Stupidity or Genius?

[OchreJelly]

What I can’t get over is your DM allowed you to use Carpets of Flying, improved wands of invis at 4th level??

It sounds to me that the campaign has bigger issues than TPK monsters, or cheese tactics. Maybe this is his way to self correct a campaign run amok of the wealth guidelines, but TPKs are always extreme corrective measures.

It’s no wonder, though, that the DM is frustrated with the situations. He’s basically brought all the problems of high level play down to low-level.

So regardless of whether your move was genius or stupid in this particular case, I would consider taking a step back and asking the DM “what’s up?” Both players and DM may need to come to a consensus on how to “fix” the campaign, otherwise he may continue to throw TPK monsters at your group. In my experience, campaigns that get ‘silly’ with wealth are fun for short bursts, but eventually players and DMs get bored with it.

 

[Aeolius]

Will Turner: This is either madness... or brilliance.

Jack Sparrow: It's remarkable how often those two traits coincide.

 

[Cryndo]

A pit bull would maul chihuahuas if they tried to "steal" it's food or approach it while it's eating. I expect the Vrock to do the same.

If the chihuahuas were trying to steal it's food you're probably right. If the Pit Bull is eating the raw steak and the chihuahuas are nipping at it's heels, however, I think the Pit Bull finishes it's meal prior to tearing the chihuahuas apart. I expect the Vrock would do the same.

 

[Herobizkit]

Its hard to set up the game. Just know that there was an "Undead Land" and there were 4 keeps therin.

Given that your DM is a WoW fan, I'm immediately reminded of Deatholme in the Blood Elven "Ghostlands" area.

Personally, I can tell what you did was pure metagaming. To be fair, from your description, the combat seemed to become a personal "contest" between player and DM, and you did what you had to do to win, or in this case, not lose.

As a DM, I'm all about style over substance; such a trick would have cracked me up and I would have let it happen... once. As a player, I would have likely gone all-out defense and hope that someone else could do something useful. You're a Fighter, after all... your job is to "tank".

 

[Rel]

Given that your DM's is a WoW fan, I'm immediately reminded of the Blood Elf end keep area in Ghostland.

Is there a Vrock in there and I missed it?!

(Good to see you around, Herobizkit! It's been awhile but maybe I've just not been looking in the right places.)

 

[malraux]

First, it's pretty clear that nothing in that campaign makes much sense, given the encounters and wealth levels discussed. Given that, seppuku is as reasonable a reaction as any, so I'd say its both stupid and genius. Should the vrock have continued attacking you? Its hard to say. The DM could have been using sub-optimal tactics to give the party a chance. Or he could just be playing chaotic as stupid.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Let me try and get some more people on my side with a decent analogy.

Imagine a guy walks into a bank, pulls out a gun and starts to rob the place. Soon, many police officers bust through the door, pull guns on him, and yell, “Drop the weapon!”

Assuming the criminal isn’t crazy and doesn’t want to get shot, what does he do? He drops the weapon. He realizes that the police are currently focused on shooting him because he poses a major threat to those around him. By dropping the weapon and getting on the ground he puts himself in a non-threatening, helpless situation.

Poor analogy.

The Vrock is not an organized, lawful(-ly bent) tactical unit. The Vrock is more akin to a rabid bear (IMO, of course). If a rabid bear starts to maul you, hitting yourself with a blunt object is not a valid option if you want to improve your chances of surviving.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that trying to make yourself helpless in front of an opponent should be a valid option to avoid a lethal blow. I just don't agree that knocking yourself out as a valid way of making yourself helpless.

AR

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

This is D&D. You don't need a plausible reason, any half-assed one will do.

hehe, true

It also helps if you stop looking at things from an in-character perspective and think of game as a film that features slapstick violence... say a Jacky Chan film. Most D&D campaigns I've played in resemble Jacky Chan films (with less kung-fu and more swords and elves but the same level of slapstick violence).

That should be, IMO, the DM's way of seeing things, not the players'.

Because the player's motivation and the character's motivation aren't neccessarily the same thing.

True, but the player's motivations is metagaming (and I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way).

The player's motivation needs to proceed the act. Statement of the character's motivation can come any time after, if and when the player feels the need to provide an in-character reason for said action.

I don't think I agree (but I don't see your position as an invalid one), but I want to think more about it. I'll try to keep that in mind during my next game.

Interesting thread, that's for sure. Thanks Moff for that

AR

 

[chriton227]

With an Int 14, how could a Vrock be dumb enough to fall for the "playing dead" bluff without seeing something actually injure the character? I could buy (and would allow as a GM) making the bluff as a free action response to the last hit that landed, but waiting until your turn to fall over wouldn't work on an opponent that intelligent. After all, if a blow really knocked the character unconscious, they wouldn't have waited until their next turn to actually fall over. The self-punch at least gives some justification to why the character fell over, although I would probably require a will save to actually have the guts to hit hard enough to cause damage (and would allow the bluff check to fake it if the will save failed).

In what I've read, it sounds like the GM is being spiteful towards the character/player, and is out to punish players that don't do what they want them to do. I would recommend running a game for the GM, but instead of trying to demonstrate how unfun that style of play is, demonstrate how much fun a non-adversarial game is. Pulling out the "how do you like being on the receiving end" stunt is likely to just cause hard feelings and may well escalate the adversarial nature of the game.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I would say stupidly genius!

I can't say 'if I were the DM...' because I wouldn't toss a Vrock against a level 4 party without some serious downgrading...

I can say 'if I were a player...' my response to such overkill encounter where my character has no option other than KOing myself to avoid death.... my character would die in the most spectacular, and unraisable, method possible.
...if I were to continue playing with said DM, I would ratchet up the sillyness of my character concepts and enjoy many more spectacularly pointless deaths.

Of course, I would breach the topic with the group to make sure that this game style is something that won't kill the group. I can completely enjoy a nihilistic approach to gaming and particularly enjoy Paranoia...

Which is really my suggestion for an approach to 'fix' the situation if your looking to do so.