Was I a RBGM?

[TheAuldGrump]

Before too many of you all jump on my case, I've been letting this sit a while...

Yes, the monk had a TON of opportunities to use his diplomacy skills, and used them very well. He managed to avoid numerous conflicts and bloodshed, all in the while promoting his beliefs.

Yes, they knew that there was one guy out there and the player of the character knew that they had to find the last, unaccounted guy. I had already introduced him as a goblin hunter, criminal, evil (and hinted at that he was an assassin), and that he was not captured or killed.

No, I did not allow a spot check as he was a decent distance away, behind the party and in heavy cover. If the party had mentioned that someone was looking around, watching, etc, I would have.

If the NPC has a chance to spot the party the party has a chance (however small) to spot the NPC. Give him a hefty circumstance bonus if you want, but they should be allowed to roll (or you can roll for them).

It is the reaction of the other NPCs that make the results dubious. 'This guy is attacking us, so those guys must have betrayed us!' Yeah, right. Somehow I have my doubts about that one.

And you may want to ask yourself why so many folks seem to be disagreeing with the results, rather than looking for confirmation.

The Auld Grump

 

[palleomortis]

Hell, I am happy just getting the chance to play D&D. Then to go through somthing that crazy (I would have FLIPPED if I had been there and the arrow came in) would have been all the more fun. I think the PC's are just jelouse of the archers aim. (by the way, tell the archer that a ranger is not the best for an archer. The best for an archer, is the thing that gives him the most feats to put into archery, and that woudl be pure fighter.)

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hell, I am happy just getting the chance to play D&D. Then to go through somthing that crazy (I would have FLIPPED if I had been there and the arrow came in) would have been all the more fun. I think the PC's are just jelouse of the archers aim. (by the way, tell the archer that a ranger is not the best for an archer. The best for an archer, is the thing that gives him the most feats to put into archery, and that woudl be pure fighter.)

Again, considering the description of the rolls given I doubt jealousy entered the equation. And you think that it would be cool to have the DM put the kibosh on your plans like that? I would have been ticked, and not with the NPC.

The Auld Grump

 

[palleomortis]

Come on. The game isn't wether you win or lose, or live or die, it's about the story that's told.(that and the gold and wealth that you die with) That would make a hell of a story to tell. Imagine the suprise when he tells you that the arrow has just flown into the guy. THAT, is the kinda panic that really makes the game what it is.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Come on. The game isn't wether you win or lose, or live or die, it's about the story that's told.(that and the gold and wealth that you die with) That would make a hell of a story to tell. Imagine the suprise when he tells you that the arrow has just flown into the guy. THAT, is the kinda panic that really makes the game what it is.

No it is about the game you play. If I want a story with no control over the outcome then there are books and television shows.

The Auld Grump

 

[Pbartender]

Before too many of you all jump on my case, I've been letting this sit a while...

That's the trouble with the internet... We've only got what you give us to work with.

No harm, no foul. But when you ask for advice on a situation like this, you have to expect that you might have been wrong. I'm not happy about the snide remarks either, but most of us are constructively criticising for the next time.

Yes, the monk had a TON of opportunities to use his diplomacy skills, and used them very well. He managed to avoid numerous conflicts and bloodshed, all in the while promoting his beliefs.

Even so, It's a pretty big damper for the first adventure. I might have waited until the next game session.

Yes, they knew that there was one guy out there and the player of the character knew that they had to find the last, unaccounted guy. I had already introduced him as a goblin hunter, criminal, evil (and hinted at that he was an assassin), and that he was not captured or killed.

You have no idea how easy it is for players to forget details like that. It doesn't hurt to drop them a helpful hinting reminder now and again.

No, I did not allow a spot check as he was a decent distance away, behind the party and in heavy cover. If the party had mentioned that someone was looking around, watching, etc, I would have.

Blecch. I'd have give them a Spot check anyway... Give the Bad Guy a bonus on his Hide/MS check for the cover and the distance. There's always a slim chance that someone notices something funny going on.

Or give the PCs a Sense Motive check... "I've got a bad feelign about this..." That way, they know somethign funny is going on, but they don't know what.

No, I did not completely make this up, it was always an option... didn't think, however, that the rolls would go this good for the party.

"And I know I was literally 2 rolls from a TPK... if the archer had not rolled an 18-20 on the attack roll to break the chain and if the owlbear had not failed a key saving throw, it may have been all over."

These two quotes put together really bug me. You apparently knew it would be a killer fight, but you never gave the PCs a chance to avoid. Naughty, naughty.

I regularly introduce encounters that are far, far too difficult for my PCs. Always, always, always they have at least two optional means of avoiding it, even if that means turning around and walking away.

