Was I unfair?

[Umbran]

...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.]

Dude, that you're making such broad and accusatory statements just a couple of posts after a moderator has said you should be respectful strongly suggests to me that a break is in order. I think it is pretty clear the topic makes you hot under the collar, and that's not the best way to post around here.

So, please, take a breather from this thread for a couple of days.

 

[Crust]

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.

Ahem... The OP states very clearly, in all caps, that the PCs decided to enter the sewer. Take a look again. You'll see it. I don't know how you reached the conclusion that the DM made the players do what they did. That obviously didn't happen.

It's more valid to blame the players rather than attack the DM. The DM merely provides options for his players. They can visit a tavern, rob a home, try to assassinate the king, or enter a sewer. Players do what they want, and live or die by their decisions.

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.

OK. I understand your points. Just remember that the above is your interpretation of a game you didn't attend, not what actually happened.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Evidently, the players all made the "wrong" decision.

But was there an interesting alternative for them to explore / investigate / challenge themselves with? (i.e., to have fun and adventure doing.)

I guess I'm asking if the thing they did was the only thing going, IYKWIM. If so, I think that might've been part of the problem.

 

[Crothian]

Ahem... The OP states very clearly, in all caps, that the PCs decided to enter the sewer. Take a look again. You'll see it. I don't know how you reached the conclusion that the DM made the players do what they did. That obviously didn't happen.

You know, that's like when I tell my sister that I just left my food on the table and it's the dog's fault the dog jumped on the table to get the food. Sure, I didn't force the dog to do that but 9 times out of ten you leave food where the dog can get it, the dog will get it.

I think 9 times out of 10 if you tell the PCs the adventure is down the sewers, they go down the sewers.

 

[Crust]

You know, that's like when I tell my sister that I just left my food on the table and it's the dog's fault the dog jumped on the table to get the food. Sure, I didn't force the dog to do that but 9 times out of ten you leave food where the dog can get it, the dog will get it.

I think 9 times out of 10 if you tell the PCs the adventure is down the sewers, they go down the sewers.

Heh... Indeed, but you're assuming that the DM has stated or implied in some fashion that "This is the module, deal with it," as if it's a linear 8-bit Final Fantasy campaign. I didn't get that feeling from the OP or any subsequent posts. They had options, as was proven by the paladin going off to buy gear.

What I did sense was the notion that the players weren't really interested in exploring the town, gathering information, or, really, role-playing. They saw the sewer, saw the bodies, their blood rose, they gave each other that knowing look , and plunged brazenly into the sewer expecting a cake walk. After seeing the state of the corpses (weapons still sheathed, etc.), level 3 players should have thought twice before entering at partial strength, with no paladin, and no real idea of what they faced.

Why didn't the players decide to ask around town about other possible disappearances? Perhaps a sage or two, a skilled hunter/ranger, or a nearby tavern would clue the PCs into the fact that they're in over their heads with this scourge of the sewers.

And is it the DMs fault for not offering those options? I don't think so. How can one DM dream up every possible scenario? The players have to actually play the game, or it's basically the DM doing everything, and then it becomes the DM's fault if players die...

But shouldn't the players play their own characters and make decisions for themselves? The answer should be obvious.

 

[Crothian]

What I did sense was the notion that the players weren't really interested in exploring the town, gathering information, or, really, role-playing. They saw the sewer, saw the bodies, their blood rose, they gave each other that knowing look , and plunged brazenly into the sewer expecting a cake walk. After seeing the state of the corpses (weapons still sheathed, etc.), level 3 players should have thought twice before entering at partial strength, with no paladin, and no real idea of what they faced.

All we have is one biased side of the story. And we know what he tried to intend but it seems even he doesn't know if the players picked up on that. Leaving without the paladin was foolish. But third level characters should not be afraid of something that can kill first level NPCs. And I have read no reason to think they were anything else.

Why didn't the players decide to ask around town about other possible disappearances? Perhaps a sage or two, a skilled hunter/ranger, or a nearby tavern would clue the PCs into the fact that they're in over their heads with this scourge of the sewers.

