Legendary Actions and More of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories

[Talakeal]

Wow. This is just so wrong, tactically speaking.

Yes, tasty brains, please respond to this sudden darkness by clustering up so that we Illithids can AoE SoL you… how many Illithids were present? That many times; more, if we have additional hidden allies.

I challenge the Playground to tell me a story of adventurers who were… what level is your party? Pre- Mind Blank, at least… who were not immune to mind effects, allowed a gaggle of Illithids a free round to mind blast them *after they cluster together*, and lived to tell the tale. Anyone? Because I've got plenty of stories of TPKs from just fighting a few Illithids, without giving them a free round.

From the PoV of the PCs, the Illithids are not "innocent bystanders". They are Evil telepathic brain-eating slavers. It is all but incomprehensible that this being who just turned out the lights just snuck into the chamber with the elder brain without the Illithids being aware of it. Which means that it is in cahoots with the Illithids. So, the Illithids ally just turned out the lights. If the Illithids didn't instajib their ally for this offense, it means that it was all part of their evil plan.

This isn't a case of "not knowing what's going on", this is a case of what's going on being very strongly telegraphed - in a way that's deceptive, and anti-Bob.

So, yeah, absolutely, for any sane adventurers, the only chance to walk out of there alive is to nuke the room. I'm guessing Bob is best at that.

The tactical error was the rest of the party* not making a light source.

* Or, well, of whoever was capable**, either a) the one who went first, or b) the one least capable of contributing in the current situation.
** And, if that isn't "everybody", you can count that as a second tactical error.

There are a whole lot of incorrect assumptions in that paragraph. If you really want to go down the rabbit hole and discuss them line by line we can.

[zinycor]

There are a whole lot of incorrect assumptions in that paragraph. If you really want to go down the rabbit hole and discuss them line by line we can.

Illithids aren't evil at your game?

Edit: Also, what was the relationship between the idiotic rogue and the Illithids?, and how much of it was set before the rogue player left the table?

[Kardwill]

There are a whole lot of incorrect assumptions in that paragraph.

Illithids are an Iconic D&D monster, that have a pretty scary reputation for many players. Maybe you're playing them in another way, but "the evil, brain-eating, mind wiping, mastermind manipulators are trying to ambush us" will be the default assumption when most players hear about that situation.
The guys are not "just any creature", they are a trope. There's a reason "Stranger Things" choose to name one of its big bads after them : They're famous in D&D culture. And the image that sticks with them is "pretty much the most evil, untrustworthy guy you can imagine"

Role reversal and trope breaking have their use in a good story, but they are tricky, and can go haywire if a player is trigger happy.

[kyoryu]

There are a whole lot of incorrect assumptions in that paragraph. If you really want to go down the rabbit hole and discuss them line by line we can.

I may have a handle on what's going on. Maybe.

So, in your mind, the illithids don't really want to fight, and the reunion with the NPC was a cool thing and a cool way of making a cool scene rather than just having them talk, right?

So the question you have is "why would Bob attack when everybody just wanted to talk?" Which is a fair question.

The problem is, that you knew that they only wanted to talk. Maybe some of the other players did becuase they've figured out your style. But it's not clear from the events that the NPCs just wanted to talk.

If I'm a PC in your game, here's what I'm thinking:

"Illithids are scary! Man, I'm glad we got out of that one!" (And I'm sure you played up the tension of that because, well, why wouldn't you? A bargaining with illithids should be intense!)

"Wait... our lights went out... and an NPC with an obvious grudge is talking to us! Ack! It's a setup!"

Or at least, I'm considering that maybe it was a setup. I don't know. And that's the problem. I don't know if this is a setup that's going to lead to an attack or not. And if it is, then I'm hosed. The longer I stall, the better their position gets. My only chance is to take quick, decisive action, or gamble that they aren't going to attack.

Because the players don't know what you know. They only know what's happening in the scene. They don't know the motives, or your future plans, or what you "expect" them to do.

Now, i'm not saying that what Bob did was "right", or that I would have done the same thing. But it's not unreasonable.

Also, I'd recommend not trying to predict what the players will do. You obviously had this scene all planned out, and the big issue is that Bob didn't play his part. You tried to amp up the threat to force him down one path - and he still wouldn't go. I'd really recommend presenting questions to your players that they can react to however they want, rather than planning out scenes that you expect to be played to in a certain way.

[zinycor]

Also, I'd recommend not trying to predict what the players will do. You obviously had this scene all planned out, and the big issue is that Bob didn't play his part. You tried to amp up the threat to force him down one path - and he still wouldn't go. I'd really recommend presenting questions to your players that they can react to however they want, rather than planning out scenes that you expect to be played to in a certain way.

That's an awesome advice

[King of Nowhere]

There are a whole lot of incorrect assumptions in that paragraph. If you really want to go down the rabbit hole and discuss them line by line we can.

Maybe?

we don't know your campaign world in detail. you seem to homebrew a lot, so you likely put a different spin on lots of stuff. which is good. keeps things fresh. i've done my share of it myself. if i were to ask advice concerning orcs or goblins in my campaign, it wouldn't work because they are nothing like their common portrayal. I would have to add this, and describe them.
so maybe in your campaign illithids are not evil, or they don't eat brains, or don't have mind blast, or some other stuff.

