Legendary Actions and More of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories

[The Insanity]

I agree, it is a semantic argument. But I am not the one who is making that argument.

Follow the thread back, I said the ghost wasn't attacking them in response to Kane0 saying "How could they drug, or knock out, or sneak past a ghost?"

Its like saying "I can't possible fight back against enemy soldiers, because the general who issued the order is in a bunker a hundred miles away!" It just doesn't make any sense.

As the post above mine indicates, you weren't very clear that the ghost and what the players fought were actually two seperate entities. You need to try avoiding being so vague or else confusion like this will keep happening.

[Talakeal]

Ah okay so we have two separate things here: the ghost/vestige/dead prince of violence and the mindless, corporeal dudes that it spawns



I may have this wrong, but to me it seems the players were researching the latter (because that's what they knew) but got information based on the former (because that's what you knew).

They were researching how to kill the aspect for good without it splitting, and found out that it was impossible.

[zinycor]

They were researching how to kill the aspect for good without it splitting, and found out that it was impossible.

Didn't they find out that the monster couldn't be killed by violence? Not exactly that it was impossible.

[Kardwill]

Ah okay so we have two separate things here: the ghost/vestige/dead prince of violence and the mindless, corporeal dudes that it spawns

Yeah, for all intents and purpose, the "ghost" didn't exist in the narration since the players had no way to know it existed. But the fact the warrior's existence was tied to that "ghost" in the GM's mind may seep into the hints the GM gives to the player and confuse them.

By the way, grappling/pinning a 240cm, 210-250kg, heavily armored giant avatar of violence is not a solution that would come readily to my mind with those description and hints. Unless I'm playing a greek-mythology/Arthurian Fate game where heroes are expected to do this kind of things routinely. ^^

[King of Nowhere]

By the way, grappling/pinning a 240cm, 210-250kg, heavily armored giant avatar of violence is not a solution that would come readily to my mind with those description and hints. Unless I'm playing a greek-mythology/Arthurian Fate game where heroes are expected to do this kind of things routinely. ^^

Wait, aren't we? We are playing heroes that routinely go in melee with monsters hundreds of times their weight. A man 2.4 meters high for 200 kg of mass may not even be worth a +4 size modifier

[Great Dragon]

@Talakeal: Thanks for responding.

Again, keep in mind that all of the players realized it split when killed the first time they observed that, regrouped, did research, and 3/4 players understood the research and came up with a working plan to solve the encounter.

But then poor dice rolls and the fourth player refusing to go along with the plan led to them adopting the much more stupid "exploit the no perma-death rule and defeat it with a human shield plan".

Note that the players were not mad at me for the encounter or the way it was presented, they were mad at me for "violating the gentleman's agreement" and letting their henchmen die after their human shield plan, and then they began screaming at each other for refusing to cooperate.

The fact that they had the no perma-death rule at all is you being "Too Nice", and them not only not appreciating it, but constantly trying to exploit it, is what irks me.

I'm a Friendly Grognard, and a Nice DM: in that I am Gentle on PCs from 1st-4th levels (TPKs are usually 'Party captured'), Death by Accident (Bad planning and/or Rolls can kill the PC/s), and No Holds Barred after 10th Level - but I don't take away even the possibility of Death, even at 1st level.

Edit: I do agree with you though, there are flaws in the presentation of every encounter, and the fact that one of the players thought I was trying to trick them is definitely a very bad thing. I just don't think the idea of a monster that can't be defeated through standard means or that multiplies when killed is innately flawed or even that unusual as I can think of tons of examples of each in both RPGs and fiction.

Player 4 might have misread the presentation; but I feel that they are more likely to have a very extreme Lack of Trust issue. Either that - or they are just a Murder-Hobo Player that is good at deceiving the Group about it most of the time?

