I
Immortal Sun
Guest
Ah gotcha.
Also, if you have a 50/50 chance of being caught by a sloth, that's probably the most terrifying sloth ever.
To Kill or Not to Kill?
- Thread starter Sadras
- Start date
Ah gotcha.
Also, if you have a 50/50 chance of being caught by a sloth, that's probably the most terrifying sloth ever.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Imo. The consequences for the rangers escape check don’t seem to have been established beforehand. It feels like he failed the check and then you changed the meaning of the failed check after he failed it. That’s what is unsatisfying to many of us.
If you had given a chance after the orc caught up for random intervention from the critter we would all have been happier.
If you had given a chance after the orc caught up for random intervention from the critter we would all have been happier.
The good consequences were also the result of player choice: the ranger escaped the orog as a consequence of befriending the tressym.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Another option might be to have the flying cat as something like a resource the player could opt to spend/sacrifice to get away.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
If the chase was uncertain, you should use the math. IF it is not, you shouldn't. At no point do I see the math being ignored for story. Personally, I feel that the chase was a consequence of the failed combat, and should have been uncertain. As it was, once the chase started, it didn't appear that the player got to make any choices, the path was narrated. I can see that as a long narration of the results of the failed combat, but I can also see how using a chase mechanic to establish what the story could be would also be helpful. The results aren't "character dies" or something else, though, it's not like the results of chase mechanics would require the death of the character. This is where stake setting can really assist.
Aiden_Keller_
First Post
I think you did rather well. Faced a similar situation recently and had to find a cleaver way to explain why a Character was not outright killed.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Why did the Character have to not die?
As a player I would be unhappy with the result.
I'm mature enough to understand that if I risk my character's life chasing off alone against an unknown threat that I may very well have my character get killed. I would want the game world to react to my choices in the game fairly, and I would want to expect that the choices I make have actual consequences. Otherwise, what's the point of playing?
I suppose if I had the means of calling my companion to me, or that, based on prior play experience, I would expect that my companion would have followed me, it would be a different thing. I would also expect that the encounter between the orog and the cat would've been played out (meaning the death of the cat was a result of an attack roll and damage by the orog). I would have wanted to have the choice to run to save myself as my companion sacrificed itself, or join the fray to help it.
So even if I were to accept that the cat showed up, if it was hand-waved killed just to give me an opportunity to escape, I'd probably be unhappy as well.
I'm mature enough to understand that if I risk my character's life chasing off alone against an unknown threat that I may very well have my character get killed. I would want the game world to react to my choices in the game fairly, and I would want to expect that the choices I make have actual consequences. Otherwise, what's the point of playing?
I suppose if I had the means of calling my companion to me, or that, based on prior play experience, I would expect that my companion would have followed me, it would be a different thing. I would also expect that the encounter between the orog and the cat would've been played out (meaning the death of the cat was a result of an attack roll and damage by the orog). I would have wanted to have the choice to run to save myself as my companion sacrificed itself, or join the fray to help it.
So even if I were to accept that the cat showed up, if it was hand-waved killed just to give me an opportunity to escape, I'd probably be unhappy as well.
GreyLord
Legend
Something does not fit.
An Orog has a speed of 30 feet.
An Elf has a base speed of 30 feet.
If the Elf is moving at full on run and the Orog is also doing so, than the Orog cannot attack after a withdrawal in melee. They can shoot a missile weapon or throw something, but cannot keep up with the elf and attack in the same round.
In theory, once he started running he was no longer hostile, so trying to use the Aggressive special ability wouldn't seem to fly with me.
Of course, with failing to do other checks against the other orcs in combat probably set the scenario of letting story override dice and stats, but I'd have been upset if I were a player and were killed in such a manner as you set up after I had withdrawn from combat.
Let the Orog either shoot and kill me fairly, or let the Orog miss and I get away.
How Far were they from the group?
If he were tracking them and caught up to them, how long did it take. If he went a sizeable distance from the group to the point that it was over an hour away or some crazy stunt like that I probably would have no problem having the Orog feel safe. Having him chase down and slay the Ranger after the Ranger got tired (if the Ranger got tired before the Orog which is feasible) if it is that far is just part of the game.
