PlanetADnD.com

Back off on the bad guys and give us our healer back, that is what I propose - a single in game day to rest and DO NOT take her spells because you "were at the mercy of the die"....which is what I propose.

You could have not targeted the healer and given the party a chance - instead, here is the situation that you force the players into.

Goldmoon was out in the open at the time of the ambush. You're right, I could have decided that the draconians completely ignore her. Despite the fact she was fighting them. Maybe if she had tried to slink away, they would have left her alone. But she engaged them, first with her sling, then with her staff. I didn't think it very realistic for them to just ignore her because she was the healer. That seems like metagaming to me.

You take the Warriors.

I took two warriors and one mage. Caramon, Sturm, Laurana, Tika, and Riverwind are all still present. That's five warriors remaining.

(I also reduced the number of Baaz in this fight. The module says 12, I lowered it to 8.)

You send constant waves of bad guys at us without a chance to rest.

The party has had chances to rest. They rested, twice, in Qualinost. Remember? They entered the elven lands after a fight. They rested a whole day. They then had the council. There was another fight. They then rested the rest of the night, and left. That brings us up to here.

You are pushing the players into an impossible situation where we have no chance.

Am I? Or are the players putting themselves into an impossible situation with their own actions?

I think you are accusing me of doing things that are really not my fault, Kafen. Consider the first time you accused me of railroading--in Solace.

The party entered a tavern in a town that was occupied by the enemy. A fight broke out. The party intervened. Laurana charged the enemy. By bad luck, one of the kapaks hit her with his poisoned sword, and then by further bad luck, she failed her save. The party was then forced to surrender in order to save her life.

The fact that the party was captured...was this my doing? Or does the blame lay in the actions of the party themselves? Actions have consequences, sometimes good and sometimes bad. It's important to me that those consequences make sense more than anything else.

...a single in game day to rest and DO NOT take her spells because you "were at the mercy of the die"....which is what I propose.

If the party chooses to rest after this battle, that's up to them. I do not dictate when and where they rest. If they decide to push on when they probably shouldn't, that's their call. Honestly, I would expect them to rest after this fight. Nobody else in the group has the Healing proficiency or healing magic, so...they have no choice, honestly. They can't find the Sla-Mori without Laurana, and they can't heal Laurana without Goldmoon. Rest is the only option--but not because I'm railroading it, but because the choices the party has made have limited their options at this point.

Keep in mind, that right this moment, the party is planning on going into the Sla-Mori, which is a dungeon. Dungeons are very dangerous, and have lots of traps, enemies, etc.. The Sla-Mori will take them to Pax Tharkas which is...another dungeon. This means that they are in for a lot of fighting, I am afraid.

How long the party rests and where is up to them. I won't promise to not roll for random encounters during rest. And if they spend too much time resting, there may be consequences (like the elves getting wiped out before they have a chance to escape).

It is not cool to take out our healing and strip a player of spells because you were not willing to fudge die rolls.

Are you suggesting that, as the sole healer, Goldmoon should be invincible then? No matter what she does, even if she charges a horde of hungry dragons with nothing but her staff, she should be completely invulnerable to harm from circumstance alone?

I am suggesting you use some basic sense as a GM and metagame NOT removing ALL chances of success. So, yes - I suggest you metagame as a GM in order to tell a good story. It is not going to hurt our feelings if we have a slim chance of success without you targeting our only healing assest.

And the last point, she SHOULD be a metagame offlimit target for the most part if you strip us of warriors. It is common sense.

Argh...

We aren't helped by Tillis's disappearance (Of course he has been fighting for custody of his daughter it seems so we can forgive him that.).

I don't think either party are going to agree on this. Can we let the dice fall as they may, and see what happens? Laurana has 5 more rounds and she dies... so lets see what happens.

So, yes - I suggest you metagame as a GM in order to tell a good story.

I'm not here to tell a story, though. I'm here to run a game. In order to tell a story, I need to railroad. Instead, the 'story' being told is being told by all of us, together. It's cooperative. In order for that to work, the party's choices have to have meaning. If they don't have meaning, then what purpose do the players even serve? I'd be better off just writing fanfiction.

If the players make a choice, and that choice has no consequences, then I am railroading. This works both ways. If I decide that "X" will happen, no matter what the party does, I am railroading. If I decide that "X" will never happen, no matter what the party does, I am railroading. So if I decide that Goldmoon can never get hurt, for any reason, no matter what the circumstances or what her actions are, I am railroading just as much as if I decide that Golmoon must die, no matter what precautions she takes. You are asking me to railroad, shortly after complaining about me railroading. My mind is spinning at the implications.