But we cannot know any of this stuff, so we have to rely on the default. and by default, illithids are BAD. they want to enslave you and eat your brain, not necessarily in that order. they're NEVER your allies. They're NEVER friendly. and if they're being friendly, it's probably a ruse. hence, when an obvious ambush is set up, assuming that it is anything but an ambush is foolish.
And yes, bunching up against enemies heavy on area effect is a dumb strategy. much better to spread out. even bettr to kill as many as you can before they can cast their effect.
And every single person answering this thread is telling you the same, so you can't just discount our points.

Now, as you said, it's perfectly possible that your campaign works different.
If so, you either give us the complete picture, or you can't expect us to give answers based on anything but our limited knowledge.
I rarely discuss my campaign on this forum because I know it would require walls of text to explain the differences with a normal world setup. When I do, I do write walls of text, and it's better to have 2 relevant answers than to have 20 useless answers that miss the point because they don't know the world. If you want useful advice (well, besides "boot Bob") you could try the same.

Also, I'd recommend not trying to predict what the players will do. You obviously had this scene all planned out, and the big issue is that Bob didn't play his part. You tried to amp up the threat to force him down one path - and he still wouldn't go. I'd really recommend presenting questions to your players that they can react to however they want, rather than planning out scenes that you expect to be played to in a certain way.

+1 on that.
while there can be times when one decision is clearly better than another (like, allying with the good king and use his support against the big bad instead of fighting the king and the big bad at the same time), when there is actual conflict involved the party should get a choice and not be penalized for it. aside from the obvious good guys, i let the party pick their own allies.
And aside from meeting other obvious good guys, whenever there is conflict involved, my first plan is that there will be a fight. there probably won't be, my players have figured out that not making enemies you can avoid works better in the long run. but still, it's the first thing to consider, because it may happen and you can't let your campaign unravel because of it.
And if I don't want an encounter to entail a fight, I certainly don't make any dumb ambiguously threatening move towards the party.

EDIT: as a comparison, when I decided that one of my major villains would offer to ally with the party against an even greater villain, i took the following steps
- i explained clearly, out of character, that whether they wanted to do it or not was their choice. and that they would face no penalties whatever they did chooose (although of course this alliance would make things a bit easier, but mostly in that the villain was a spymaster and he would get them information, not in actual combat mechanics)
- the villain was unthreatening the whole time. he didn't bring a kill squad of bodyguards, he only had a wizard with a hair-trigger contingency to pop him to safety
- the villain, a masterful manipulator, was open and honest the whole time (as a master manipulator, he knew his best chance to stay alive was to not cross the party)
- the villain promised, if the party accepted, to reveal them important secrets about himself and his organization that would put the villain at a disadvantage in case he tried to backstab them. after the party accepted, he immediately complied
- when somebody betrayed the party and the party suspected the villain, the villain was completely helpful, and he immediately agreed to be interrogated through magical means to clear himself.

This is how you go befriending a group of professional killers who have every reason to suspect you. anything suspicious, and the party would have smoked him. which may have weakened them against the big bad, but they couldn't take the risk of being betrayed and getting weakened even more.
as for the villain, he knew that even if he had managed to defeat the party through his manipulation of their allies, the big bad would have destroied him afterwards. so it was in his best interest to try everything to be friend with the party.
As a result, he was still one of the most rich and powerful people in the world after the campaign ended.

this only worked because the party worked hard to establish a reputation for trustworthyness, though. the villain sided with them because he knew he could truust their word on an alliance, while the big bad would have probably eliminated him, as a potential rival, once he outlived his usefulness.
i doubt a villain could take such a big leap of faith in a party with Bob in it.

[zinycor]

Another thing, pickpocketing a light source, and then turning it off, against a group who largely can't see in the darkness, would likely be considered an offensive and aggressive action by most people and will be answered by some form of violence in a DnD setting.

Now, maybe the other people at your table have a better grasp on your particular tactics or can read you better in order to realize this isn't to be taken as an aggressive move, but those are very particular cases and having someone not being able to catch that should be expected.

This doesn't mean that Bob isn't a problem player, he is. Just not based on the behaviour you have described on this particular instance.

Assuming I didnt panic, I would assess the situation. If he wanted to rob me or interrogate me or something, I would go along with him, I would only fight if it looked like he was intent on kidnapping, raping, or torturing, or simply luring me someplace private to kill me.

Also, keep in mind that in a gaming situation, the PCs are entering into the enemies lair armed and uninvited. If I was breaking into someone's house and an unknown party put a knife to my throat, my first thought would be that it was the houses' owner acting in self defense, and would do everything I could to convince him I wasn't a threat..

That seems to be very particular to your play style, seems to me that most PCs would kill the homeowner and ask questions/apologize after the fact.

[kyoryu]

That seems to be very particular to your play style, seems to me that most PCs would kill the homeowner and ask questions/apologize after the fact.

Also, it's not a good analogy.

Illithids are not "average homeowners". Whether or not the PCs "broke in", they had just been negotiating/talking with the illithids, when all of a sudden things escalated.

Here's a better analogy. You've gone over to a gang's hangout to negotiate to get your cat back. After you do, you're ready to go, when somebody says they have a problem with you. The gang then circles around you. What do you do? You're heavily armed.

Still not a perfect analogy, but closer.

[Quarian Rex]

i doubt a villain could take such a big leap of faith in a party with Bob in it.

I might think that you would be wrong about that. Everything you described sounds like something that Bob would be completely on board for. Your mastermind did everything he could to show that he was trustworthy and didn't make any sudden moves. This is exactly how you should act around someone who is violent and paranoid, as most of Bob's characters seem to be. Remember, Bob didn't just start blasting in the middle of the Mind Flayer negotiations, he only opened up when an obvious ambush was initiated and his paranoia was proven to be justified.