From what you state it sounds as if it was close enough for the Ranger to make it reasonably back to the group in short order.
This group just wiped out the entire group under the Orog. If he can see the fire, then the group probably can hear the chase.
Why would the Orog pursue after having their entire group wiped out. If the Orog was insane the Orog should have remained to battle the group instead of fleeing in the first place. AS it is, with no followers it seems unlikely an Orog would pursue someone rather than trying to escape with their life themselves and counting themselves lucky.
I'd say, good job with how it was resolved, but with the account stated, unless we are missing something, I'd say it sounds too much like either player punishment was being contemplated by killing the player with a chase...
OR...
giving the player too much slack (if it was really that far away that the player would get tired before being able to return to their camp) instead of simply just killing the player outright with a missile weapon or something else.
To Kill or Not to Kill?
My final thoughts...
I'd say it depends on how far away from the party they were. If it was so far that the player could not feasibly run back and there was still a sizeable distance...kill the player.
If it was closer...sounds too much like a DM who likes to bend the rules to create a certain situation (and to a degree, bend the situation...the Orog and orcs had just fled and Now the orog is going to rush right back to the same party at a full sprint with no orc backup???) despite the rules and if they had killed the PC I'd have been rather upset at the result. If I'm going to get my PC killed, kill them fair or not at all.
It's already easy enough to kill the PC without having to do it cinematically.
An Orog has a speed of 30 feet.
An Elf has a base speed of 30 feet.
If the Elf is moving at full on run and the Orog is also doing so, than the Orog cannot attack after a withdrawal in melee. They can shoot a missile weapon or throw something, but cannot keep up with the elf and attack in the same round.
In theory, once he started running he was no longer hostile, so trying to use the Aggressive special ability wouldn't seem to fly with me.
Of course, with failing to do other checks against the other orcs in combat probably set the scenario of letting story override dice and stats, but I'd have been upset if I were a player and were killed in such a manner as you set up after I had withdrawn from combat.
Let the Orog either shoot and kill me fairly, or let the Orog miss and I get away.
How Far were they from the group?
If he were tracking them and caught up to them, how long did it take. If he went a sizeable distance from the group to the point that it was over an hour away or some crazy stunt like that I probably would have no problem having the Orog feel safe. Having him chase down and slay the Ranger after the Ranger got tired (if the Ranger got tired before the Orog which is feasible) if it is that far is just part of the game.
From what you state it sounds as if it was close enough for the Ranger to make it reasonably back to the group in short order.
This group just wiped out the entire group under the Orog. If he can see the fire, then the group probably can hear the chase.
Why would the Orog pursue after having their entire group wiped out. If the Orog was insane the Orog should have remained to battle the group instead of fleeing in the first place. AS it is, with no followers it seems unlikely an Orog would pursue someone rather than trying to escape with their life themselves and counting themselves lucky.
I'd say, good job with how it was resolved, but with the account stated, unless we are missing something, I'd say it sounds too much like either player punishment was being contemplated by killing the player with a chase...
OR...
giving the player too much slack (if it was really that far away that the player would get tired before being able to return to their camp) instead of simply just killing the player outright with a missile weapon or something else.
To Kill or Not to Kill?
My final thoughts...
I'd say it depends on how far away from the party they were. If it was so far that the player could not feasibly run back and there was still a sizeable distance...kill the player.
If it was closer...sounds too much like a DM who likes to bend the rules to create a certain situation (and to a degree, bend the situation...the Orog and orcs had just fled and Now the orog is going to rush right back to the same party at a full sprint with no orc backup???) despite the rules and if they had killed the PC I'd have been rather upset at the result. If I'm going to get my PC killed, kill them fair or not at all.
It's already easy enough to kill the PC without having to do it cinematically.
Sadras
Legend
Do you really think this is necessary to say? I mean is it really necessary for the DM to state death is on the table in a D&D game? Also I find stakes change continually based on the story flow, PC choices, new information and the like. I'm not convinced stakes always need to be so clearly ironed out with no lateral movement. Maybe that is just me.
Similar Threads