And the last point, she SHOULD be a metagame offlimit target for the most part if you strip us of warriors. It is common sense.

Kafen, I am getting the impression you are not listening to me at all. I've already said this twice now. I didn't take the party's warriors. I took two warriors. Two out of seven. There are five left. They are Riverwind, Sturm, Caramon, Tika, and Laurana. (Also, spoiler alert--the wounded warrior has a chance of joining the party; he brings the warrior total back up to six.)

The healer is down - So, she is pretty much dead. :/ Anyways, there is not much to talk about since we are at the mercy of the dice instead of the GM.

You know whats funny? I know the books off by heart, I knew this was a trap, but Laurana didn't she wandered into it as she would...

Yes we are lacking healing, but I don't think its fair to beat ourselves up over it.

Its a game, lets enjoy.

He uses the hovering at death's door rule, so she is not pretty much dead. Someone can run in there to stop the bleeding, and she'll be fine.

Jenara wrote:We aren't helped by Tillis's disappearance (Of course he has been fighting for custody of his daughter it seems so we can forgive him that.).

Hmm, well as reasons go to drop games, that is certainly a good one. But the problem with Tillis is that he can't find 30 seconds out of his day to drop me a line via PM or in the OOC thread to let me know he's taking off. I mean, hell, I'd be more than understanding, especially if he's fighting for custody of his daughter. Of course that takes priority!

However, instead, he just vanishes without even a word to me. I only find out he's quit later from someone else, usually you. Then he just shows up again, without so much as a "Sorry about that" and expects to jump right back in. It makes it difficult for me to sympathize with him.

Jenara wrote:I don't think either party are going to agree on this.

It seems you might be right about that. I've done my best to try and defend myself. I try and meet my players half-way when I can. After all, my job is not just to moderate rules interpretations and dice roll results. I'm also supposed to make sure everyone is having fun.

But...Kafen is asking me to railroad, which I cannot do. If I were to start doing that, I'd quickly lose interest in this game and just stop posting altogether (because, as I said; the player's actions have to have meaning, or else I'm basically just writing a story that I already know the ending to). Although it's important for me that the players are having fun, I have to be having fun, too! If I'm not having fun, if I lose my enthusiasm, then I'm spending hours and hours working on something that I don't care about or enjoy; talk about a waste!

Thus, we are at a bit of an impasse here.

Kafen wrote:The healer is down - So, she is pretty much dead.

As Horizons pointed out, I use Hovering at Death's Door (an optional rule found in the DMG). It means you can't die unless you hit -10 HP. So neither Laurana or Goldmoon are dead yet. That's why Tas didn't die the last two times he was dropped into negative HP.

Anyway, I got some errands to attend to. When I return, I'll update the next round of Chronicles.

Actually, I am asking you to not railroad us if you want to touch on that point - I know the script of the module. :/

Otherwise, I am asking you to not strip us of our healing asset if you are going to strip us of the warrior count. Blaming the dice? C'mon... Tell a story, step away from the module for a second.

I am not going to run away from the game, but I am frustrated with the idea of the dice running the game instead of the GM. It can't be fun as a GM to keep pounding players into the ground and rely on the dice for decisions.

GMs have to do things which suck at times, but fudging dice rolls to make the game into something all players and the GM can live with is one of the basic virtues that keep a game going in the long run.

Tell a story, step away from the module for a second.

Kafen, if you want the story, then why don't you pull out the books and read them?

I'm here to play a game where my actions have consequences. If I was playing the healer and I didn't heal everyone, then I would expect that the consequences of my actions would lead to someone dying or at least coming close to dying. That is how the game is played.

If I was playing the healer, I wouldn't want the GM holding back on my character JUST because my character was the healer. That is special treatment towards one character, and other players are not going to look fondly upon that action.

If you don't want Goldmoon and Laurana to die, then it is up to us as players to do something about it if we have the chance to do so. Tika would do it if she wasn't all ready fighting a draconian. Tas could do it as there isn't even a draconian threatening him at the moment.

If you don't like how things are going, then it is up to you to fix them because you have the power to do that as a player. You might fail at fixing things, but, once again, that is how the game is played.

HorizonsDream wrote:

Tell a story, step away from the module for a second.