Spoiler: An aside

Show

Talakeal, I am not really looking for a response from you on this part, and this isn't in any way a judgement on your character, just accumulative perceptions of these threads from an outside observer to other outside observers who may or may not have seen these before.

Spoiler

Show

Also, keep in mind that this thread is not our first rodeo with Talakeal. Over the years of similar threads certain... patterns emerge. Talakeal does something in game and his players object to it, so he details what he did and how they reacted to it, expressing dismay and confusion as to how it could have been. Almost every reply points out how the players response seems justified in that situation. Over the next page or twenty Talakeal gradually adds more detail to the situation, generally narrowing blame for the situation to Bob and usually altering the initially presented scenario to, in many ways, be the opposite of what was initially presented. Even after said update responses are almost all telling Talakeal that the players still seem justified (with a smattering of 'Get rid of Bob'). All the while Talakeal keeps repeating 'I'm baffled' despite the 'baffling' points being spelled out in exquisite detail (seriously, some of our posters are extremely effective communicators).

Despite these stories being completely onse-sided (to my knowledge Bob or any of the other players have never chirped up in one to provide an alternate perspective), while Bob's actions usually don't come off as right, they never seem to be wrong considering the situation (and history) either. The more of these threads that I read the more I tend to think that Talakeal's perception of Bob may be a ways off from what Bob actually is.

This actually brings to mind a pet training show I saw years ago (maybe it was Ceasar, I don't remember) where a woman was losing her mind because her cat seemed to hate her. It recently would walk up to the litter box and take a dump on the floor right next to it while staring at her, every damn time. She would scream that it was pooping out of spite and obviously hated her. Turns out that the cat was declawed (the last knuckle on each paw is severed) and she recently changed it's kitty litter to something that was sharply stabbing into the knuckle stumps. The cat was just trying to avoid pain while pooping. She changed back the kitty litter and the cat was fine, all that 'spite' just seemed to evaporate. I think that a lot of what Talakeal has described over the years has been like rubbing sharp kitty litter into the knuckle stumps of his players. While some of them may have gone somewhat numb to it Bob still has raw nerves, and Talakeal just sees spite.

I think there is a fundamental disconnect in their playstyles. Talakeal seems to have a very narrative focus (cool thing will happen at cool times) without regard for the consequence or implications of such narratively shoehorned moments, and Bob's characters react with violence to those consequences and implications that Talakeal doesn't see. Just look at the latest situation as presented in this thread. The thief ambushed the party and took two rounds of actions (1st/ stealth to party -> pickpocket lantern, 2nd/ destroy/douse lantern -> retreat from party) to put them at combat disadvantage in the middle of a room full of Mind Flayers (including an Elder Brain). Even ignoring the handwave required for the thief to take action without party response (aggravating as that would be), you still have the thief setting up an ambush in a room full of literal mind readers. This means that the Mind Flayers would have known what the thief was planning and what the party's, and specifically Bob's, response would be to such an aggressive act (this is one situation where metagaming knowledge of Bob's characters paranoia is appropriate and even objectively required). This also implied the Elder Brain's explicit permission for such an ambush. Bob saw the situation as presented and took 'appropriate' action. Talakeal just saw it as a 'cool thing at a cool time' and didn't see any of the implications, and seems to be actively opposed to doing so (see the continued response of 'I'm baffled' every time someone tries to explain the other side, no matter the detail or eloquence).

The irksome thing about these threads isn't necessarily the situations themselves, we have all had missteps on either side of the table and they can often lead to happy-little-accidents (like the thief who hates monologues getting killed before he can monologue), but Talakeal seems to have taken an almost ideological stance against Bob, and appears to deliberately ignore the existence of any perspective that might vaguely legitimize Bob's actions. While some of the other players seem to have learned to start playing the GM instead of playing the game Bob seems to refuse to do so and his characters tend to continually respond violently to perceived glitches-in-the-matrix. Considering that in all of these one-sided accounts Bob's actions are almost universally judged to be justified (if not right) I would suspect that Talakeal's characterization of him as a power-gaming anarchist with delusions of grandeur may be a little off the mark as well (that cat just keeps pooping out of spite!).

They really appear to be playing in each others blind spots. That combined with an apparent reluctance to provide relevant information (which I suspect is translated in game as sacrificing important details in the game world that would inform character choice for the sake of narrative focus) seems to lead to the fusterclucks that we see popping up every other week.

Are there solutions to this problem? Many I think, and they get detailed, clarified, and expounded upon every thread. But, if Talakeal is unwilling to view things from the other side of the DM screen long enough to see that actively destroying the party's only light source when surrounded by potentially hostile and dangerous monsters can be sen as a legitimatly hostile act, I don't know if he can ever break the cycle.

Again, I want to reiterate, this is not a judgement on Talakeal himself, this is just the cumulative observation of many of these threads. Perhaps one day something will be said that will make Talakeal have a come-to-jebus moment but in the meantime it is still a good source of gaming do's and don't's and some interesting DMing advice.

[King of Nowhere]

while Bob's actions usually don't come off as right, they never seem to be wrong considering the situation (and history) either. The more of these threads that I read the more I tend to think that Talakeal's perception of Bob may be a ways off from what Bob actually is.

well, I can recall the situation with the goddess giving direction to the oasis asking in turn that they don't hurt animals, and bob torching the oasis because he hated being told what to do. And I don't remember clearly anything older than that, but I am pretty sure that in many cases bob's actions never came off right in any case.

