Your money or your life?

[Kraydak]

Heck, I'm still trying to figure out why he thinks it was the whole gear thing that decided the players to fight to the death.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

What I am getting out of this whole thread is that you don't seem interested in anyone's advice.

That's very odd, since not only have I gotten much good advice, I've actively put it into play, and indicated as much in my posts.

Perhaps you'd benefit from rereading?

Heck, I'm still trying to figure out why he thinks it was the whole gear thing that decided the players to fight to the death.

Well, I've just flat out asked them if they'd have surrendered if allowed to keep all of their gear, all else being the same. I'm very interested in their responses.

As for your "it's completely rational" argument, I find it unhelpful, metagamey, and depressing. So I'm rejecting it -- for all of those reasons, spelled out in much more detail by others in the thread -- and looking for an explanation that doesn't paint my players with those very ugly colors.

 

[CharlesRyan]

I'm pretty sure this is our disconnect. See, you're saying I defeated the PCs and made them feel humiliated. Whereas what actually happened is that the PCs encountered a situation that was all but hopeless, that ended up defeating them and (perhaps) making them feel humiliated.

You seem to see D&D as "DM vs. Player," which is why you talk about what "I" did and how the players feel about what "I" did, instead of about the situation in the game.

Jeff, you and ProfessorCirno aren't as far apart as you think. In fact, you're both right.

Most players (even those who are very into roleplaying) shift their mental frame of reference between "character" mode and "player" mode all the time. That's just part of the game--you spend some time perceiving events through the filter of your character, and some time using the game system to deploy your character's abilities. Most of the time these shifts are invisible and go unnoticed.

But a situation like yours can jar a player--even a good one, who is deeply vested in his character and the game world--out of "character" mode so thoroughly that he completely fails to slip back in for the remainder of the incident. The player becomes emotionally defensive, and his mind sticks in "player" mode as he searches desperately for a way not to lose at the "game" aspect of the roleplaying game.

Just out of curiosity, how do you think the scene would have played out if you'd called a 15 minute break in the game immediately after the dragon issued her ultimatum? (Some players would spend that time strategizing to win, I'm sure, but others might find the opportunity to slip back into "character" mode and assess the offer from that basis.)

A lot has been said about setting expectations (Janx's list of parameters was excellent, I think). Maybe recognizing the signs of shifting-desperately-out-of-"character"-mode syndrom (SDOCMS), and changing up the pace to counteract it, is another bit of worthwhile advice?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Jeff, you and ProfessorCirno aren't as far apart as you think. In fact, you're both right.

I have to dispute that. He specifically said I defeated and humiliated the players. That's simply not true. I like my players, and the thought of doing something like that -- in the DM vs. Player mode he's suggesting -- literally makes me a little nauseated.

The most you can argue is that it's possible my players perceived things that way, which I allowed, or that ProfessorCirno meant something different from what he said, which was that I actively humiliated and defeated my players, which is ridiculous.

It's not often that it's better to use passive voice to convey one's meaning, but this is an example of when it would be.

Just out of curiosity, how do you think the scene would have played out if you'd called a 15 minute break in the game immediately after the dragon issued her ultimatum?

I don't know. You probably overlooked it, but someone else suggested that earlier, and it's an excellent idea. I wish I'd thought of it.

I don't know what would have happened, but I think the possibility of a better outcome is easily great enough that, as I said, I wish I'd thought of it at the time.

A lot has been said about setting expectations (Janx's list of parameters was excellent, I think).

I absolutely agree. I cut and pasted that list and intend to bring it up in the email discussion after I edit it some. (I disagree in a minor way with a couple of those points, but all in all, I think it's a great list.)

 

[EroGaki]

Some thoughts:

1. What was the point to all this? What I mean is, why the deuce would you even give the PC's the option of surrender when that seems counter to what the dragon wants, which is from my understanding, to weaken its enemies by killing a few of their members. Why not simply kill them? If this dragon has been stalking them, then it must know about their connections, resources, etc. Taking their stuff would be a temporary setback, nothing more. So why bother?

I ask this because it seems to me that this dragon, who you insist is intelligent ( an intelligent white? Weird), was acting very unintelligent. Which brings me to my next thought:

2. You can harp all you want with the "I wasn't taking their goodies away, my character was" stuff until all twelve moons sink into the abyss, but the fact of the matter is that you made the choice to try and nerf them in order to advance a plot. And frankly, seeing that the dragon wants the adventures dead, that choice seems rather out of character. The dragon had nothing to gain from letting them live, and everything to lose by it, seeing as most dragons in the Eberron setting see humanoids as inferior, untrustworthy creatures not worthy of being part of the prophecy.


From what I gathered, the dragon attacked them to "get them out of the picture," as you put it in your first post, then it suddenly decides "You puny fools are not responsible for the death of my friend. You may live. But you dared attack me, so you will pay as tribute to me everything you own, then you will leave Sharn forever." Rather strange for the dragon to suddenly change its mind, or maybe it is simply wishy-washy. It seems to me that the PC's weren't acting out of character, you were. And when the PC's spat in your face... I'm sorry, the dragons face, they paid for it. What's worse, you put them in such a silly situation in the first place, by trying to railroad them into running away from your ambush rather then face it. The PC's are penalized because they defended themselves from the dragon instead of fleeing? Wow.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Some thoughts:

1. What was the point to all this? What I mean is, why the deuce would you even give the PC's the option of surrender when that seems counter to what the dragon wants, which is from my understanding, to weaken its enemies by killing a few of their members.

Because that's not what the dragon wanted.

Why not simply kill them?

Because the dragon is not a homicidal maniac. It has specific reasons for wanting specific PCs dead.