By the way, grappling/pinning a 240cm, 210-250kg, heavily armored giant avatar of violence is not a solution that would come readily to my mind with those description and hints. Unless I'm playing a greek-mythology/Arthurian Fate game where heroes are expected to do this kind of things routinely. ^^

Wait, aren't we? We are playing heroes that routinely go in melee with monsters hundreds of times their weight. A man 2.4 meters high for 200 kg of mass may not even be worth a +4 size modifier

I'm lousy at converting Metric to Standard (and reverse).

240 cm = 20' (+/-) tall and 250 kg = 630 (+/-) lbs ?
That's like the tallest, yet skinniest, Hill Giant or Etten - ever!!

2.4 meters = 6'4" ? 200 kg = 500# ?

3x D&D had the second as still being Medium, and the Giant above barely Huge - which only had +2 from Size. Gargantuan was +4 (up to about 50' tall?), and Colossal was +8 from Size.
(it's been more than a decade since I've even read this stuff from 3x)

[Kardwill]

I'm lousy at converting Metric to Standard (and reverse).

240 cm = 20' (+/-) tall and 250 kg = 630 (+/-) lbs ?

240cm = 2.4m = 8 feet
210kg = around 460lb (I think)

I pictured a 1.80m, 90kg muscular man (6 feet, 198lb), then scaled him up to Talakeal's 8 feet warrior (+33% in height means +135% in mass if we keep the same proportions and density)

I was just scaling up a big guy to see if grappling with him would sound like a logical way to get out of trouble (i.e. "would I be willing to do it if my life depended on it?"). The answer is a very loud NO!!


Sure, "D&D world" has its own logic and power scale ("My halfling monk high-kicks the giant with both feet, Kirk-style!!!"), but it doesn't sound like a mundane solution. ^^

[Talakeal]

The party had two characters with the same grapple modifier as the enemy, smaller size but higher base strength. Still, the party didn't have anyone built for grappling, so that isn't the solution I would have gone with.

Given their party makeup I probably would have had the alchemist brew some sedative poison to coat their weapons in and had the hammer fighter stun him and then the ranger manacle him, but that't not really here nor there.

[NichG]

The party had two characters with the same grapple modifier as the enemy, smaller size but higher base strength. Still, the party didn't have anyone built for grappling, so that isn't the solution I would have gone with.

Given their party makeup I probably would have had the alchemist brew some sedative poison to coat their weapons in and had the hammer fighter stun him and then the ranger manacle him, but that't not really here nor there.

Hopefully this makes it clear why giving results that suggest that violence isn't the answer could be misleading, when the strategy you would use involves violence, as do at least half of the ones you got from your relatives...

[Talakeal]

Hopefully this makes it clear why giving results that suggest that violence isn't the answer could be misleading, when the strategy you would use involves violence, as do at least half of the ones you got from your relatives...

True, but it involves a lot of inference.

I said it cant be killed by violence.

I never said that it could only be stopped through non violent means or that there was some secret way to kill it without violence.

Although a non-violent sleep spell would have been the optimal way to handle the encounter all things onsidere, but the party didn't have an enchanter or the inclination to hire one or buy scrolls of sleep.

[Kardwill]

True, but it involves a lot of inference.

That's an inference that has been done by pretty much everybody on this thread (at least all those who bothered to talk about it), so it might be wise to at least consider that the way you described the monster's ability was confusing?

You talked about violence twice in your riddle-sounding explanation ("born of violence" / "killed by violence"). That's enough for some/many/most players to ignore "cannot be killed" and focus on the "violence" that is supposedly feeding the creature as the important part, and try to find some way to cut this power source.

"It cannot be killed by [X]" is usually a signal that the heroes are supposed to find something that is not [X], like the sorcerer-king's "No man shall kill me" prophecy that ended when he fought a woman and a hobbit. It's a classic trope in heroic fantasy stories. It will tell things to players that might be contrary to what you wanted to communicate.

[kyoryu]

That's an inference that has been done by pretty much everybody on this thread (at least all those who bothered to talk about it), so it might be wise to at least consider that the way you described the monster's ability was confusing?

You talked about violence twice in your riddle-sounding explanation ("born of violence" / "killed by violence"). That's enough for some/many/most players to ignore "cannot be killed" and focus on the "violence" that is supposedly feeding the creature as the important part, and try to find some way to cut this power source.

