Was I unfair?

[Beckett]

The spellcasting classes, for instance, have a second class added that not only doesn't compliment (except maybe the cleric/barbarian), but it also prevents them from getting 2nd level spells.

At third level, only the cleric could have had 2nd level spells at all.

I also wouldn't say the classes don't compliment each other. A barbarian/cleric can do some nice things with buffs (Divine Favor and Rage sound like a nice combo). A fighter/sorcerer could do likewise, Enlarging himself or using true strike. The bard/sorcerer upped his skill package quite a bit.


I'm not sure what amazes me more: that you put a single CR 4 creature out as a long term foe for a 3rd level party, or that they didn't wipe the floor with it. However, your group doesn't sound like the most organized; not waiting for the paladin to buy supplies ?!? (although why he hadn't bought the supplies before the game started...)

Back to the original question: Were you unfair? No. You certainly didn't send them against an overwhelming opponent. However, I think you and your players are on different wave-lengths. Horror fantasy is not the default assumption for D&D, so I'd have a chat with the players about what you mean and expect with it.

 

[Crust]

You didn't just put the cliff there, you led them to the edge and then pushed them off.

Whoa whoa... Pushed them off? Who's playing here?

In order to make a gaming experience realistic, players should know that the DM will not pull them back from that cliff if they choose to leap. His players leapt, and instead of saying, out of game, "You will all die if you go down there," he let them learn the hard way...

Which, interestingly enough, is how most adventures die. I applaud his decisions.

 

[Crothian]

In order to make a gaming experience realistic, players should know that the DM will not pull them back from that cliff if they choose to leap. His players leapt, and instead of saying, out of game, "You will all die if you go down there," he let them learn the hard way...

Learn what? That doing adventurios things will get you killed? Unless the DM explained perfectly clear afterwards why the characters died and what the DM expected there will be no learning. And death does not have to be the only teaching method, though to be fair in D&D it seems like it is.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

TPKillah!

Anyway, its not that I don't LIKE the characters or their backstories, its that the backstories are not what I would consider "good writing" - they're tired, old, cliche, make little sense, and give little to no vision on what that character is really all about. As for the characters themselves, the classes aren't optimized, but that's not what I think makes them bad - its the fact that they seem to be perfectly NOT optimized.

Dude, just admit it. You hated their characters ... and you're glad they are dead.

Furthermore, there does not appear to be anything "unfair" in the way you wasted them.

Problem solved, if you ask me ... move on.

-Samir

 

[Rackhir]

At third level, only the cleric could have had 2nd level spells at all.

I also wouldn't say the classes don't compliment each other. A barbarian/cleric can do some nice things with buffs (Divine Favor and Rage sound like a nice combo). A fighter/sorcerer could do likewise, Enlarging himself or using true strike. The bard/sorcerer upped his skill package quite a bit.


I'm not sure what amazes me more: that you put a single CR 4 creature out as a long term foe for a 3rd level party, or that they didn't wipe the floor with it. However, your group doesn't sound like the most organized; not waiting for the paladin to buy supplies ?!? (although why he hadn't bought the supplies before the game started...)

Back to the original question: Were you unfair? No. You certainly didn't send them against an overwhelming opponent. However, I think you and your players are on different wave-lengths. Horror fantasy is not the default assumption for D&D, so I'd have a chat with the players about what you mean and expect with it.

Go back and read things again.

1) They went down there with only 3 out of the 4 characters in the group.
2) They went down there ALREADY wounded.
3) Only two of the characters were killed in the initial fight
4) The paladin and the cleric basically both commited suicide by going down there separately, AFTER the two characters were killed.

While yes, he could have done things differently, but the characters DID act stupidly and essentially chose to get themselves killed.

 

[Pielorinho]

Moderator's Notes

I trust all of y'all know the board rules. You may offer your opinions about behavior, as long as you do so in a civil, respectful, polite manner. If your opinion is one that cannot be offered politely, bite your tongue. Or your fingers, I guess, unless you're posting with voice recognition software.

If I have to turn this car around, it'll be for root canals.

Daniel

 

[The Thayan Menace]

TPKillah! (x2)

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?

Nope, you're cool.

They followed a clear threat into the sewer, while leaving their "tank" at the mall. Then ... after a really bad encounter, the survivors split up.

You were generous.