I agree with your analysis that tal's perspective is skewed, and he seems to have a logic all of his own that doesn't line up much with anyone else's. The last is just the most egregious example of him being unable to consider that people may take different decisions from him.
But bob still comes off as a bad player regardless.

[kyoryu]

well, I can recall the situation with the goddess giving direction to the oasis asking in turn that they don't hurt animals, and bob torching the oasis because he hated being told what to do. And I don't remember clearly anything older than that, but I am pretty sure that in many cases bob's actions never came off right in any case.

It's hard to justify that as anything but an act of Chaotic-Douchebag. That doesn't mean all of his actions can be summed up as that (and, let's be clear, we don't know if there is missing context there either)

I agree with your analysis that tal's perspective is skewed, and he seems to have a logic all of his own that doesn't line up much with anyone else's. The last is just the most egregious example of him being unable to consider that people may take different decisions from him.
But bob still comes off as a bad player regardless.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

I think the biggest issue is that Talakeal doesn't fully grasp that other people are making decisions based upon a) only some of the information that Talakeal has and b) information from other sources. I think that this factors into a number of the problems he's described over time (and is why I've recommended erring on the side of giving more information).

[Quarian Rex]

well, I can recall the situation with the goddess giving direction to the oasis asking in turn that they don't hurt animals, and bob torching the oasis because he hated being told what to do.

Then why would you inflict divine intervention on a god-hater? Perhaps they should stick to working through their clergy and not try to manipulate someone who isn't a worshiper?

I'm not trying to say that Bob's actions are right (especially as they tend to be presented) but a player responding with burn-it-with-fire as a knee-jerk response to divine intervention (the traditional blunt instrument of Railroaders everywhere) is something that I can grok (if not necessarily agree with). A lot of these anecdotes are missing a whole lot of context, but with each thread we wind up getting a little more. It just seems like characterizing Bob as the villain might be missing the truth of the matter by a wide margin.

[zinycor]

I might think that you would be wrong about that. Everything you described sounds like something that Bob would be completely on board for. Your mastermind did everything he could to show that he was trustworthy and didn't make any sudden moves. This is exactly how you should act around someone who is violent and paranoid, as most of Bob's characters seem to be. Remember, Bob didn't just start blasting in the middle of the Mind Flayer negotiations, he only opened up when an obvious ambush was initiated and his paranoia was proven to be justified.

Spoiler: An aside

Show

Talakeal, I am not really looking for a response from you on this part, and this isn't in any way a judgement on your character, just accumulative perceptions of these threads from an outside observer to other outside observers who may or may not have seen these before.

Spoiler

Show

Also, keep in mind that this thread is not our first rodeo with Talakeal. Over the years of similar threads certain... patterns emerge. Talakeal does something in game and his players object to it, so he details what he did and how they reacted to it, expressing dismay and confusion as to how it could have been. Almost every reply points out how the players response seems justified in that situation. Over the next page or twenty Talakeal gradually adds more detail to the situation, generally narrowing blame for the situation to Bob and usually altering the initially presented scenario to, in many ways, be the opposite of what was initially presented. Even after said update responses are almost all telling Talakeal that the players still seem justified (with a smattering of 'Get rid of Bob'). All the while Talakeal keeps repeating 'I'm baffled' despite the 'baffling' points being spelled out in exquisite detail (seriously, some of our posters are extremely effective communicators).

Despite these stories being completely onse-sided (to my knowledge Bob or any of the other players have never chirped up in one to provide an alternate perspective), while Bob's actions usually don't come off as right, they never seem to be wrong considering the situation (and history) either. The more of these threads that I read the more I tend to think that Talakeal's perception of Bob may be a ways off from what Bob actually is.

This actually brings to mind a pet training show I saw years ago (maybe it was Ceasar, I don't remember) where a woman was losing her mind because her cat seemed to hate her. It recently would walk up to the litter box and take a dump on the floor right next to it while staring at her, every damn time. She would scream that it was pooping out of spite and obviously hated her. Turns out that the cat was declawed (the last knuckle on each paw is severed) and she recently changed it's kitty litter to something that was sharply stabbing into the knuckle stumps. The cat was just trying to avoid pain while pooping. She changed back the kitty litter and the cat was fine, all that 'spite' just seemed to evaporate. I think that a lot of what Talakeal has described over the years has been like rubbing sharp kitty litter into the knuckle stumps of his players. While some of them may have gone somewhat numb to it Bob still has raw nerves, and Talakeal just sees spite.

I think there is a fundamental disconnect in their playstyles. Talakeal seems to have a very narrative focus (cool thing will happen at cool times) without regard for the consequence or implications of such narratively shoehorned moments, and Bob's characters react with violence to those consequences and implications that Talakeal doesn't see. Just look at the latest situation as presented in this thread. The thief ambushed the party and took two rounds of actions (1st/ stealth to party -> pickpocket lantern, 2nd/ destroy/douse lantern -> retreat from party) to put them at combat disadvantage in the middle of a room full of Mind Flayers (including an Elder Brain). Even ignoring the handwave required for the thief to take action without party response (aggravating as that would be), you still have the thief setting up an ambush in a room full of literal mind readers. This means that the Mind Flayers would have known what the thief was planning and what the party's, and specifically Bob's, response would be to such an aggressive act (this is one situation where metagaming knowledge of Bob's characters paranoia is appropriate and even objectively required). This also implied the Elder Brain's explicit permission for such an ambush. Bob saw the situation as presented and took 'appropriate' action. Talakeal just saw it as a 'cool thing at a cool time' and didn't see any of the implications, and seems to be actively opposed to doing so (see the continued response of 'I'm baffled' every time someone tries to explain the other side, no matter the detail or eloquence).