This was the 1st adventure in the campaign... he plans on keeping playing the same character... oh, I didn't mention that the player was the best man in my wedding and we've been friends for 11 years or so, so he is very open with what his feelings and thoughts are. He was a little frustrated, moreso because he now feels like his reputation/honor is going to take a huge hit.

Right. Which means you've got a second chance, because he's a good friend of yours. Don't squander it.

Now, that's not to say you shouldn't knock the PC's reputation now and again... Just don't overdo it. At least give him a chance to rebuild and increase it (especially with those goblins), before you tag him again.

No, I do not not like this character, in fact, he is easily one of my favorite all time characters to start off, and he will have plenty of opportunities to use his skills and abilities later on.

Sarcasm is difficult to discern in a text-only format, unless you use a smiley or two...

Looking back and talking to my wife (who was one of the players), she was expecting that to happen... and in fact, she was surprised that it took so long for this guy to reappear. Didn't talk to her until after I posted this...

Did she or any of the other mention anything about it in-game?


By the way, Squat, I just noticed...

"Location: Just west and north of Fermilab"

Drop me an email, if you'd like. My location would be easily described as "Just due west of Fermilab".

 

[gizmo33]

No, I did not allow a spot check as he was a decent distance away, behind the party and in heavy cover. If the party had mentioned that someone was looking around, watching, etc, I would have.

That's a matter of gaming style I guess. Do you want your games to sound like this?:
"I'm looking to the right, ok now I'm looking left, ok now I'm looking 20 degrees to the left, ok now I swivel another degree left, ok wait, now I swivel back a degree..."

Again, it's a matter of DM style - but far away and behind cover is about modifiers, not about whether someone can be spotted. This is something that IMO is also important to keep in mind when you start running higher level games.

Also, it sounds like each and every goblin decided to instantly and uniformly attack the party as soon as this arrow came flying out of no where and "some how" hit and killed the goblin from a distance. That's just what I infer from your posts though, so I don't know.

Bottom line is - you wanted the goblins to attack and so that's what you got. IMO if you're DMing with an agenda, then you're not in the best position to be impartial in the judging of events.

No, I do not not like this character, in fact, he is easily one of my favorite all time characters to start off, and he will have plenty of opportunities to use his skills and abilities later on.

Yes, but will he only have a chance to use those skills when they don't interfere with the "story"? The problem in that case is the skills take a back seat to storyline, and then, for many people, it's really not a game anymore.

 

[gizmo33]

Imagine the suprise when he tells you that the arrow has just flown into the guy. THAT, is the kinda panic that really makes the game what it is.

Yea, I'm imagining my surprise, and it goes something like this:

"Hmmm. The DM wanted us to fight the goblins. What a surprise."

Why "panic"? Because there is a chance of dying? There's no chance of dying in a game where the DM rules by arbitrary fiat. You'll only die when the DM thinks it supports the story. Gold and wealth? Those are whatever the DM decides he wants you to have. Taking this DMing style to the extreme - only a completely oblivious player would ever be able to fool themselves that the important events in the game are determined by random rolls or impartial judgements.

 

[Whimsical]

The modifier you are looking for is in the Spot and Listen skill description. -5 for being distracted. So if the characters are focusing on the goblins and an attacker is hiding in the bushes, just roll spot or listen checks for them at -5.

But to the original situation I would recommend you adapt your DM style to account for the "face" in the party. You see, this hasn't really been a viable option in the history of D&D so most adventures until recently aren't written to take account for jamming a hostile encounter with diplomacy. But what I would recommend is that you set up encounters so that there's an opportunity to talk with them, a risky but viable chance of success, and a consequence for diplomatic failure. Set the possibility that the face can do what he is there to do about half of the time. Which means that if he pulls it off, he knows that his character made the difference and he needed his maxed out social skills and his personal wiles to pull that stunt off, and he can feel good about playing an effective character in the game that makes a difference. If he fails, then combat erupts which allows the rest of the party to do what they do best. If it is clear that the face had a viable chance to avert combat and he blew it for a good reason (bad rolls, saying something insulting that could have been avoided if he made a knowledge check/sense motive/ or had otherwise prepared better) then he knows that it was him that failed and that increases his pride in his successes while motivating him to increase his chances of success for later.

 

[billd91]

I think the player was right to be upset but not because you threw too much at them or because it was a no-win situation. I think both of those are fair for a DM to use (or for a group of PCs to get themselves into). I'm far more concerned about the seemingly arbitrary attack by the last goblin-hunter so that you could preserve certain plot hooks. That's a problem.

And why did that goblin-hunter try to sabotage the negotiations in the first place? What's the motivation behind that? I don't get it. Just to stir up random trouble? Seems fishy to me. With most of his noble's hunting party dead, why not organize a mob to go after the goblins? Dead nobles, if at least moderatly popular, are good for generating that sort of thing. Why spark a small scale fight between the goblins and some adventurers when, from the hunter's eyes, they 're probably significantly outclassed?