|
3 years ago ::
Feb 02, 2010 - 7:45AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
While the derail is there:
I have been known to ask players if they would like the mean/deadly/extra crunchy version, but there is a trick to that which I am fairly sure ixibat was using as well. I would never ask just any table this and I would not do it with every adventure. I am fairly sure the adventure in question was a special. Those are high risk, high reward and tend to attract players that are there to be challenged. There is many a table that will actually enjoy "nightmare mode" in a special. Its a judgement call to ask at all, but if a table gives you the idea they might like it, I see no problem in the question. You will have to of course explain what makes up the extra crunchy mode.
For a special, you bet. And it's all in the phrasing too. I shouldn't assume ibixat was handling it poorly; sorry! If a DM asks me if they want to ramp up the challenge, that's awesome, particularly in that context. I like your list of crunchy tactics. I have gotten great effects by dragging a down PC out of healing range. Throwing in the occasional "holy crap" is an awesome way to get people out of the rut, and a CdG is definitely one of those.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 02, 2010 - 7:52AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
I CdGed once out of the twelve plus opportunities I had.
Assuming it was against an Unconscious (rather than merely Helpless) target, why did you CdG that particular time? Ie, was it due to divine challenge, immobilization, specific tactics in the module, whatever?
Basically, was there a good reason to overrule the specific DMG instructions on this issue?
See for me this is reversing the equation.
Its not the DM that needs to provide a reason to CdG outside of it being the most reasonable thing for the NPC to do. Its the players that need to give the NPC a reason NOT to.
Yes, the DM should mind the "FUN!" mantra, but taking the responsibility away from the players entirely and letting them in essence ignore the imminent danger of a CdG seems wrong to me. Doesn't even have to mean the players have to engage the NPC, just being a viable threat and thus more pressing danger could do it. Making the NPC in question realize that if it proceeds with a CdG surrender is off the table could be plenty. And yes, a DM should, in my view, help players to find that way out if needed.
There should not be a blanket assumption that an NPC will clean its nails for a round rather than try and kill a downed foe. However it seems to be rapidly becoming the prevailing sentiment.
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 02, 2010 - 8:05AM
#53
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
See for me this is reversing the equation. Its not the DM that needs to provide a reason to CdG outside of it being the most reasonable thing for the NPC to do. Its the players that need to give the NPC a reason NOT to.
I'd imagine 'There is another action you could take that would affect someone who is actually active in the combat' would count.
Much like there is a rule that says "PCs don't attack other PCs without permission", certain rules and guidelines exist to protect the play experience. The DMG is quite explicit on this particular matter. Now, much like you can get permission to attack other PCs, some groups will want a CdG. But if you're at a con with a random group, they'll likely expect a DM to follow the explicit and clear instruction
"(DMG p40) Don’t hit people when they’re down. When a character falls unconscious, monsters turn their attention to enemies who are still up and fighting. Monsters don’t usually intentionally deal damage to fallen foes."
Remember, most creatures do not get back up after dropping unconscious. PCs do not stop to CdG monsters that they knock to 0 hp. Hungry creatures do not ignore the threat of still active combatants to sit down and eat. In many cases it is actually metagaming to go "Well, I should CdG because otherwise they're just going to heal him later and he'll be fine". It's also potentially un-Fun, depending on the group's wishes and how far into the module you are.
So, yes, as a DM you should have a good reason to CdG an unconscious (not Helpless) PC. That reason can include "Otherwise I'll take damage from a mark" "I'm immobilized next to this creature" "Consecrated Ground is up" Etc. Now, if the creature has clearly lost and CdG is its only option, it could try to flee using the threat of CdG to get away. Or it could just flee. But in many cases for LFR, CdG is not a viable tactic for the creature in question, it is a viable tactic for the _module_ in question, to have a lasting effect on the PCs, put some scare in them, etc. But it's not a way to win.
Again, there's a clear instruction on this. There has to be a good reason to go against it. And good isn't "I want to be a DM that kills some PCs" unless those players ask for that. Much like the DM shouldn't go "Hmm, this module would make more logical sense if I moved this encounter closer and had the second encounter come in before they can get a short rest. Yeah, that'd make more sense. Why would the monsters be so stupid as to have a lair that could be defeated so easily?" Logic and gameplay do not necessarily see eye to eye on some things.