"It cannot be killed by [X]" is usually a signal that the heroes are supposed to find something that is not [X], like the sorcerer-king's "No man shall kill me" prophecy that ended when he fought a woman and a hobbit. It's a classic trope in heroic fantasy stories. It will tell things to players that might be contrary to what you wanted to communicate.

If a large percentage of people that are told about this scenario come to the same conclusion, then you have two choices, realistically:

1) Assume that your hints and presentation were such that coming to that conclusion is a reasonable thing that might be done by a good proportion of people, and consider how you might present things in another way to avoid that.

2) Assume that everyone else is crazy and bad.

I suggest that the first option may lead to learning and ultimately better gaming - and in fact, better success in many areas of life. If you reject the first option, then I really don't know what help can be given.

[Talakeal]

That's an inference that has been done by pretty much everybody on this thread (at least all those who bothered to talk about it), so it might be wise to at least consider that the way you described the monster's ability was confusing?

You talked about violence twice in your riddle-sounding explanation ("born of violence" / "killed by violence"). That's enough for some/many/most players to ignore "cannot be killed" and focus on the "violence" that is supposedly feeding the creature as the important part, and try to find some way to cut this power source.

"It cannot be killed by [X]" is usually a signal that the heroes are supposed to find something that is not [X], like the sorcerer-king's "No man shall kill me" prophecy that ended when he fought a woman and a hobbit. It's a classic trope in heroic fantasy stories. It will tell things to players that might be contrary to what you wanted to communicate.

I only used the word violence once, to provide context. They asked how it can be killed, and I said that as it was born of violence it can never be killed by it.

Personally, if I asked a question like that and I thought the DM was asking a riddle, I would ask the DM why the heck they are riddling instead of providing me the information they asked for, and if I thought the DM was telling me I needed to kill something without violence, I would brainstorm with the rest of the party trying to come up with "non-violent kills" rather than just ignore the plan and flail about randomly.

Also, one of the things she tried was killing the enemy with the magic weapon it was guarding, which doesn't really line up with either interpretation.

But then again, it is the newest and least experienced player in the group, so I should probably take that into consideration.

If a large percentage of people that are told about this scenario come to the same conclusion, then you have two choices, realistically:

1) Assume that your hints and presentation were such that coming to that conclusion is a reasonable thing that might be done by a good proportion of people, and consider how you might present things in another way to avoid that.

2) Assume that everyone else is crazy and bad.

I suggest that the first option may lead to learning and ultimately better gaming - and in fact, better success in many areas of life. If you reject the first option, then I really don't know what help can be given.

A third option is that people are framing their responses retroactively after the solution is already known.

For example, most riddles seem obvious once you already know the answer. I ran a campaign about five years ago that did have a riddle in it (What grows taller when you take the head off?) and the players were unable to come up with a solution, and once I told them the answer (a pillow) they insisted it was a trick question. I took to asking other people that riddle and I noticed something, those who were unable to solve it agreed it was a trick question, those who did solve it found it to be a perfectly fair and reasonable riddle.

Likewise, I imagine those posters who like me/my gaming style are more likely to say they would have agreed with my interpretation and those who dislike me / my gaming style are more likely to say they agree with the player. This isn't intentional, but it is impossible to say how you would read something once the correct interpretation is already known (which is why one of the first rules of writing is to have someone else read it.)

[Kardwill]

I only used the word violence once, to provide context. They asked how it can be killed, and I said that as it was born of violence it can never be killed by it.

I was convinced you said "born of violence" and "killed by violence" earlier, but sure, I probably remember wrong (our memory is a tricky tool, one of the reasons why I always insist about repeating the hints as much as possible). So let's sum it up in the simplest way possible.