We don't know this because the DM doesn't know or isn't telling. We don't even know if the players knew it was an option. We know the DM meant for it to be an option but from his posts I get the feeling that the players didn't pick up on what he thought he was hinting at.

And is it the DMs fault for not offering those options? I don't think so. How can one DM dream up every possible scenario? The players have to actually play the game, or it's basically the DM doing everything, and then it becomes the DM's fault if players die...

If the players did something out of left field I would have agreed with you. But going down that sewer was an obvious answer.

But shouldn't the players play their own characters and make decisions for themselves? The answer should be obvious.

And when the players do play their own character and do as players usually do, the DM shouldn't be shocked and kill them all to teach them a valuiable lesson.

 

[tylermalan]

Ok, well, a lot has been posted since I got off work, so I'll address 3 main things...

1) I don't think any assumptions were made about this campaign - months before it started I informed my players that it was horror themed. They're all adults and they're all into fantasy and whatever; they know what horror is. How much more do I have to do to make sure my players understand what they're getting themselves into? I didn't want to railroad their character choices, so I left it open and let them choose.

2) My including the monster in the sewer and a direct way into it wasn't dangling anything in front of the players, nor was it passive aggressive. I've already said that I wrote literally everything about this campaign way before I knew what characters they were playing. If you walk up to a guy on the street and punch him in the face, and he soundly trounces you, that's what happens - no one "scales the adventure" so you don't get your butt kicked. You didn't know he could beat you, but he can, and he did.

3) Yes, I gave them other, viable options instead of going into the sewer, as follows:

a) At the scene of the slaughter, they found a piece of parchment with a symbol drawn on it. A bardic knowledge check later and the PCs know its a blacksmith's symbol, the lineage of which still exists in town.
b) The leader of the authorities tells them flat out, "If you need any information, just ask." - which they don't.
c) They actually DO interview the remaining witnesses, all of whom tell them about the assassination and what happened, pointing to possible magic used, in a town where there are no magic users, and Gather Information is NOT banned by the DM.
d) An entire town exists, and Gather Information is NOT banned by the DM.

Yes, a gaping hole leading into the sewers screams "PCs! Come to me!", but as far as I'm concerned so does (a) above. So does (b) above. Add those to the fact that I specifically warned them about NOT fighting this thing (in game warnings), and you have PCs playing not even CHARACTER archetypes, but ADVENTURER archetypes, which is far more general.

 

[tylermalan]

And when the players do play their own character and do as players usually do, the DM shouldn't be shocked and kill them all to teach them a valuiable lesson.

GAH! I didn't kill them all to teach them a lesson! I wrote everything a long time ago. The world existed without them. Do I think they learned something about my game? Yes. But I tried to tell them in-game the same thing they learned when they died, but they didn't listen to the constant warnings. AND I didn't kill them - I rolled the dice.

Remember, I'm really not debating the fact that the sewer was a viable option - I'm asking if I was unfair. I know the sewer was an option - I wrote it that way. But the question is whether I was fair.

 

[Crothian]

GAH! I didn't kill them all to teach them a lesson! I wrote everything a long time ago. The world existed without them. Do I think they learned something about my game? Yes. But I tried to tell them in-game the same thing they learned when they died, but they didn't listen to the constant warnings.

Remember, I'm really not debating the fact that the sewer was a viable option - I'm asking if I was unfair. I know the sewer was an option - I wrote it that way. But the question is whether I was fair.

And I said it was fair.

When you wrote this up did it occur to you that they might just go down in the sewers anyway? And if you thought they might did you think they could survive it or were you thinking sewers were just going to equal death?

 

[tylermalan]

Well, at the time, I didn't know what characters they were going to play, and as someone else pointed out earlier, one CR 4 monster against a party of 4 level 3 characters should be hard but not impossible. So, no, I didn't think it was going to be insta-death, and yes, it did occur to me that they might go down there.