Stupidity or Genius?

[Noumenon]

The week after this, two party members (level 4) were going to harass some low level vampire that we had defeated. The DM didn’t want this players going in that direction for whatever reason, so he attacked them with a dread wraith.

Same question as before, how did the party beat that? Or were both encounters TPKs?

As far as the Vrocks motivation.

The motivation isn't the be-all and end-all. A lot of actions grow out of a character's motivations, but part of a role-playing game is finding motivations that grow out of your actions. Just like you picked the tactic of head punching 100% based on out-of-character game knowledge (of to-hit numbers, death and dying rules, and what provokes AoOs) and then tried to find a motivation for it, your DM picked a tactic based on out-of-character game considerations and then found a motivation that went with that.

Anyway, you're really arguing about the DM's motivations. Your character isn't sitting there in Elysium going "I still don't get why that Vrock did that." Demons do what they want.

 

[Noumenon]

Sorry, I started writing that before you posted. If your question is whether it was a smart idea or stupid, it was clever gaming, but stupid in terms of realism. It's also kind of dumb, in a social game, to do something that looks like rule cheesing. You want to let the DM know you need mercy for your character because you know you're going to die -- cowering, offering to serve the Vrock as a slave, et cetera -- those would be the truly smart things to do. Offering the DM a way out so he doesn't have to kill you.

 

[Dausuul]

It's a smart response to a stupid situation. The rules should not encourage you to do what you did; however, since they do, your reaction was entirely rational.

If I were DM, I'd let you get away with it, but after the session was over I'd hammer out some house rules to prevent this sort of thing. Of course, if I were DM, I wouldn't put a 4th-level party up against a vrock to begin with.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

The decision seems to have been based purely on metagaming. That makes it stupid in my book. How do you justify your action in-game?

AR

 

[amethal]

It's also kind of dumb, in a social game, to do something that looks like rule cheesing.

Was this the DM's motivation?

As a DM, I sometimes do spur of the moment things I later regret when the players irritate me. Its a bad habit, but I don't go so far as to kill PCs out of said irritation.

As for a Vrok against a 4th level party, why not use a Huge Red Dragon instead? Speeds up the TPK no end, albeit by sacrificing the illusion that what the PCs do can affect the outcome of the fight.

 

[jensun]

I would go for stupidity.

It was clearly very metagamey and while I dont necessarily think all metagaming is evil it was also tactically stupid. You are trying to apply human reasoning and thought processes to a creature of terror, rage and destruction. A servant of pure malevolence and evil.

Personally I would probably have the demon scoop you up and fly off to torment you at its leisure, returning later on to kill off the rest of the group who are incapable of hurting it.

Of course, I wouldnt have thrown a Vrock at a group of level 4 players which seems to be the main problem your group has.

My best advice would be to kill your GM and take his stuff.

 

[Starbuck_II]

My best advice would be to kill your GM and take his stuff.

I don't think that will work. Police will ask questions...and what you gonna kill them too?

Nah, plus it is bad publicity for D&D.

"My GM made me do it! He tried to kill me in the game; this was self -defense!"

 

[Mallus]

How do you justify your action in-game?
AR

Desperation?

Being struck stupid by fear? (really scared people don't always make smart choices, right?)

BTW, shouldn't justifications for a PC's action come after the fact? Prior to/as an act being performed, the only justification needed is the player stating "my guy does x". It's after the fact when the player, if not the group, may need to pay lip service to the character's internal motivations so as to preserve the illusion of a believable world.

 

[Rel]

Assuming for a moment that I was motivated for some reason to put the party up against a creature that is almost an assured TPK (and I say this as somebody who is a RBDM who routinely asks quite a lot from his PC's in terms of what they can overcome), I think the conversation would have gone something like this:

Me: Ok, your turn...
Player 1: I punch myself in the head!
Me: You what?
Player 1: I punch myself in the head!
Me: If I may be so bold as to ask, Why?
Player 1: Well, if I'm unconscious then maybe he won't attack me.
Me: Rather than punch yourself in the head, do you care to simply "play dead"? I'll just have you make a Bluff check vs. his Sense Motive and you can get the same effect.

Now at this point, I could see the conversation going in one of two ways...

Player 1: Ok, I'll give that a try but I have no ranks in Bluff and no Charisma bonus.
Me: Well I'm giving you a circumstance bonus because going unconscious is EXACTLY what the Vrock expects you to do any moment now.
Player 1: Cool! Well, I rolled a 12.
Me: *rolls my own die, adds a hefty bonus, and determines the fate of this character*

OR

Player 1: Nah, I think I'll just punch myself in the head like I said before. I hit myself for...7 Subdual Damage. That puts me out!
Player 2: You're a douche, Player 1.
Me: Hey! Show a little respect for Player 1! We're all friends here!
Player 2: Sorry. I won't do it again.
Me: The Vrock casually kills you with his first attack, Player 1.
Player 1: Crap!
Player 2: *points at Player 1* Haha!
Me: Now he turns the rest of his attacks on you, Player 2.
Player 2: Crap!
Player 1: *points at Player 2* Haha!

 

[jensun]

I don't think that will work. Police will ask questions...and what you gonna kill them too?

Nah, plus it is bad publicity for D&D.

"My GM made me do it! He tried to kill me in the game; this was self -defense!"

Curse you and your irrefutable logic.

On a more serious note the problem isn't whether you acted in an appropriate way, it's that you have a jerk for a GM.