The irksome thing about these threads isn't necessarily the situations themselves, we have all had missteps on either side of the table and they can often lead to happy-little-accidents (like the thief who hates monologues getting killed before he can monologue), but Talakeal seems to have taken an almost ideological stance against Bob, and appears to deliberately ignore the existence of any perspective that might vaguely legitimize Bob's actions. While some of the other players seem to have learned to start playing the GM instead of playing the game Bob seems to refuse to do so and his characters tend to continually respond violently to perceived glitches-in-the-matrix. Considering that in all of these one-sided accounts Bob's actions are almost universally judged to be justified (if not right) I would suspect that Talakeal's characterization of him as a power-gaming anarchist with delusions of grandeur may be a little off the mark as well (that cat just keeps pooping out of spite!).

They really appear to be playing in each others blind spots. That combined with an apparent reluctance to provide relevant information (which I suspect is translated in game as sacrificing important details in the game world that would inform character choice for the sake of narrative focus) seems to lead to the fusterclucks that we see popping up every other week.

Are there solutions to this problem? Many I think, and they get detailed, clarified, and expounded upon every thread. But, if Talakeal is unwilling to view things from the other side of the DM screen long enough to see that actively destroying the party's only light source when surrounded by potentially hostile and dangerous monsters can be sen as a legitimatly hostile act, I don't know if he can ever break the cycle.

Again, I want to reiterate, this is not a judgement on Talakeal himself, this is just the cumulative observation of many of these threads. Perhaps one day something will be said that will make Talakeal have a come-to-jebus moment but in the meantime it is still a good source of gaming do's and don't's and some interesting DMing advice.

That whole spoiler is amazing, Really hits the nail in the head and explains why Talakeal hasn't kicked Bob out of the game.

well, I can recall the situation with the goddess giving direction to the oasis asking in turn that they don't hurt animals, and bob torching the oasis because he hated being told what to do. And I don't remember clearly anything older than that, but I am pretty sure that in many cases bob's actions never came off right in any case.

Bob did make the right choice there, he was aided by another player (I believe Tal named that one Dave), therefore I believed they both cooperated and had a good time. Therefore, the right thing to do.

Don't confuse doing evil and/or Chaotic acts with making the wrong moves.

[kyoryu]

...

Spoiler: An aside

Show

Talakeal, I am not really looking for a response from you on this part, and this isn't in any way a judgement on your character, just accumulative perceptions of these threads from an outside observer to other outside observers who may or may not have seen these before.

Spoiler

Show

Also, keep in mind that this thread is not our first rodeo with Talakeal. Over the years of similar threads certain... patterns emerge. Talakeal does something in game and his players object to it, so he details what he did and how they reacted to it, expressing dismay and confusion as to how it could have been. Almost every reply points out how the players response seems justified in that situation. Over the next page or twenty Talakeal gradually adds more detail to the situation, generally narrowing blame for the situation to Bob and usually altering the initially presented scenario to, in many ways, be the opposite of what was initially presented. Even after said update responses are almost all telling Talakeal that the players still seem justified (with a smattering of 'Get rid of Bob'). All the while Talakeal keeps repeating 'I'm baffled' despite the 'baffling' points being spelled out in exquisite detail (seriously, some of our posters are extremely effective communicators).

Despite these stories being completely onse-sided (to my knowledge Bob or any of the other players have never chirped up in one to provide an alternate perspective), while Bob's actions usually don't come off as right, they never seem to be wrong considering the situation (and history) either. The more of these threads that I read the more I tend to think that Talakeal's perception of Bob may be a ways off from what Bob actually is.

This actually brings to mind a pet training show I saw years ago (maybe it was Ceasar, I don't remember) where a woman was losing her mind because her cat seemed to hate her. It recently would walk up to the litter box and take a dump on the floor right next to it while staring at her, every damn time. She would scream that it was pooping out of spite and obviously hated her. Turns out that the cat was declawed (the last knuckle on each paw is severed) and she recently changed it's kitty litter to something that was sharply stabbing into the knuckle stumps. The cat was just trying to avoid pain while pooping. She changed back the kitty litter and the cat was fine, all that 'spite' just seemed to evaporate. I think that a lot of what Talakeal has described over the years has been like rubbing sharp kitty litter into the knuckle stumps of his players. While some of them may have gone somewhat numb to it Bob still has raw nerves, and Talakeal just sees spite.

I think there is a fundamental disconnect in their playstyles. Talakeal seems to have a very narrative focus (cool thing will happen at cool times) without regard for the consequence or implications of such narratively shoehorned moments, and Bob's characters react with violence to those consequences and implications that Talakeal doesn't see. Just look at the latest situation as presented in this thread. The thief ambushed the party and took two rounds of actions (1st/ stealth to party -> pickpocket lantern, 2nd/ destroy/douse lantern -> retreat from party) to put them at combat disadvantage in the middle of a room full of Mind Flayers (including an Elder Brain). Even ignoring the handwave required for the thief to take action without party response (aggravating as that would be), you still have the thief setting up an ambush in a room full of literal mind readers. This means that the Mind Flayers would have known what the thief was planning and what the party's, and specifically Bob's, response would be to such an aggressive act (this is one situation where metagaming knowledge of Bob's characters paranoia is appropriate and even objectively required). This also implied the Elder Brain's explicit permission for such an ambush. Bob saw the situation as presented and took 'appropriate' action. Talakeal just saw it as a 'cool thing at a cool time' and didn't see any of the implications, and seems to be actively opposed to doing so (see the continued response of 'I'm baffled' every time someone tries to explain the other side, no matter the detail or eloquence).