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 02, 2010 - 8:24AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2009
|
...
Much like there is a rule that says "PCs don't attack other PCs without permission", certain rules and guidelines exist to protect the play experience. The DMG is quite explicit on this particular matter. Now, much like you can get permission to attack other PCs, some groups will want a CdG. But if you're at a con with a random group, they'll likely expect a DM to follow the explicit and clear instruction
"(DMG p40) Don’t hit people when they’re down. When a character falls unconscious, monsters turn their attention to enemies who are still up and fighting. Monsters don’t usually intentionally deal damage to fallen foes."
I think part of the problem is that you are reading page 40 of the DMG as a rule, when the same page states that it is not part of the mechanics, but a tip.
(DMG p40) "Running Combat
Chapter 9 of the Player’s Handbook tells you everything you need to know about the mechanics of combat. Here are some tips to help you keep things moving smoothly."
The DMG contains some rules on the mechanics of how things work. But the DMG also contains a huge amount of general advice to the DM.
Pg 39 suggest using a white board to track initiative. I doubt that you would insist all DM's must use a white board for want of being labeled a rulebreaker.
Pg 41 discusses smart monsters: "Smart Monsters: Smart monsters act differently in combat than dumb ones do. Look at the monster’s Intelligence score to help you decide what it does. Smart
creatures plan their actions and choose the best course of action. A vampire might focus its attacks on the cleric who keeps hitting it with radiant damage. Less intelligent creatures don’t plan, they react. A wolf turns to bite the last opponent that hurt it or the nearest enemy."
Again, this is advice. The chapter introduction itself makes clear that the chapter is divided between GM advice and rules mechanics:
(DMG pg34)"This chapter includes the following sections.
-Combat Fundamentals: How to run a combat as the DM: preparation, monster readiness, surprise, rolling and tracking initiative, tips on running the combat (including tracking individual monsters, conditions, and effects), and how to wrap up an encounter.
-Additional Rules: Rules for actions not covered by the rules, cover, forced movement, aquatic combat, mounted combat, flying, disease, and poison."
It's only when we get to page 42, that the DMG starts to label "Additional Rules" that were not included in the Players Handbook "—in particular, mounted combat and combat underwater"
"At Gencon 2010, WOTC will announce a new edition of Dungeons & Dragons." - crm(1/2010)
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 02, 2010 - 8:28AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2007
|
Communication between DMs and players is the key. When presented with an opportunity to CdG, if the DM says, "Hmm . . . the monster could CdG the character lying there - - what do you think?" Players who fully expect CdG to be a part of the game will say "Of course he would do it." Players not a fan of this might point out "The character up over there is more of a threat." In either case, the DM is providing a play experience that the players enjoy. In my book, that's the bottom line.  (I did one CdG action at DDXP - - one of those "the creature really has nothing else he can do with his turn" actions. The players understood and were very accepting that I wasn't actively trying to kill characters, which meshed with their play style/preference.) I was at the table where the DM - in round 2 - ran all of the enemies over (and provoked) to CdG the drow-poisoned "Unconscious, no save" character. It didn't make any sense to me from a tactics or role-playing standpoint. (From a threat level, Unconscious (no save) is just as threatening as Dead.) The other thing to keep in mind is - since healing starts at 0 - that unless your CdG will absolutely kill the character, you've wasted your turn. (Whether the dying character is at -2 or -22, they'll be healed to the same amount.)
Dan Anderson
@EpicUthrac
Living Forgotten Realms Calimshan Writing Director
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
Meet me at TotalConfusion:
http://www.totalcon.com/RolePlaying.html
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 02, 2010 - 8:29AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
See for me this is reversing the equation. Its not the DM that needs to provide a reason to CdG outside of it being the most reasonable thing for the NPC to do. Its the players that need to give the NPC a reason NOT to.
I'd imagine 'There is another action you could take that would affect someone who is actually active in the combat' would count.
...snip....
We probably agree to a large extent, but the devil tends to be in the details.
An action that would affect someone in combat is way too broad for me.
Yes, the immobilized owlbear could ignore the downed barbarian next to it and throw a rock at the other PC's that are currently ignoring it to get their attention..... It is essentially an action that would affect someone in combat, but i cannot on any level see that making sense to the owlbear. Now if someone were to throw a rock at the owlbear or yell at it threateningly.. different story..
