Worst Session Ever!

[drnuncheon]

The bad thing is that death is but a minor annoyance in D&D. It's nothing to be feared unless you are poor.

I don't do level loss, instead having the PC lose a CON point

(scratches head)

Seems to me like level loss is (at least in the short term) nastier to the PCs. He'd have been down 2 levels because of his silly stunt.

Personally, I've often been tempted to have the caster lose a level as well. That would make raises and ressurrections a heck of a lot rarer! High-level clerics would want people to go on important quests and such for them before they were willing to cast such a spell - even if it only carried with it the possibility of level loss (like, say, the caster gains one or more negative levels).

J

 

[Golem Joe]

I don't think I'm going to allow him to be raised again. That will make death seem like a minor thing if I do allow him. Now he's going to lose his favorite PC forever, but I can't see someone being raised twice in one day.

LOL! Pretty harsh. Maybe a bit unreasonable. Not that your players don't deserve it. But why disallow something when you can make it so much more interesting.

Consider this, all these guys were lawful good, right? Why not make them complete a quest for a god in order to have their buddy ressurected? Milk it! Force them on a deadly quest where they know they will not have access to that power. In the meantime, give Throkk's player an NPC to play.

Conversely, you could also have Throkk's spirit trapped in some netherworld, beyond the reach of the god petitioned. Thus the players have to go rescue him.

Never turn down a plot twist.

 

[Henry]

A few comments, Flexor:

1. This is why they changed resurrection penalties in the rules from loss of a CON point, to the loss of a whole level. In my experience, people think twice about doing stupid stuff if they stand to lose a level. There are no magic items that can add levels; there are several that can add CON points.
2. If you REALLY want your player to see consequences from this, think on the following. They should be in deep trouble with the town. They just let two rampaging monsters loose, and if anyone discovers this fact (shouldn't be tough with all the witnesses that stand to be spoken to a la speak with dead - including the troll killed by the guards), then your PC's are in trouble. Also, if the lawful good characters find this out, they should be obligated to either turn the wizard in for being negligent, or beat the tar out of him himself for letting this happen.
3. For that matter, why was the Paladin and the other LG character letting the wizard keep two chaotic evil creatures on retainer with charms, anyway? Charm, as you correctly played it out, doesn't mean enslaved, and their natures don't fundamentally change.
4. Call me vindictive, but I would have had the troll come after the wizard first - after all, when the friends of the wizard attack the troll, by the spell rules, the troll automatically breaks off the charm anyway. I would have the troll come after the magic-using gnat that "tricked him" in the first place. Let lorrick use up some of those spells a little early.

This is not to call your DMing into question, it's just that there are PLENTY of role-playing opportunities here just seeping out of the cracks of this botched session. Don't let 'em get away from you.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Re: Re: Worst Session Ever!

LOL! Pretty harsh. Maybe a bit unreasonable. Not that your players don't deserve it. But why disallow something when you can make it so much more interesting.

Consider this, all these guys were lawful good, right? Why not make them complete a quest for a god in order to have their buddy ressurected? Milk it! Force them on a deadly quest where they know they will not have access to that power. In the meantime, give Throkk's player an NPC to play.

Conversely, you could also have Throkk's spirit trapped in some netherworld, beyond the reach of the god petitioned. Thus the players have to go rescue him.

Never turn down a plot twist.

The only LG people are those who were raised, the rest of the party are all Neutral. Ubin could care less about Throkk or Tejron as he's never met them. Ubin was a PC that was created when another old PC died at the same time Throkk & Tejron died. Ubin is pure mercenary, and does nothing for free. Hell I'm wondering what is going to happen when Throkk sermonizes Ubin. Ubin may kill him. The only problem with having his soul trapped, something I have been toying with, is they are in the middle of something that they cannot leave for a long period of time. Throkk's player has a new PC, one he rolled up when Throkk died. Wolf the cowardly archer, the total opposite of Throkk. Wolf was going to be...um Phased out. Yeah that's it.