"How can we kill the Monster?
- It's born of violence and can never be killed by it"

If that's the way it went, then you gave a confusing answer.
They asked how to kill it, not whether they could kill it or not. When you answer "it can never be killed by violence" to this particular question, it's perfectly reasonable to understand "but you can look for another way that doesn't involve violence", and go into problem-solving mode. The question was "how", and the qualifier "by it" sounds like the real answer.
Had you simply said "It's born of violence and can never be killed", the "can never be killed" would have been an absolute, without any confusion possible. There wouldn't have been a qualifier after that to confuse the issue.

Your hint was not a bad thing. It has a nice musicality, sounds like a prophecy, which is cool in a fantasy game for mood purpose. I give ambiguous hints all the time. But I'm aware the players will interpret them their own way, and I'm ready to follow them down this path, even change my story if the solution they chose sounds fun. If I want them to interpret it in one specific way, then I'll clarify, repeat the hints or descriptions, ask for their intentions when they do something weird, so I'm sure they're on the same page as me...
"Err, you fireball him? You DO remember he cannot be killed, right? Are you sure?"
"You jump? Into the 30 meters deep snake pit? You sure?"
"Hide under the ferns? You left the forest 15 minutes ago, remember? But there's a corn field nearby, if you want a similar hiding place"

(Oh, and I understand what you're saying about people letting their expectations cloud their view of a problem, but nevertheless, "Every person who disagrees with me does it only because they don't want to understand" sounds excessively defensive. I understand that we're kinda ganging up on you here, and it's probably really unpleasant to defend everything you did in front of a self-appointed, arrogant jury of your peers, but it sounds kinda bad nevetheless.)

[Talakeal]

I was convinced you said "born of violence" and "killed by violence" earlier, but sure, I probably remember wrong (our memory is a tricky tool, one of the reasons why I always insist about repeating the hints as much as possible). So let's sum it up in the simplest way possible.

"How can we kill the Monster?
- It's born of violence and can never be killed by it"

If that's the way it went, then you gave a confusing answer.
They asked how to kill it, not whether they could kill it or not. When you answer "it can never be killed by violence" to this particular question, it's perfectly reasonable to understand "but you can look for another way that doesn't involve violence", and go into problem-solving mode. The question was "how", and the qualifier "by it" sounds like the real answer.
Had you simply said "It's born of violence and can never be killed", the "can never be killed" would have been an absolute, without any confusion possible. There wouldn't have been a qualifier after that to confuse the issue.

Your hint was not a bad thing. It has a nice musicality, sounds like a prophecy, which is cool in a fantasy game for mood purpose. I give ambiguous hints all the time. But I'm aware the players will interpret them their own way, and I'm ready to follow them down this path, change my story if the solution they chose sounds fun. If I want them to interpret it in one specific way, then I'll clarify, repeat the hints, ask for their intentions when they do something weird, so I'm sure we're on the same page...
"Err, you fireball him? You remember he cannot be killed, right? Are you sure?"

(Oh, and I understand what you're saying about people letting their expectations cloud their view of a problem, but nevertheless, "Every person who disagrees with me does it only because they don't want to understand" sounds excessively defensive. I understand that we're kinda ganging up on you here, and it's probably really unpleasant to defend everything you did in front of a self-appointed, arrogant jury of your peers, but it sounds kinda bad nevetheless.)

I agree with you. Leavin of the last few words would have been clearer in hindsight.

I am not saying people who disagree with doesnt want to understand, although in hindsight it does look a little paranoid / arrogant. What I mean is that people are not very good at figuring out how they came to their concousions and often look for evidence to justify their current views rather than truly going in blind, which can make assessing their actions of a situation in hindsigt somewhat innacurat, and online people are more likely to take a contrary view than agree with you, just like in face to face conversations people are more likely to be polite and agreeable than take a contrary position.

[Kane0]

A third option is that people are framing their responses retroactively after the solution is already known.

Do you think I was?

[Kardwill]

I agree with you. Leavin of the last few words would have been clearer in hindsight.