Why is this so hard for some folks to understand? Are the enemies in D&D really all supposed to be one-dimensional kill-or-be-killed XP generators? That's so depressing.

2. You can harp all you want with the "I wasn't taking their goodies away, my character was" stuff until all twelve moons sink into the abyss, but the fact of the matter is that you made the choice to try and nerf them in order to advance a plot.

In other words, "Nothing really bad is supposed to ever happen to the PCs. Shame on you."

Thanks for your input. I'll agree to disagree.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

One must remember in Eberron, Dragons are NOT color coded for convienance. This white dragon could very easily be CN, N, or CE. It's hard to tell from the post. This dragon was not a fiend, and they had no reason to suspect it to break it's word especially since it obviously could have easily killed them and taken their stuff anyways.

I don't see the situation as a railroad either, party is seperated, knows that it has ticked off a dragon, took no particular actions to set up a warning system, was thus easily defeated, and then made a poor tactical decision to attack the dragon instead of living to fight another day when given a way out.

As to the question the OP asks, I believe it is because most players fear loss of magic items or levels more than losing a character because a player usually comes back at equal strength in a new PC, however comes back significantly weaker with the same PC as many others have offerred. FWIW, I haven't noticed this as strongly in 4E.

I think you're doing the right thing by talking it over with your players, just to make sure everyone's on the same page.

 

[Jack99]

No, I'm not.

I'm pretty sure this is our disconnect. See, you're saying I defeated the PCs and made them feel humiliated. Whereas what actually happened is that the PCs encountered a situation that was all but hopeless, that ended up defeating them and (perhaps) making them feel humiliated.

You seem to see D&D as "DM vs. Player," which is why you talk about what "I" did and how the players feel about what "I" did, instead of about the situation in the game.

This may well be how my players feel about it, too. I'm trying to determine that from them. If it is, though, the situation is not going to be "this can never happen to your PCs," the situation is going to be "the players need to find a way to get over it and roleplay their characters."

It's interesting that you (and a few others) seem determined to frame the situation as "being beaten and humiliated," whereas I believe it to be, "being beaten yet given the chance to live." Again, I think this must go to what kind of game we experience and expect.

Again, I didn't insult them. The dragon did. Again, indicative of how we view roleplaying games, I guess.

And if your opinion is that the PCs should be immune to being insulted or even humiliated ... well, we have to agree to disagree, because I find that bizarre.

I think you are focusing too much on ProfessorCisno saying "You" instead of "the dragon". It's quite irrelevant to the whole point he is making. The point still remains that this looks like a classic case where the players felt like they were humiliated.

You are of course right that it should be possible to demand such things, and it is. The important thing is how it's done, which will obviously change from person to person.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I think you are focusing too much on ProfessorCisno saying "You" instead of "the dragon". It's quite irrelevant to the whole point he is making. The point still remains that this looks like a classic case where the players felt like they were humiliated.

You are of course right that it should be possible to demand such things, and it is.

The is an example, though, of there being a very, very important difference between the players feeling humiliated, and the players feeling humiliated for their characters. It's a vital difference. Similarly, there's a huge and vital difference between the DM doing the humiliating, and the NPCs doing the humiliating.

Either ProfessorCirno honestly believes that I -- in a DM vs. Player dynamic -- humiliated my players, or he believes that humiliation of characters by NPCs is simply Not Allowed. (Not even insults are allowed, apparently. I mean, seriously?)

In the former case, he's simply wrong and making assumptions that are incredibly insulting. In the latter case, he holds to a Bizarro World view of roleplaying to which I simply can't ascribe ... and he should have expressed his Bizarro World view more accurately.

Either way, I'm not missing the point ... I'm very much getting the point, and either way his point is ridiculous.

Is it possible my players are making the same mistakes, booking a long ride to Bizarro World or thinking my campaign is a "DM vs. Player" campaign? As I said, yes, that's possible. That's why I'm discussing it with them.

 

[EroGaki]

Because that's not what the dragon wanted.

Because the dragon is not a homicidal maniac. It has specific reasons for wanting specific PCs dead.

Why is this so hard for some folks to understand? Are the enemies in D&D really all supposed to be one-dimensional kill-or-be-killed XP generators? That's so depressing.

In other words, "Nothing really bad is supposed to ever happen to the PCs. Shame on you."

Thanks for your input. I'll agree to disagree.

Perhaps you should clarify what you mean by "get them out of the picture" in the future. If a dragon ambushed them, what was it's purpose? To scare them? Was it after their loot from the start? Because all I can tell from your post is that the dragon descends and attacks, and the PC's "stupidly" defend themselves. Unless the Dragon likes to just wound its prey before mugging them, of course.


Two things, Jeff. First, attack implies it wants them dead. Your words "these two need to be out of the picture," and "So she attacks" sort of adds up to a dragon trying to kill two people. Maybe I misunderstood your post, but I didn't see any other game plan for the dragon but killing them. Seeing as I can't read your mind, perhaps you can detail for us what the dragons intentions were, since I'm wrong about not wanting to kill them even though it attacked them in the middle of a Sharn. Second, not all the enemies are one-dimensional kill-or-be-killed XP generators. But most are. You must remember that the primary source of xp in D&D is monster kills. Maybe your games are different. If so, more power to you. But the game itself is based on combat. Depressing? If so, play something else.


Nope, not saying that nothing bad should happen to the PC's. Not at all, Jeff. I'm saying that you decided to roleplay one way, your players another way, and they died. Whether they died because you painted them into a corner expecting to dance the way you, the DM, not the dragon, wanted them to, or because they foolishly continued to attack a vastly superior foe due to stubborn pride is for you to decided.