What do they expect?

werk

First Post
I wanted to ask the board if I was out of line.

I am DM'ing a custom Forgotten Realms setting, and the party are low level (level 2). The players have previously been made aware that they are weak, and can not attack most NPCs randomly, many people are tougher than they are. Not all encounters are to be resolved through combat. So I thought this had been established.

So the party decides to split up (great idea:) and the ranger and monk investigate the city sewers. They eventually find some guards posted at an intersection. They succeeded in their stealth rolls and evesdropped on the guards, who were just talking about junk and how bored they were. The players assumed that the guards worked for the thieves' guild (correctly) and decided to return to their hide-out and warn the rest of the party. As they left, I had them roll hide and move silent checks again, and one of the guards both spot and listened to them leaving (great rolls). Being nice, I left two guards behind and picked the weakest guard to investigate.

I give the characters a free spot/listen before they made the last turn to go home and they found the thief easily. They then hid silently and the rogue lost them. He walked up the passage exactly between the two characters, unknowing and was about to walk right by them, allowing them to return home safely.

This guard is a 4th level rogue, characters are 2, 2nd level.

So the monk, who is a fairly aggressive player, takes surprise and attacks the rogue (why?). Natural 1, whiff.
Regular init, ranger grapples the rogue and pwns him, but instead of pinning him, he says 'be silent, we won't hurt you, we just have questions.'
Monk is next, and he flurries the rogue! (why?) I think he only hit once for minimal damage.
Rogue init, breaks the grapple.
Ranger, draws weapons and whiffs.
Monk (this is the good part) wants to tumble past the rogue so he can flank with the ranger. So he tumbles, poorly, and draws an AoO. Natural 20, threat, 18, crit. He's using a morningstar and rolls max damage. Monk dies -12hp.
Ranger then pwns the rogue some more for 6 rounds and only takes one hit, picks up the dead monk and returns home to a very upset party.

So the question I'm asking the boards, and sorry for the long wind-up, why did this party of low-level characters start looking for raise dead?

First I explained that the characters that were after the raise dead were not casters and should not know anything about the spell, so the cleric and wizard both rolled arcana and we decided that they knew about raise dead and that it was usually reserved for servants of particular dieties, i.e. it CAN happen, but usually because the diety doesn't want the servant dead yet. Since the dead monk did not worship any diety, and there were no 'high-level' temples in town, they were completely out of luck. They continued to try to find some way to raise the dead monk, and trying to raise a horde of wealth to purchase the raise dead, even though I never mentioned anything about purchasing spells at all, especially this spell. So they continue to waste time trying to get a raise, talking to their patrons and hosts (all know nothing about raising the dead) and then general gather information checks in a city that has a bounty on their head.

Was I wrong to not give them a raise dead?
Was I wrong in killing the monk?
Why does a second level character think they deserve to get raised if they die?
How could I have played the 'your character doesn't know any of this' and 'roleplay your character' more effectively?

It just seemed that the players took off their roleplaying hat and started looking for expected solutions, and were upset that they were not available...and it didn't sit well with me.

Thanks,
Mark
 

log in or register to remove this ad

First, you were not wrong in killing the monk. There are consequences to our PC actions and the way you explained it everything you did as a DM was above board. Plus, as you mentioned, you explained to them the nature of their weakness of level against NPC strength. Everything would have been fine if that monk didn't play aggressively.

Second, if they knew ahead of time concerning things like raise dead and the need for worship then they don't have a leg to stand on (no pun intended). However, I do understand them desiring a raise dead regardless of level.
 

werk said:
Was I wrong to not give them a raise dead?
Was I wrong in killing the monk?
Why does a second level character think they deserve to get raised if they die?
How could I have played the 'your character doesn't know any of this' and 'roleplay your character' more effectively?
In order:

- No.
- No.
- Different game and world expectations. Or inexperience with the game.
- Without seeing the entire situation in context, I can't help you. The most likely answer is "the players need more experience with the game and your world".
 

werk said:
Was I wrong to not give them a raise dead?
Was I wrong in killing the monk?
Why does a second level character think they deserve to get raised if they die?
How could I have played the 'your character doesn't know any of this' and 'roleplay your character' more effectively?

