Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7341016" data-attributes="member: 29398">True, though the odds of success on any given roll (including automatic) would realistically be swayed by situation.  For example if the PCs are already familiar with the town and have contacts etc. then finding and hiring someone would be much easier than if they were a bunch of total strangers here for the first time.The not-understanding-probability is fair, but otherwise it comes back to whether the DM is both willing and able to hit the curveball thrown by the PCs/players.I can certainly understand a "wtf?" response if a bomb like this gets dropped on a DM without warning - it's happened to me numerous times - but even if the DM thinks the result will 99%-likely be a TPK (or at worst TPLifeInPrison) she should at least go through the motions.That said, if a DM sees disaster coming there's nothing wrong with asking the age-old question: "Are you sure about this?".  If the players carry on after that, so be it...I think here you're being a bit extremist.  The players/PCs have in effect given up any say over the final outcome via their putting someone else (in this case the hired assassin) on the front line, and in so doing have implicitly agreed to a) trust the DM to fairly and reasonably adjudicate what happens behind the scenes and b) accept whatever outcome comes out from however the dominoes fall - whether it's what they originally wanted/intended or not.Attempting to kill a king whether directly or indirectly is obviously not just a very high stakes move, it's almost certainly an all-in move.  No negotiations required. And a player who would leave a game over this is probably a player I didn't want in the first place as he or she is clearly not willing to accept losing a gamble: in this case the 'loss' being a negative outcome of actions s/he (probably along with the other players) intentionally and willingly set in motion in the first place. Problem here is this immediately crashes into the wall of player knowledge vs. PC knowledge.The PCs (and thus players) have no real way of knowing the assassin's chance of success.  At best they can use their own observations, intuitions and information gathering to give it an educated guess.  But once they send the assassin on his way the - pardon the pun - die is cast, and the players/PCs at this point should and IMO must have no way* of knowing what's happening except via events/actions/outcomes in the game world that their PCs can actually observe, as - hopefully competently - narrated by the DM."You wish your operative well and send him on his way.  For a few hours the night is quiet, then suddenly shouting erupts from the general direction of the palace; and soon it's clear the shouting is getting closer."I posit the players'/PCs' reactions to this will be a lot different if the players already meta-know the assassin has 1) succeeded or 2) failed than 3) if they don't know.  Option 3 here is the only one that can give a player/PC reaction untainted by meta-knowledge.* - for these purposes let's assume the PCs and the assassin do not have long-range communication with each other.  If they did, this whole set-up would change dramatically and the players in fact could play through the actual assassination attempt via giving direction and suggestions to the assassin and receiving reports and updates in return.Lan-"assassination before the age of radio"-efan</blockquote>

Verification