Player characters commit suicide, DM taken to psych ward. Need medication!

[Hypersmurf]

Well it does say "Player characters"

It does now.

-Hyp.

 

[Emirikol]

Sounds like someone needs a hard adjustment to their brain and spinal cord....

jh
chiro

 

[RangerWickett]

As the idiot player who got upset and got his ranger killed, I'd like to put forward in my defense that in character we just thought there were four wererats with a bad-ass archer of some sort. I didn't know there was a shadowdancer or an assassin, so I figured the worst-case scenario was that we'd run into some wererat thugs and fight them. I never foresaw getting peppered from 200 feet away by arrows.

In fact, the reason I got frustrated was mostly because I was surprised at the actual force of our opponents. I mismanaged my expectations, and died for it. The DM did no wrong, except maybe having his shadowdancer be zealous enough to try to fight us toe-to-toe. But we ended up happy for that, because at least our deaths weren't completely pointless.

Hmm. Time for next character.

 

[Turanil]

Was I grossly unfair here? What does everyone think?

The PCs died out of their own stupidity. This happens all the time though. At the end of my DnD campaign (1 year ago), the PCs (10th level) entered a monastery of assassins (monks of a dark god of assassination) well knowing it was an assassin's monastery... (don't need to tell you what happened)

 

[Stone Angel]

As I am sure by now you have realized that you have acted accordingly and fairly with the NPC's abilities and numbers. Is there still time for you to have the "dead" pc's wake up, perhaps with lycanthropy and now they have a new quest?


The Seraph of Earth and Stone

 

[reapersaurus]

I'm curious - what did you expect the characters to do in this scene?

Also - did they have good reason to believe that these assassins were of equal level as them (effectively 2 or 3 levels higher due to circumstances)?

 

[cmanos]

I don't think you were out of line. You showed your players that an all out assault wasn't going to work, as that was a damn rough encounter, gave them their lives back and said 'go away' and still they pursued. What did they THINK was going to happen?

Too many players think that the DM's job is not to get them killed. You just reinforced your position of "if you do stupid stuff, you will probably not like the repercussions."

 

[swrushing]

Was I grossly unfair here? What does everyone think?

I am much more interested in "what you thought"?

What was your expected "good" resolution for this scenario when you designed it up?

Did you expect the PCs to be able to fight off or beat the assassins? if so, what did you expect them to do it with that they ignored? You mentioned them being frustrated by the enemy invisibility, so how did you expect them to counter that when you chose the adversaries? Or did you build this to be an encounter they would not beat and would have to sue for peace to get out of?

Now, assuming you meant for this to go to negotiation as it did, did you expect the everyone to agree to the back off, even the paladin? if so, why do you think he surprised you and would not go along? Was this decision "out of character" and surprising or what?

Also, you seem to think the ranger tracking the bad guys was not a good idea. It certainly doesn't sound like a good idea as you presented it but moving beyond that, why do you think the ranger (player) thought it was a good idea? Was it an intentional suicide or did he have a wholly different expectation somehow of how that would turn out? if so, why did he have that expectation?

basically, can you look at what you had expected the results of this encounter to be when you put together the challenge and designed the foes and circumstances, compare them to how it turned out and comment on what was different between those two and why it was different?

EDIT: Read more of the thread and saw where you said For the record, I expected the party to be beaten by this group in this setting - surprised, at night, in a well-coordinated ambush

So that answers part of it.

So, how did you expect this to turn out, with the party getting beaten as the expected tactical event... knowing you had a paladin, knowing the ranger's past performaces?

Has the party shown in the past a penchent for smartly backing down when overmatched?
has the paladin previously been willing to abandon quests?
has the ranger in the past been frequently heading off to track and stealkth enemies? has he typically been successful or failing at this?

Basically, we know you built the scenario for the party to lose the fighting part, but what were your expectations for how it would then resolve, how did the actual play vary from those expectations, and why do you think your expectations were so far off, if indeed they were?

 

[RangerWickett]

Heh. This is our second session of the game. We didn't have much of a history of anything. 'Cept that my character was almost killed in the first session by a random encounter with a dire bear. Middle of the night, in a blizzard, I spot a large cave I think we might be able to use as shelter. When I'm still about 40 ft. from the entrance, I see something big coming out of the cave. When I realize it's a dire bear, I turn and run for camp, about 400 ft. away. It catches up and knocks me down before I'm able to get to safety, and it's only after two rounds of being pinned on the ground that my cries for help are answered. I take 100 points of damage from the stupid dire bear before the party kills it, and I end up at 1 hit point.

The game's fun.

 

[scipio]

So, how did you expect this to turn out, with the party getting beaten as the expected tactical event... knowing you had a paladin, knowing the ranger's past performaces?

Has the party shown in the past a penchent for smartly backing down when overmatched?
has the paladin previously been willing to abandon quests?
has the ranger in the past been frequently heading off to track and stealkth enemies? has he typically been successful or failing at this?

Basically, we know you built the scenario for the party to lose the fighting part, but what were your expectations for how it would then resolve, how did the actual play vary from those expectations, and why do you think your expectations were so far off, if indeed they were?

Sorry I didn't reply sooner - I was out of town for a few days...

In general, while I can imagine what the outcome might be, I prefer for the game to be more dynamic, i.e. I don't have a pre-conceived vision for the outcome. The fight was designed to establish this group as a credible threat (as events unfolded, I think this was successful!). Second, as Wickett said, this is only the 2nd adventure; however, the paladin's actions are technically consistent with his class.

Outcome possibilities included the party slaying some of the weaker opponents and forcing the enemy to withdraw, some players being incapacitated by the fight until forced to yield, or an attempt to flee and regroup. My expectation after the negotiations was that since the enemy withdrew despite the Paladin clearly stating that he did not fully agree to the terms, the party could regroup and debate the next course of action. I thought they might simply try a different route to their destination, hoping they could evade the enemy or beat them to the final destination. This would have set up a future, more deadly encounter. While the Paladin is charged with fighting evil, he doesn't have to chase assassins into a forest at night. As for the ranger, it was a costly miscalculation in an environment suited to his skills. I spent probably too much time in game determining how the enemy would respond, but based on the discussion here, it was the right call.