-Samir

 

[Felix]

1) No one can cast level 2 spells, and extra skills don't make up for that.​

This depends entirely upon the skills taken. Not that it matters since Sorcerers get 2nd level spells at 4th level anyway.

2) Nothing surprising about that! What's surprising is being surprised when you die because you acted stupid.​

Your subsequent description of how the PCs went about exploring the hole did reval their choices as... unorthodox at least. But you say they were suprised they died? Well, perhaps this TPK will be theraputic, and it won't happen again.

3) Incorrect! I would have liked them to use their heads as opposed to NOT using their heads. I gave them the option to go or not go - if I wanted to railroad them, I would have never given them the option to go into the sewers in the first place.​

Right, but there's a hole in the ground, good evidence that the creature is down there: what more intelligence do hack & slash PCs need?

By the way, what was it your Paladin wanted to buy? It sounds like this was the first session for these PCs; what did your Paladin think would help in the fight that would take so long to get the other PCs were unwilling to wait for?

5) Truth, they may not ever know, but I was confident that if they used some caution and intelligence they would be able to either learn more about it and fight it on their terms, or avoid it entirely, or, when forced to fight it, would be able to take it no problem.​

Caution and intelligence? We are talking about PCs, right?

Seriously, when PCs get evidence of the problem an urge to complete the mission prompts them to take the short route to the bad guy. Not that this always healthy, but a DM can enhance their PCs chances of survival by only providing indirect clues to the monster; instead of saying, "it's in the sewer", say: it only comes at night, nobody's ever seen it in daylight, it smells, and provide a few locations where this thing could habitate.

The anonymity of the BBEG (or boss monster) not only protects the BBEG, but it also protects the PCs from their own foolishness; if the PCs find something out, they'll start to think, "the DM wants us to know this, so let's go get him". Perhaps you let them know where to go a bit soon, and the PCs didn't exercise restraint.

 

[jdrakeh]

Whoa whoa... Pushed them off? Who's playing here?

The GM deliberately sent them into an encounter that he knew would likely kill all of the PCs. That's the only answer that explains his dangling the encounter in front of them like so much candy. Sure, they took the bait, but he put it on the hook and then reeled them in. Willfully. Deliberately. On purpose.

In order to make a gaming experience realistic, players should know that the DM will not pull them back from that cliff if they choose to leap. His players leapt, and instead of saying, out of game, "You will all die if you go down there," he let them learn the hard way...

Here's the thing, all of those hundreds of thousands of notations for adjusting encounters for less powerful or more powerful PC parties exist for a reason. Sure, suspension of disbelief is part of gaming, but so is allowing heroes to be heroic. Unfortunately, apparently, so is killing them because they're not what the GM personally digs. That said. . .

Killing PCs (as the GM) because they don't fit your idea of what a party of adventurers should be like is utter BS. Given the repeated bashing of his player's concepts as "bad" or less than acceptable, coupled with his decision to approve them for play and his dangling the carrot of sewer exploration' in front of them, I suspect that this is exactly what the OP intended to do.

It was murder by numbers. It's classic passive/aggressive GM behavior -- deliberately shafting the party in such a way that you can blame it entirely on them or on the rules of the game, in an effort to claim that you were impartial about it. And, to be fair, I came into this thread thinking that the GM was impartial -- but all of these posts later of him bashing his players, their character concepts, and patting himself on the back for killing those characters dead.

Well... I don't think that anymore.

[Edit: That rationale about how the DM has no responsibility to provide appropriately balanced challenges for PCs is total BS. D&D provides a ton of rules for doing just this. If the GM isn't using them, he's either being lazy or deliberately malicious. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying "take the challenge out" -- I'm saying "make sure the challenge is appropriate to the characters". Sadly, most GMs are only behind that screen to satisfy themselves. The idea of providing fun for everyone is something that often gets preached, but that precious few GMs practice.]

 

[LostSoul]

I think you had an assumption clash.

I read this:

I tell them that though there will be combat, I emphasize role playing, and getting experience will depend on how much the PCs attempt to play their chosen role.

So the players might have thought that role-playing was the main thing in the game, not the combats. Maybe they didn't think that the combats would be that tough.

Human Bard 1/Sorcerer 2 (what was he thinking?)

He may have been thinking that this was an interesting character, and that this campaign wouldn't punish him for having a non-optimal character.

I don't think it was unfair, I think you guys were just on the wrong page.