The irksome thing about these threads isn't necessarily the situations themselves, we have all had missteps on either side of the table and they can often lead to happy-little-accidents (like the thief who hates monologues getting killed before he can monologue), but Talakeal seems to have taken an almost ideological stance against Bob, and appears to deliberately ignore the existence of any perspective that might vaguely legitimize Bob's actions. While some of the other players seem to have learned to start playing the GM instead of playing the game Bob seems to refuse to do so and his characters tend to continually respond violently to perceived glitches-in-the-matrix. Considering that in all of these one-sided accounts Bob's actions are almost universally judged to be justified (if not right) I would suspect that Talakeal's characterization of him as a power-gaming anarchist with delusions of grandeur may be a little off the mark as well (that cat just keeps pooping out of spite!).

They really appear to be playing in each others blind spots. That combined with an apparent reluctance to provide relevant information (which I suspect is translated in game as sacrificing important details in the game world that would inform character choice for the sake of narrative focus) seems to lead to the fusterclucks that we see popping up every other week.

Are there solutions to this problem? Many I think, and they get detailed, clarified, and expounded upon every thread. But, if Talakeal is unwilling to view things from the other side of the DM screen long enough to see that actively destroying the party's only light source when surrounded by potentially hostile and dangerous monsters can be sen as a legitimatly hostile act, I don't know if he can ever break the cycle.

Again, I want to reiterate, this is not a judgement on Talakeal himself, this is just the cumulative observation of many of these threads. Perhaps one day something will be said that will make Talakeal have a come-to-jebus moment but in the meantime it is still a good source of gaming do's and don't's and some interesting DMing advice.

I think there's a lot of truth here.

One possible suggestion might just to have the "cool moments" be explicit, to get on the same path. I think Talakeal has used the term "cutscene" before in describing things, so why not make them literal cutscenes, and just tell the party explicitly "This is just a cutscene, I'll let you know when it's over and regular play begins?" Or some other signifier. Like to use a video game trope, mention a camera movement to begin the cutscene, and then say something like "the camera returns back to the characters" when it's over.

[Talakeal]

Ok, so to further clarify:

I am not running D&D. I am running a homebrewed d20 fantasy game that has been greatly simplified to teach new players the game, and takes place in the same setting as my own Heart of Darkness system.

Most assumptions that apply to mid-level D&D still apply, but two of the things that have been removed from this game are racial alignments and racial spell like abilities. The illithids in question have a more alien mindset than evil, and these particular creatures are trying to ally with humans because their leader has received a vision of the future and determined that both humans and illithids will go extinct if they cannot learn to coexist. They are not slavers, in truth they are actually kind of the opposite of that, as they are operating hidden within a slave-owning human society and many of their cultists are escaped slaves whom they are hiding (these would be the "innocent bystanders" that Bob went out of his way to hit, although I don't believe I ever used the world innocent."

The players know that there are no alignments in this world, but I don't think any of them would even suspect mind flayers as having a built in AoE as half of them have never played D&D, and the other half haven't played in many years and were never the type to memorize the monster manual.

And further, this wasn't really a big deal. I don't care that Bob fire-balled everyone. I didn't foresee it, but its obvious that was my blind spot (although I am not sure if any of my players thought the same thing). Honestly, if we were going by "Talakeal wants a cool thing to happen," it probably would have been more in character for me to have a third faction attacking both groups now that they have allied based on my storytelling style, in which case attacking both sides is even dumber.

What bugged me was that afterward he bitched about how the encounter was too hard and they almost died, and when I said it was balanced on paper but I can't account for the party's tactics, he then insisted that "If someone moves to get a tactical advantage over you, even a purely defensive one obviously meant as a deterrent, the appropriate action, from both a moral and tactical perspective, is always to attack immediately."

The fundamental disconnect is that Bob wants a consequence free world where he can live out violent power fantasies and everything is always a CR appropriate encounter, where I am trying to create a living world which contains plenty of challenging (but ultimately fair) adventures.

[zinycor]

"If someone moves to get a tactical advantage over you, even a purely defensive one obviously meant as a deterrent, the appropriate action, from both a moral and tactical perspective, is always to attack immediately."

And that seems like a fair stance, I would only have a problems with the "always", but as a rule thumb... It is quite a nice one.

And as Have been stated, the measure taken by the rogue, was far form a "a purely defensive one obviously meant as a deterrent", even if you meant it as such.

[Talakeal]

And that seems like a fair stance, I would only have a problems with the "always", but as a rule thumb... It is quite a nice one.

And as Have been stated, the measure taken by the rogue, was far form a "a purely defensive one obviously meant as a deterrent", even if you meant it as such.

His specific example was a mage casting a protection spell.

