Was I unfair?

[Aus_Snow]

Sometimes (IME, most of the time) people just want to play what they find to be cool, not necessarily what makes the most sense from a metagame standpoint (i.e., they want to play characters not optimized stat blocks). Punishing players for this (i.e., not re-tooling adventures to play to their characters' strong points) can get you the rep of a being a bad GM. YMMV, of course.

Maybe multiclassing is a tad flawed, in the RAW? I mean balance-wise, of course.

I think so, but then that's probably better left for another thread.

 

[tylermalan]

Sometimes (IME, most of the time) people just want to play what they find to be cool, not necessarily what makes the most sense from a metagame (i.e., mechanical) standpoint. Punishing players for this (i.e., not re-tooling adventures to play to their characters' strong points) can get you the rep of a being a bad GM. YMMV, of course.

Man, so I'm considered to have punished them because the world didn't adapt to fit their choices, as opposed to them adapting to fit the world? Like everyone else?

 

[Heckler]

I wouldn't call it reasonable. They were warned!

Some body parts and someone saying "Its too dangerous, don't go."? Doesn't every adventure start that way?

I understand that adventurers are heroic, but you guys seriously wouldn't call that a bad move? After the warning? After the "this is a horror campaign" setup?

"So, do we go in the sewers?"

"Well, sewers are spooky, and it is a horror campaign. I bet that's where he wants us to go."

 

[Crothian]

So what would you have done differently, since you already know what I was trying to accomplish?

I don't know what you were trying to accomplish. I don't know if the battle with the giant was a close one or if the players got creamed. All I know is you warned them danger was ahead, they didn't listen, and now they are all dead.

What I would have done is severly damage the party without having to kill them all. I'd give them a chance to escape but have other consequences besides death. Death just kills the game, and that's no fun for anyone. I like the story to survive so I have less character death and just uses different methods of character failure that are not game enders.

 

[MerricB]

THEY GO DOWN INTO THE SEWER! What?!

Adventurers should investigate. This is fine. No problem. I'd be ready to run at the slightest sign of trouble, though.

Oh, and they went into the sewer without the paladin because the paladin wanted to go shopping for supplies, and the others didn’t want to wait.

This is stupidity beyond measure, however. At the moment they left without the paladin, they deserved to die.

Cheers!

 

[Pielorinho]

Remember, the original question was "Was I unfair?" - I know they just ignored the warnings, but was I unfair when I let the world unfold as created when they made a bad choice?

May I suggest a different question? The different question is, "Did everyone have fun?"

It sounds like you didn't have fun, and your players didn't have fun. Why does it matter whether you were fair or not? This isn't a trial, it's your leisure activity. If you didn't have fun and your players didn't have fun, then it's worth your figuring out what you can do differently (which may include talking to the players about what they can do differently) to increase the likelihood of fun next time you engage in this leisure activity.

Daniel

 

[tylermalan]

I don't know what you were trying to accomplish. I don't know if the battle with the giant was a close one or if the players got creamed. All I know is you warned them danger was ahead, they didn't listen, and now they are all dead.

What I would have done is severly damage the party without having to kill them all. I'd give them a chance to escape but have other consequences besides death. Death just kills the game, and that's no fun for anyone. I like the story to survive so I have less character death and just uses different methods of character failure that are not game enders.

Yeah you do, in the first post: I wanted a dangerous, scary opponent to hound them throughout the game, but I wanted them to know where it probably was (the sewer) so that when they got powerful enough and tired of the attacks, they could go get it, or try. On that note, I was going for freedom. The whole “the world exists aside from the PCs, who simply live in it and can affect it” was what I was going for. If they never do, it attacks them during the big climactic fight near the end.

On that note, I actually didn't kill them all in the first go. The cleric/barbarian escaped, and the pally was still alive. Instead of trying to find the paladin, the cleric went to bed. The paladin went down there and got creamed, alone, because of a roleplaying choice (which I can respect). When the cleric woke up, he went in alone. End of party, not by my choice.

 

[Driddle]

I like to warn my players a little more: "You're about to die. Now roll. ... Yep. Dead."

 

[SkidAce]

The bard/sorcerer took the bard class for the perform skill, so he could more accurately hurl insults. Terrible.

Terrible? All I can say is you might have a mismatch between your style and theirs.

I think taking bard for perform:insults is OUTSTANDING and applaud the character. IMHO.

 

[tylermalan]

May I suggest a different question? The different question is, "Did everyone have fun?"

It sounds like you didn't have fun, and your players didn't have fun. Why does it matter whether you were fair or not? This isn't a trial, it's your leisure activity. If you didn't have fun and your players didn't have fun, then it's worth your figuring out what you can do differently (which may include talking to the players about what they can do differently) to increase the likelihood of fun next time you engage in this leisure activity.

Daniel

Nah, we had fun. Its just like I said, they didn't complain, but I could tell they wanted to. It would have been light-hearted though.