Was I unfair?

[MerricB]

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.

It's unanswerable to some extent: it's hard to tell how you presented the other clues that led away from the sewers, or that the monster in the sewers may have been beyond them.

I think the two PC deaths that occurred in the initial expedition are somewhat borderline, but made worse by player stupidity (going without the paladin is unutterably foolish). The TPK that then resulted was player stupidity - a cleric going in alone? Huh?

Here's a question: when the three PCs sighted the monster, did they have a chance to recognise it was too tough and thus run away?

Cheers!

 

[Crust]

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.

Of course it was an option, Crothian. It's Dungeons and Dragons. Players have options. Like I've said, it's up to them to act on those options, rather than wait for the DM to hold their hands. This is the crux of the problem, and it's why the players died.

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.

I have to point out that this is an assumption rather than what actually happened. You're assuming that the DM purposely killed his PCs solely to teach them a lesson. I don't know how you're jumping to that conclusion.

 

[Crothian]

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.

Then I think you are fine. I hope I didn't sound like I was critizing too much. It took me a while to come to that question you just answers. That was the piece of the puzzle I needed but it took me a little while to come up with it.

 

[tylermalan]

Here's a question: when the three PCs sighted the monster, did they have a chance to recognise it was too tough and thus run away?

Cheers!

Well, yes and no, I guess... it depends on what you consider a "chance". They didn't roll any dice to determine how powerful it was, no. However, it is obviously huge size, and they know the reach. It basically looked like a huge, feral necromancer.

 

[Crothian]

I have to point out that this is an assumption rather than what actually happened. You're assuming that the DM purposely killed his PCs solely to teach them a lesson. I don't know how you're jumping to that conclusion.

Having read a lot of threads about D&D games, it is something some DMs do. There are many play assumptions people make based on knowing it is D&D game. And some assumptions like that one, are wrong.

 

[MerricB]

Well, yes and no, I guess... it depends on what you consider a "chance". They didn't roll any dice to determine how powerful it was, no. However, it is obviously huge size, and they know the reach. It basically looked like a huge, feral necromancer.

Size is a pretty good indicator in D&D.

So, I've got to ask, did anyone say, "Look at the size of that thing!"?

Cheers!

 

[Crust]

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.

As you should have. Players should have to choose. They're the ones playing, right?

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.

Indeed. Unless you're styling your campaign after Oblivion or NWN 2, players can expect ruffians, kobolds, giants, dragons, and demons at any level, anywhere. Players should know where to go and where not to go, and in the case of the OP, the situation was clearly dangerous. Not beyond their abilities, but worth waiting for the paladin and a fresh party.

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.

Excellent. Not that you really need my approval, but this lends itself to the idea that the players didn't want to sit through any role-playing and just "dove in" if you will.

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.

I'm glad you cleared things up here. Your job isn't done yet, though, as someone is bound to find (or perhaps create) some hole in your reasoning. Wait for it...

 

[Cadfan]

Well, from the opening post I started with the impression that you were angry at them for creating characters with lame backstories and weak roleplaying potential.

But then you started yelling about how their characters were poorly designed and weak in combat.

So now I'm just confused about what it is you really wanted.

 

[tylermalan]

Size is a pretty good indicator in D&D.

So, I've got to ask, did anyone say, "Look at the size of that thing!"?

Cheers!

Hahahaha no, I don't think so

 

[tylermalan]

Well, from the opening post I started with the impression that you were angry at them for creating characters with lame backstories and weak roleplaying potential.

But then you started yelling about how their characters were poorly designed and weak in combat.

So now I'm just confused about what it is you really wanted.

Hahaha man, well, I guess I wanted engaging characters more than anything. But what I feel GUILTY about though is that they died, and they died IMO because of a combination of poor design and weak roleplaying potential. I wouldn't feel guilty at all if they role played their way down there and got bloody, but they just jumped and got bloody, which is different to me for some reason.