 

[Number47]

I think a simple, easy rule would be something like, if a person is raised from the dead, they cannot be again raised from the dead for three months. He could get his favorite character back eventually, but meanwhile he sits in the penalty box.

 

[Spatula]

If you're using the CON loss instead of the 3E level loss to go for more of a 1E feel, you should probably bring back the system shock check as well. That way the resurection won't be guarunteed and the players might think twice before carelessly letting their characters die.

Also, you should definitely give the players trouble with bringing the trolls to town and letting them go on a rampage. Perhaps the town's head priest suspects the party's involvement (with his spells he should have an easy enough time of finding out the truth) and forces them to atone for their actions before he'll give them any more aid.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

A few comments, Flexor:

1. This is why they changed resurrection penalties in the rules from loss of a CON point, to the loss of a whole level. In my experience, people think twice about doing stupid stuff if they stand to lose a level. There are no magic items that can add levels; there are several that can add CON points.
2. If you REALLY want your player to see consequences from this, think on the following. They should be in deep trouble with the town. They just let two rampaging monsters loose, and if anyone discovers this fact (shouldn't be tough with all the witnesses that stand to be spoken to a la speak with dead - including the troll killed by the guards), then your PC's are in trouble. Also, if the lawful good characters find this out, they should be obligated to either turn the wizard in for being negligent, or beat the tar out of him himself for letting this happen.
3. For that matter, why was the Paladin and the other LG character letting the wizard keep two chaotic evil creatures on retainer with charms, anyway? Charm, as you correctly played it out, doesn't mean enslaved, and their natures don't fundamentally change.
4. Call me vindictive, but I would have had the troll come after the wizard first - after all, when the friends of the wizard attack the troll, by the spell rules, the troll automatically breaks off the charm anyway. I would have the troll come after the magic-using gnat that "tricked him" in the first place. Let lorrick use up some of those spells a little early.

This is not to call your DMing into question, it's just that there are PLENTY of role-playing opportunities here just seeping out of the cracks of this botched session. Don't let 'em get away from you.

The LG PC's were not there when Lorrick charmed the Trolls. They never met the Troll until they attacked. They weren't letting them have the Trolls, as soon as they got back to the group they attacked it.

The nature of the Troll didn't change, which is why I had him start slaughtering as soon as the charming wizard was gone. The Troll couldn't get to the Wizard as he had a cleric and a paladin attacking him.

P.S. The reason I got rid of level loss is I never could really rationalize it. Con loss is easy.

 

[Graf]

P.S. The reason I got rid of level loss is I never could really rationalize it. Con loss is easy.

You handled the session quite well. But I'm mystified by why you are surprised that lowering the penalty for resurection wouldn't lead to people being less concerned about death? Level lose is a much better penalty. One con point more or less just doesn't matter. A level is a huge deal and acts as an appropriate deterent.

I realize its a bit weird at first, but energy drain makes even less sense. (I was hid by a dead thing and I forgot how to make magical potions?)

I think you have every right to be frustrated and (in particular) to make their characters suffer a bit in terms of relationship with the town. I wouldn't take away the character from the player, he wasn't being stupid. The other players were.

Thanks for sharing, btw. Though I realize it was frustrating for you but.... it's kind of funny.

 

[Crothian]

Perhaps you need to challenge the players in ways besides killing them? There are many threats that are still frightening if when one of them is not death.

 

[David Argall]

Wha?

Roleplay - We have a dozen or more dead because of this little escapade. Our LG, the paladin in particular, have mountains of atonement to work off. & the neutrals are not off the hook, not when that paladin is going to do his duty and turn them in. Cart the lot of them off to trial.

Rules - No XP for the trolls, not for anyone, no matter who took part in the fight or who was present. You get XP for beating a monster once, not for beating it, reviving it, and beating it again. And holding back to allow X to get all the XP is clearly rules-lawyering, and to be rejected out of hand. If they don't produce a roleplay reason why the PC would do that, the PC should be penalyzed the value of the critter.

Charm is not control. The trolls like the mage, not obey him. The task of just getting them to the city should have been hard enough to warn him he could not leave them alone.