[OldTrees1]

What bugged me was that afterward he bitched about how the encounter was too hard and they almost died, and when I said it was balanced on paper but I can't account for the party's tactics, he then insisted that "If someone moves to get a tactical advantage over you, even a purely defensive one obviously meant as a deterrent, the appropriate action, from both a moral and tactical perspective, is always to attack immediately."

The fundamental disconnect is that Bob wants a consequence free world where he can live out violent power fantasies and everything is always a CR appropriate encounter, where I am trying to create a living world which contains plenty of challenging (but ultimately fair) adventures.

Bob's tactical analysis was less wrong than yours. (Still wrong, but less so.)

Yes, blinding the party was a obvious offensive hostile move (even when both the NPC and the DM are oblivious to it). Blinding the party lowered their defenses and limited their defensive options against the Illithids (which you recently described as enemies in their home/lair). That is an offensive debuffing action. In response, the party should have fought back as a means of creating a means of escape. I would have suggested Stinking Cloud + Portable Hole + Dimension Door myself.

[zinycor]

His specific example was a mage casting a protection spell.

Such as? I don't believe I have seen a friendly NPC mage cast a protection spell without it being obvious why... If out of the blue an NPC casted a protection spell, I would at least be suspicious.

[King of Nowhere]

Bob did make the right choice there, he was aided by another player (I believe Tal named that one Dave), therefore I believed they both cooperated and had a good time. Therefore, the right thing to do.

Don't confuse doing evil and/or Chaotic acts with making the wrong moves.

as a rule of thumb
-pissing off someone who was willing to help you and may be willing to help you again later and may not be willing to help you anymore if you piss them off (you can also say pissing off an ally for short) is a bad idea
-making more enemies than you need to make is a bad idea
-directly insulting a god for no good reason is a bad idea.

Tactically wise, making people angry for no gain is a bad idea. I think Bob in my campaign world would soon find a dozen high level npcs from at least three competing countries and religions using scry-and-die on him and smoking him on the spot. Not because I am a killed or control-freak DM but because that's exactly how my world would react if someone made too many enemies and no allies among powerful people.

Ok, so to further clarify:

I am not running D&D. I am running a homebrewed d20 fantasy game that has been greatly simplified to teach new players the game, and takes place in the same setting as my own Heart of Darkness system.

Most assumptions that apply to mid-level D&D still apply, but two of the things that have been removed from this game are racial alignments and racial spell like abilities. The illithids in question have a more alien mindset than evil, and these particular creatures are trying to ally with humans because their leader has received a vision of the future and determined that both humans and illithids will go extinct if they cannot learn to coexist. They are not slavers, in truth they are actually kind of the opposite of that, as they are operating hidden within a slave-owning human society and many of their cultists are escaped slaves whom they are hiding (these would be the "innocent bystanders" that Bob went out of his way to hit, although I don't believe I ever used the world innocent."

The players know that there are no alignments in this world, but I don't think any of them would even suspect mind flayers as having a built in AoE as half of them have never played D&D, and the other half haven't played in many years and were never the type to memorize the monster manual.

See, it's amazing how much context can make a difference. this changes everything yet again...
this brings us back to the "shoot him he has a wallet" accident. unfortunate, avoidable, but the kind of thing that can reasonably happen because someone misinterprets something as a direct threat.

As for bob's statements, I agree that he's wrong in stating that the encounter was too ddifficult because it was made more difficult by his team using bad strategy. and he's the first offender, as he should have a light spell. plus, it was fully reasonable to have a difficult eno****er in the circumstances. if those illithids were even remotely smart, they should have brought some power to contain bob in case he went murderhobo.

But I have to mostly agree with him on the preemptive strike. And I still can't understand how you cannot see it: increasing your defence is an aggressive move. because it puts you in a better position to strike. Because it implies that you are expecting that you will fight. because you may be unable to safely initiate a combat without it. Because sometimes peace is ensured by threat of mutual assured destruction, and if improving your defences makes you able to survive retaliation, it actually puts your opponent at your mercy.
a bit of judgment should be used to evaluate each situation, but as a rule of thumb, if a wizard iss peacefully talking with me and he suddenly casts a protection spell - especially a protection spell that would be very useful against me - it would at least make me very worried. and it may elicit a fight-or-flight response.

[zinycor]

as a rule of thumb
-pissing off someone who was willing to help you and may be willing to help you again later and may not be willing to help you anymore if you piss them off (you can also say pissing off an ally for short) is a bad idea
-making more enemies than you need to make is a bad idea
-directly insulting a god for no good reason is a bad idea.

Tactically wise, making people angry for no gain is a bad idea. I think Bob in my campaign world would soon find a dozen high level npcs from at least three competing countries and religions using scry-and-die on him and smoking him on the spot. Not because I am a killed or control-freak DM but because that's exactly how my world would react if someone made too many enemies and no allies among powerful people.

I don't get it... As an adventurer you are always making enemies, and pissing off powerful entities. Only that these are evil. But pissing off good entities would somehow be worse?

Again, in my opinion is a good idea cause there was another player that helped him, so he had consent from at least one other player and disrespecting a good God, holier than thou, is always fun and a cause to laugh at the table.
Or at least that has been my experience.

Edit: Do the evil Gods at your table scry-and-die good aligned PCs at your game?

[Talakeal]

So I talked it over with the rest of the party. They all agreed that it felt like an ambush to them, but they also agreed that Bob going off and nuking everything without first establishing targets and restoring the light source was tactically inept.

Bob's tactical analysis was less wrong than yours. (Still wrong, but less so.)

Out of curiosity, what is "my tactical analysis?".