No.

No.

Probably past gaming experiences with other dms more inclined to give it to 'em.

In a case like this it's tough- the players have an investment in their fellow player's enjoyment, and they seem stuck on the idea that it must be that character that survives. The only thing I can think of to strongly hint at the 'roleplay what you know' thing would be just to have the monk start rolling a new character up. ("Okay, why don't you start making your new character while they search for a RD- it'll save us time").
 

The monk took a risk and failed. Hopefully, the next character will be wiser. As for raise dead - since it's such an important spell, I think that most people would know that it's possible, although the vast majority wouldn't consider it as something that could happen to them and certainly wouldn't count on it. A bit like winning the lottery. If the characters want to raise the monk, I'd tell them sure, you just have to find a 9th level cleric, pay around 450 gold for the spell, and provide 5000 gold in diamonds. Oh, and you have 9 days to do it, after that you'll need a more powerful cleric or a more powerful spell. Good luck doing that at 2nd - and that's by the rules, it isn't being mean.
 

You were right to let the monk be stupid and get killed.

And you are right to force the players to face the consequences of being stupid.

Given that monks are supposed to be lawful, by what law did the monk attack a defenseless (grappled) guard? Since the monk worships no deity, and he seems to have violated the tenets of lawfulness (or "the code of the monk" or whatever), what leg does he stand on as he argues that he should be raised? (Or am I blurring "lawful" and "good" here?)
 

werk said:
Was I wrong to not give them a raise dead?
Was I wrong in killing the monk?
Why does a second level character think they deserve to get raised if they die?
How could I have played the 'your character doesn't know any of this' and 'roleplay your character' more effectively?

It just seemed that the players took off their roleplaying hat and started looking for expected solutions, and were upset that they were not available...and it didn't sit well with me.

Thanks,
Mark

Were you wrong not to give them a raise dead? I don't know. If you are playing a campaign where magic is a little more rare than the typical FR setting, maybe. If you have been clear that magic is not as ubiquitous in this world, then I guess it is your call. I probably would have allowed it, but they would have had to pay dearly for it.

Were you wrong in killing the monk? No. Crits happen. Death happens. Maybe you could have fudged the max damage roll, but that is a matter of your DMing style more than anything else, you are under no obligation to save the party from what was a dangerous, but not unrealistic encounter.

Why does a second level character think they deserve to get raised? Well, since levels are a metagame concept, the metagame answer is; because he is a PC.

As to how to roleplay the knowledge aspects better, you just need to be clear about your world. As implied in the first answer, I don't know much about this custom FR setting. Do your players know what the setting is like, or are they basing it off of the novels and other materials? How different is it? Make sure they are clear about how your setting differs. You said you hadn't mentioned about purchasing spells. I would say that since purchasing spells is included in the Player's Handbook, and standard FR is magic heavy, the obligation is upon you to tell them if they cannot purchase spells. I would assume most PCs and NPCs in a standard FR setting who are not country bumpkins would know they can buy spells.

In the end, it seems you need to be asking your group the question of what they expect, and spell out your own expectations of them and of the setting.
 


Rl'Halsinor said:
First, you were not wrong in killing the monk. There are consequences to our PC actions and the way you explained it everything you did as a DM was above board. Plus, as you mentioned, you explained to them the nature of their weakness of level against NPC strength. Everything would have been fine if that monk didn't play aggressively.

Second, if they knew ahead of time concerning things like raise dead and the need for worship then they don't have a leg to stand on (no pun intended). However, I do understand them desiring a raise dead regardless of level.


I agree with ya. Monk died....consequences of his actions. He chose poorly apparently. :)
 


Remove ads

Top