Kafen, if you want the story, then why don't you pull out the books and read them?

I'm here to play a game where my actions have consequences. If I was playing the healer and I didn't heal everyone, then I would expect that the consequences of my actions would lead to someone dying or at least coming close to dying. That is how the game is played.

If I was playing the healer, I wouldn't want the GM holding back on my character JUST because my character was the healer. That is special treatment towards one character, and other players are not going to look fondly upon that action.

If you don't want Goldmoon and Laurana to die, then it is up to us as players to do something about it if we have the chance to do so. Tika would do it if she wasn't all ready fighting a draconian. Tas could do it as there isn't even a draconian threatening him at the moment.

If you don't like how things are going, then it is up to you to fix them because you have the power to do that as a player. You might fail at fixing things, but, once again, that is how the game is played.

You are not even coming close to my point. I will not reply since you are taunting me, though.

Ok, can we stop this now?

I don't want this to break into bickering, please?

I hope lucky! Magpie will try to stop Laurana bleeding as soon as Caramon joins them, the little gully dwarf is defending her friend, and she isn't that bright!

4 rounds and counting... lol

Actually, I am asking you to not railroad us if you want to touch on that point - I know the script of the module. :/

I can assure you, at no point in the module does it say, "In this battle, Goldmoon must be hit and fall unconscious, losing all of her spells."

But that aside, railroading is exactly what you are asking me to do!

Consider what railroading is. It is the act of taking away player agency. It's like being on a train--it cannot go anywhere but where the rails take it; hence, railroading.

Taking away the meaning of players' choices is railroading. That can work both for and against the party.

Let me paint you an example. A party is in a dungeon. There's a monster in the next room. The party does not wish to fight the monster. So they decide to sneak past the room instead. The party is thus making a choice. That choice is to not fight the monster in the next room.

But...if I decide that the monster will attack them no matter what, regardless of how good their stealth rolls are or how clever the plan they come up with to sneak past the room, I am taking away the meaning of their choice. I am making it so that regardless of what they do, the same thing happens.

What happens, though, if I reverse this hypothetical scenario? Instead, I decide that no matter what the party does, the monster will not fight them. They can come inside and scream at the top of the lungs, the monster will ignore them. They can even attack it, and it will not respond. Is this not also railroading? Am I not still robbing the player of choice meaning?

In my mind, these two scenarios are exactly the same. Likewise, deciding that nobody will attack Goldmoon no matter what she does is just as much railroading as if I made every enemy attack her (and only her), even when they had no reason to.

Kafen wrote:Otherwise, I am asking you to not strip us of our healing asset if you are going to strip us of the warrior count.

.....

Kafen. I did not take your healing asset. Your 'healing asset' as you call her, was taken due to two factors: The choices of the party (including said healing asset) and the rolls of the dice.

Second. I did not strip you of your warrior count. I took away two warriors. Just two. Two out of seven. You have five warriors left. Furthermore, I reduced the Baaz count from 12 to 8.

Kafen wrote:I am not going to run away from the game, but I am frustrated with the idea of the dice running the game instead of the GM. It can't be fun as a GM to keep pounding players into the ground and rely on the dice for decisions.

As I keep to trying to emphasize, the dice are only half of the equation here. The other half are the party's choices.

Kafen wrote:GMs have to do things which suck at times, but fudging dice rolls to make the game into something all players and the GM can live with is one of the basic virtues that keep a game going in the long run.

As a DM who has been running games for the past 15 years, I can only say that my own experiences say otherwise.

When I first started DMing, I did exactly as you are proposing. I went easy on my players. If a player made a bad choice, I would swoop in and save them from the consequences. If a player was low on HP, the enemy would spontaneously and for no reason start ignoring them, in order to focus on other characters who still had some HP. If the party made a series of bad choices that landed them in a pickle, rather than let them try and decide how to get out of it, I'd just drop a few Deus ex Machinas to bail them out.

Consequently, most of my early games failed miserably. The players became bored when they realized that no matter what they did, they always succeeded. Nothing they did mattered, so why try?

Even worse, I realized I had inadvertently trained some of my players to act like morons. They never used any strategy or tactics at all. Whenever faced with a problem, they charged at it head-on without a second thought. Combat was a boring, grueling affair because there was no risk of death or serious injury. Nobody enjoyed it.

Jenara wrote:I don't want this to break into bickering, please?

I am not bickering, I am attempting to explain (and defend) my actions.