Your money or your life?

[Jeff Wilder]

Choosing not to fight is in no way a rational decision unless the player has some kind of intangible reason for continuing with the same PC.

Like, say, wanting to roleplay the character as not wanting to die? Too much of a reach?

 

[billd91]

Yeah, I agree. They made a rational decision.

In the next session, either I play a level 8 PC who is effectively level 6, or a level 7 PC. What am I going to choose? And hey, I might win the fight, and next time play a level 9 PC.

Choosing not to fight is in no way a rational decision unless the player has some kind of intangible reason for continuing with the same PC.

Whether or not the decision was rational or not depends on a lot of factors. It's rational from a metagame character effectiveness point of view, assuming replacement characters easily come in with a certain expectation of gear and power. It's irrational for a player who puts more value on playing the character as an ongoing rather than transient element in a story. It's irrational for a number of in-character motivations including greater love of material goods than continued life (usually considered to be an irrational decision by most thinking people). It's rational for a few other in-character considerations.

Whether or not it's a rational decision, given the situation, it was not a decision that favored the continued life of those characters. While I encourage players to accept that their characters can die fairly easily and they should manage their character attachment based on that understanding, I would prefer it if players didn't treat their characters as disposable and replaceable at a moment's notice just because they suffer a setback like losing their stuff. If it gets to that point, we might as well be playing a miniatures skirmish game and hang up role playing entirely.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

The rational decision was made by the player as a metagame decision. Its because of such "rational" decisions that replacement PC's should join the party at whatever level the DM decides based on how "rational" the choice to die was. In this case I would say 5th level max.

I agree this might be why this happened, but for now I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. Now that we're discussing via email the fact that Very Bad Things can happen in the PCs' story, and that there will be chances for revenge, recovery, et cetera ... well, if it happens again the benefit of the doubt will be exhausted.

 

[glass]

No, no they don't. Remember -1 per 10 feet to see them fronm that high up.

Per 200 ft, actually, assuming sunlight. And the DC to notice a non-hiding medium creature is 0.

Let's use use hypotetical White dragon age Old:
[...]We get a big +25 for Spot use. He can only see 250 feet away. Since he flies 200 feet...we conclude he can see up to flying range.

Or he could have been an Ancient, with up to 32 ranks and a Wis of 15 for a total Perception of +37. Add in Alertness and Skill Focus for a total of +42.

But let's go with your +25*. Our dragon has to be at least 5400 feet up in the air before he even need to roll...


glass.

(* Which should be +28 at Old BTW, if he maxes out Perception).

 

[Jeff Wilder]

[Stuff about Spot (Perception).]

Awesome.

Do you realize that, by your analysis, a dragon can't use its full movement to charge?

I'd suggest that indicates there's something wrong with your analysis.

(The PCs knew they were being stalked because, as I wrote, there had been earlier feints and tests, and the PCs had spotted the dragon watching and orchestrating.)

 

[LostSoul]

Like, say, wanting to roleplay the character as not wanting to die? Too much of a reach?

It's irrational for a player who puts more value on playing the character as an ongoing rather than transient element in a story. It's irrational for a number of in-character motivations including greater love of material goods than continued life (usually considered to be an irrational decision by most thinking people). It's rational for a few other in-character considerations.

In-character motivations don't matter because this is about a player making a choice about how to spend valuable leisure time. It comes down to the player deciding what's more fun for him, not what his character is thinking. The character can think what it wants but what really matters is how much fun the player is having.

The bolded line is probably the easiest solution. Provide reasons for continuing with the character even though he's less effective.

 

[Kraydak]

...
So I went with playing the dragon as an NPC with real motivations and behavior beyond what can be found in a lousy video game. Apparently, though, if you've been following the conversation, there cannot possibly exist an explanation for why a non-retarded dragon wouldn't kill the PCs, so man, I suck.

Jeff

Did you notice Charger28Alpha's post early on?

We have a case where the dragon *knows* the party wants to kill her. A case where the dragon has made it clear that the party *has* to hunt her down or they will be taken out in detail. A situation where *either* the PCs can't get reequipped (in which case they should most definitely go down fighting, praying for crits or a timely rescue) or they can (and will be part of the "assault on the dragon").

So, pray tell, why, short of wanting to provoke an assault, would the dragon let the PCs go? The PCs are now mortal enemies who can hurt her. If the dragon wanted to provoke an assault for some arcane reason (entirely plausible), why would she kill the PCs and render them un-raiseable?

If you have a script you want your PCs to follow,
a) make that script reasonable and
b) make that script metagamingly obvious. (i.e. tell the players upfront what will happen, including, in this case, a guarantee of replacement gear)

 

[ExploderWizard]

It seems to me that the solution, without having to re-write 3E from the ground up (getting rid of the immense value of magic items), is to give each specific PC intangible benefits - things like fame and positions of authority in the game world.

This is the best solution of course. Positive reinforcement for making a decision thats rational for the character is better than negative reinforcement for making a decision thats more rational for the player.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

In-character motivations don't matter

"Wanting to roleplay" isn't an in-character motivation.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

Another problem a lot of DMs overlook is that flight (w/o Teleport) is generally impossible for PCs if their foes are agressive. PCs (almost invariably) are slower and less mobile than their enemies. The DM might know that the enemy will break pursuit for some reason, but the players, not knowing that, but knowing that they escape if their enemy doesn't let them (and will be at a major disadvantage if they try and fail) will turn and fight even foes that the DM thought he made clear were impossible.

And that choice makes sense. When in Death Ground, fight.

This is a very good point. Why would the PCs believe that they are able to flee? Dragons are pretty much the fastest creatures in the game. It's gone to the trouble of stalking them...and knows that the next time it finds them they are likely to be with their friends. why would it let them get away?

Ken