That's the thing with hindsight : It's always 20/20, and we always have enough time to dissect each sentence to find out if it's the best one. But we know that finding the right words in the middle of the game, while under the gaze of 3-6 players, with the stress of DMing on your shoulders and with no time to think things out, is... trickier ^^

Small mistakes happen all the time. Everything makes perfect sense in our head but the words we choose fail to pass that information. That's the reason we have to keep in mind that maybe, the guys on the other side of the GM screen are not being obtuse but somehow managed to completely misunderstand everything we said. And the reason we havee to try and clarify when the players are doing stuff that sounds stupid, because it may not be that stupid in the light of the information they heard.

Communication is HARD. Especially in a game where you're talking and making things up all the time :p

[Talakeal]

Do you think I was?

I have no idea why any specific person said what they said.

[Kane0]

I have no idea why any specific person said what they said.

Your tact is noted, please allow me to rephrase: Do you believe I was (and are) posting in bad faith?

[Talakeal]

Your tact is noted, please allow me to rephrase: Do you believe I was (and are) posting in bad faith?

I don't think you (or 99% of posters) are acting in bad faith.

I was merely observing that it is very hard for people to genuinly act as if they are coming into a situation blind rather than looking to justify their current opinions, so I cant use forum oppinion to figure out what percentage of people would actually be fooled by my "riddle".

[Kane0]

I don't think you (or 99% of posters) are acting in bad faith.

I was merely observing that it is very hard for people to genuinly act as if they are coming into a situation blind rather than looking to justify their current opinions, so I cant use forum oppinion to figure out what percentage of people would actually be fooled by my "riddle".

Yes, we're dealing with the human condition so absolute metrics aren't possible. But we can get relative ones.

I can't give you anything concrete, only what I feel based on my experience here. What I feel is that you have a tendency to avoid straight answers just in general. This is not in itself a problem, just something to be aware of if true. Especially so if you're planning curveballs for your players in game.

I can't speak for other posters but I'm not here attack or place blame on you nor anyone in your group. I'm just interested in getting to the bottom of it all.

[zinycor]

Ok, lets establish a parallel... Let's say that the monster was a fire elemental instead of what it was, and the party faced a similar situation, like facing it in an ineffective way, retreating and finding out more about the monster, then I as the GM tell you (as a member of the party) : "It is made of fire, it can never be killed by it".

How would you proceed after that?

[Great Dragon]

Although a non-violent sleep spell would have been the optimal way to handle the encounter all things onsidere, but the party didn't have an enchanter or the inclination to hire one or buy scrolls of sleep.

Depends on how many HP the foe had when cast.
I suppose that subdue damage still counts for lowing it to a likely threshold and then casting Sleep could work though...

I can't speak for other posters but I'm not here attack or place blame on you nor anyone in your group.

I'm also doing what I can to give what I believe to be suggestions for avoiding a given problem in future games. If someone points out that I've made an error, I own that, and do my best to learn from it and remember the next time it come up.

[Talakeal]

Ok, lets establish a parallel... Let's say that the monster was a fire elemental instead of what it was, and the party faced a similar situation, like facing it in an ineffective way, retreating and finding out more about the monster, then I as the GM tell you (as a member of the party) : "It is made of fire, it can never be killed by it".

How would you proceed after that?

That's actually a very good point. To me it feels different because I can think of plenty of ways to kill something without fire but, depending on how much you want to play word games, I can't think of any ways to kill something without violence. Still, a very good point.

I wouldn't approach it unless I had a reliable method of killing it that didn't involve fire, or a plan that didn't involve killing it at all. If I didn't know what would kill it, I would find out first rather than just throwing poop at the wall and seeing what sticks, but then again, new player.

[NNescio]

That's actually a very good point. To me it feels different because I can think of plenty of ways to kill something without fire but, depending on how much you want to play word games, I can't think of any ways to kill something without violence. Still, a very good point.

Convince the creature to let you euthanize it? A lot of classic CRPGs allow this or a similar option.

Or talk it to death/out of existence on cosmologies (e.g. Sigil) that permit it?

[Talakeal]

Convince the creature to let you euthanize it? A lot of classic CRPGs allow this or a similar option.

