other players to bully her out of the party. Why not be a decent person and just ask her to leave the party? Does it have to be the bastard's way of bullying her out?

If you think I'm being too hard on you, be assured that I know you don't have a clue as to my motivations or methods.

I have a clue alright: You already start attacking me personally.

And if you are supposing that bullying people is a good Idea, I don't give a damn about your motivations or methods: Some things are just plain wrong, no matter how you sugar-coat them.