Now if I as a DM say nothing, the players ignore or fail to see the situation and I then go "GOTCHA, CdG!". I deserve to be shot/boo'd/derided. But when I point out the threat to the players (subtly if possible, bluntly if needed), or they indicate they do see it and then get "check DMG page 40" or a more subtle variation of that response, the CdG is the least they deserve..
Fun happens when everyone is at the table together. Players AND DM. The DM is not a NPC dice robot programmed with DMG rules there to follow the players whim. Team effort is key.
Forgive me if I am not making my position clear, its been a long day and DDXP was.. tiring and a blast , so I might be even more disjointed than usual
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 02, 2010 - 9:08AM
#57
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Yes, the immobilized owlbear could ignore the downed barbarian next to it
I think I've used immobilized several times as a good reason to CdG
Anyhow, I think I misunderstood you slightly and we agree.
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 02, 2010 - 9:12AM
#58
|
- Senior Volunteer Community Lead
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
I think part of the problem is that you are reading page 40 of the DMG as a rule, when the same page states that it is not part of the mechanics, but a tip.
It's not a rule - that's why I used guideline and instruction in reference to it. If it were a rule, I doubt we'd have this conversation at all
But it's still something there should be a good reason to ignore. And it sounds like for many DMs that good reason sounds awfully fishy. Like 'Because they could heal the down character!' or 'Otherwise it wouldn't be challenging' or 'Cause the monster is smart', none of which are all that good on their own. For clarity, "Because the players have said they like that threat to be more on the table" _is_ a good reason.
Keith Richmond
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 02, 2010 - 10:16AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
But it's still something there should be a good reason to ignore.
"Because the players have stopped being scared" strikes me as a good reason.
I think the implicit threat of a CdG is more important than the actual CdG. It's when players start assuming that they're safe when unconscious that you need to start doing an occasional CdG to wake them up.
The D&D combat system could be described as an awful lot of time and energy spent on not killing PCs, while at the same time making them think they're at risk of death.
Part of that shared fiction is players behaving as though a PC lying unconscious next to a bad guy or staying in melee combat with single-digit hps are bad things. At the point that players stop worrying about things like that, because they're counting on the DM moving on after dropping them (and the cleric will have them right back up on his turn), is when the DM needs to bring some fear back.
Worse, if players start not fearing CdGs because they would need to take at least three of them to get down to negative bloodied (or worst of all, appreciating them, because any damage that doesn't kill an unconscious PC is wasted), the DM might need to start actively attempting to kill the PC as a final option, though I can't say I've ever seen it get that far.
If at no point in the adventure were the players worried that they might fail or be killed, either the DM or the adventure author (and likely both) have failed. CdG is just one tool in a DM's arsenal to help achieve that, and the more the players understand that it's a viable tool, the less the DM actually has to use it.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Feb 02, 2010 - 10:22AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2009
|
But it's still something there should be a good reason to ignore.
"Because the players have stopped being scared" strikes me as a good reason.
I think the implicit threat of a CdG is more important than the actual CdG. It's when players start assuming that they're safe when unconscious that you need to start doing an occasional CdG to wake them up.
The D&D combat system could be described as an awful lot of time and energy spent on not killing PCs, while at the same time making them think they're at risk of death.
Part of that shared fiction is players behaving as though a PC lying unconscious next to a bad guy or staying in melee combat with single-digit hps are bad things. At the point that players stop worrying about things like that, because they're counting on the DM moving on after dropping them (and the cleric will have them right back up on his turn), is when the DM needs to bring some fear back.
Worse, if players start not fearing CdGs because they would need to take at least three of them to get down to negative bloodied (or worst of all, appreciating them, because any damage that doesn't kill an unconscious PC is wasted), the DM might need to start actively attempting to kill the PC as a final option, though I can't say I've ever seen it get that far.
If at no point in the adventure were the players worried that they might fail or be killed, either the DM or the adventure author (and likely both) have failed. CdG is just one tool in a DM's arsenal to help achieve that, and the more the players understand that it's a viable tool, the less the DM actually has to use it.
Well said. I usually condense it to "If there is no danger of my character actually dying in an encounter, then the entire encounter is simply a grind."
"At Gencon 2010, WOTC will announce a new edition of Dungeons & Dragons." - crm(1/2010)
|
|
|