Or talk it to death/out of existence on cosmologies (e.g. Sigil) that permit it?

If there were someone in the party who had a legendary skill with words this might have been a possibility, but there wasn't, and I don't know why a nearly mindless avatar of violence would be an easier to talk into suicide than a giant or bandit chief or any other villain.

[Kardwill]

If there were someone in the party who had a legendary skill with words this might have been a possibility, but there wasn't, and I don't know why a nearly mindless avatar of violence would be an easier to talk into suicide than a giant or bandit chief or any other villain.

Because IIRC it's a remnant, a ghost, a pale, weak, shallow shard of what was once a god. It may remember vaguely what it once was, and never will be again. Other, fully sentient villains have a life to live out, goals, relations with others. This creature sounds like it has nothing but instinct and regrets.

Talking a ghost out of existence, or finding out what chains it to this world, sounds like a classic way of solving a supernatural menace, "fairy tale" style. And a prime opportunity for some sweet roleplay, or for a social combat in games that allow them like Fate, or for both :)

With a bandit, you can find out what he desires. With a beast, you can find out what it is afraid of. With a machine, you can look for its parameters and patterns of action. With a ghost, you can find out what chains it to its pityful nonexistence.

[Talakeal]

Because IIRC it's a remnant, a ghost, a pale, weak, shallow shard of what was once a god. It may remember vaguely what it once was, and never will be again. Other, fully sentient villains have a life to live out, goals, relations with others. This creature sounds like it has nothing but instinct and regrets.

Talking a ghost out of existence, or finding out what chains it to this world, sounds like a classic way of solving a supernatural menace, "fairy tale" style. And a prime opportunity for some sweet roleplay, or for a social combat in games that allow them like Fate, or for both :)

With a bandit, you can find out what he desires. With a beast, you can find out what it is afraid of. With a machine, you can look for its parameters and patterns of action. With a ghost, you can find out what chains it to its pityful nonexistence.

I could kind of see it, but nobody in the party had the diplomacy score to hit the DC I would have set unless they made an amazing case, and my players don't like to describe their dialogue beyond "I roll diplomacy".

Not that that sort of thing isn't cool, it just has to fit the character. I remember one game I played in years ago when there was an undead horde invading and I needed to infiltrate their base, so I did it under the guide of a diplomatic mission. I came back to find that my bard side-kick, who had an incredible diplomacy score she never used, had negotiated a cease fire and gotten the liches commanding the army to agree to all sorts of terms and concessions that they had no reason to.

[King of Nowhere]

Convince the creature to let you euthanize it? A lot of classic CRPGs allow this or a similar option.

Or talk it to death/out of existence on cosmologies (e.g. Sigil) that permit it?

oh, yeah. i can see that as a nice option, because it's a trope I've seen somewhere. And it doesn't mattter how realistically viable it is, it's a trope of the genre and so my brain instinctively thinks it is a possible solution. And I can't even name where I've seen it done, except mass effect.
Although giving peace to a ghost is a more common thing. I can remember two different instances, in ice wind dale and baldurs gate, where you have to allow a child ghost to rest by finding their teddy bear for them. So, by that reasoning, hugging this avatar... why not?

Perhaps, talekeal, you have different ideas of what is "logical" because you have been exposed to different tropes and so you have different expectations?

And I don't say that those things should have worked. In the end, there were enough possibilities, it was an optional encounter, and the players quickly enough jumped to the conclusion that you would shoot down any solution just out of spite.
Although I think giving peace to the avatar of violence by hugging it would have made for a far better story than just tieing it up

[kyoryu]

Again, when presented with things that are not what you believed, or planned, or had in mind, or understood, I think there's two things you can do: Reject the idea or information or whatever out of hand, or consider it.

I think you'd be more successful in a number of areas if you defaulted to "consider it" instead of what seems to be defaulting to "reject it".

I would suggest that this would be a good place to start. If you read this and your immediate response is to tell me how I'm wrong, then you're rejecting the idea. And yet, whether or not you agree with me, there is a reason I am saying this.