All I said was that it in general it is usually a bad idea to start attacking before you have confirmed the existence of a threat, and in that particular situation they would have been better served by going on the defensive and restoring the light, and nothing anyone has said has managed to convince me otherwise.

As the DM, I am omniscient, and I can say for a fact that he was wrong in his assumption that it was a prelude to an ambush by the illithids. I can't say how things would have gone had he chosen otherwise, but they did end up having to drink a lot of healing potions, lost several potential allies and a lot of information, and came very close to a TPK, but they did survive in the end (down several potential allies), so whether or not he made the right call or not is up to you I guess, but it didn't seem go over very well for them in hindsight, although I suppose they did survive, so it could have gone even worse.

Whether or not he was "justified" in attacking the illithids, well,

I think the biggest issue is that Talakeal doesn't fully grasp that other people are making decisions based upon a) only some of the information that Talakeal has and b) information from other sources. I think that this factors into a number of the problems he's described over time (and is why I've recommended erring on the side of giving more information).

In this particular case I was in the middle of giving the players more information when Bob actively interrupted me because he didn't want to lose out on a surprise round.

One possible suggestion might just to have the "cool moments" be explicit, to get on the same path. I think Talakeal has used the term "cutscene" before in describing things, so why not make them literal cutscenes, and just tell the party explicitly "This is just a cutscene, I'll let you know when it's over and regular play begins?" Or some other signifier. Like to use a video game trope, mention a camera movement to begin the cutscene, and then say something like "the camera returns back to the characters" when it's over.

The problem is that a feel like I am caught between Scylla and Charydbis. I get accused of railroading if I don't give the PCs enough rope to hand themselves with, and of killer DMing if I do.

And as Have been stated, the measure taken by the rogue, was far form a "a purely defensive one obviously meant as a deterrent", even if you meant it as such.

The rogue thought of it as such, as he never dreamed that Bob would start AOEing the crowd to get at him. Whether it objectively was or not is another matter, the PCs clearly didn't think so.

Such as? I don't believe I have seen a friendly NPC mage cast a protection spell without it being obvious why... If out of the blue an NPC casted a protection spell, I would at least be suspicious.

In that particular example, he was feeling threatened by the PCs and taking precautions in case they decided to attack him.

[zinycor]

So I talked it over with the rest of the party. They all agreed that it felt like an ambush to them, but they also agreed that Bob going off and nuking everything without first establishing targets and restoring the light source was tactically inept.

Couldn't any of the others get a light source?

[Talakeal]

Couldn't any of the others get a light source?

Yes, but by the time they had a chance to act Bob had already aggroed the entire room and a chaotic melee had broken out in the dark, and whoever was holding the light would have become a target.

[OldTrees1]

Out of curiosity, what is "my tactical analysis?".

You predicted the party would try to talk when they were blinded by an enslaved assassin and surrounded by enemy Illithids, in the presence of the Elder Brain, in the Illithid lair. Even for your Illithids that would have been a grave tactical error in most cases. Your tactical analysis only works if you are playing both sides. When you DMed, the party surprised you (aka your tactical analysis misjudged the situation by being unaware of how hostile the rogue was acting). It just goes to show a DM is only omniscient when they know how their words / actions are perceived by the players. If you were a Player, you would be looking at a high chance of self inflicted TPK (aka your tactical analysis misjudged the situation because usually that situation implied an ambush).

But, you just want to be "baffled" rather than learn why others read the blinding as an offensive debuff that would herald an ambush.

It is almost as if you have a pattern of signalling the opposite of what you mean to communicate.

PS: Do note I did call his tactical analysis wrong too. Stinking Cloud would have restoring parity by blinding the darkvision creatures and acted as area control to buy time for an escape. Depending on the part composition, the escape might have only taken 1 round.

[zinycor]

Yes, but by the time they had a chance to act Bob had already aggroed the entire room and a chaotic melee had broken out in the dark, and whoever was holding the light would have become a target.

So... They wanted Bob to willingly become the target they weren't willing to be?

[Talakeal]

So... They wanted Bob to willingly become the target they weren't willing to be?

Say what?

You predicted the party would try to talk when they were blinded by an enslaved assassin and surrounded by enemy Illithids, in the presence of the Elder Brain, in the Illithid lair. Even for your Illithids that would have been a grave tactical error in most cases. Your tactical analysis only works if you are playing both sides. When you DMed, the party surprised you (aka your tactical analysis misjudged the situation by being unaware of how hostile the rogue was acting). It just goes to show a DM is only omniscient when they know how their words / actions are perceived by the players. If you were a Player, you would be looking at a high chance of self inflicted TPK (aka your tactical analysis misjudged the situation because usually that situation implied an ambush).

But, you just want to be "baffled" rather than learn why others read the blinding as an offensive debuff that would herald an ambush.

It is almost as if you have a pattern of signalling the opposite of what you mean to communicate.

PS: Do note I did call his tactical analysis wrong too. Stinking Cloud would have restoring parity by blinding the darkvision creatures and acted as area control to buy time for an escape.

Tactical analysis =/= predicting player actions.

In this case I expected them to talk because I said they guy was talking, what I didn't see coming was cutting the guy off and nuking everybody before identifying hostiles.

But again, that's ok, players surprise DMs, its part of the game and not a bad thing. What I don't like is them wanting me to both give them the freedom to mess up and take responsibility for their failures when they do.

[OldTrees1]

Tactical analysis =/= predicting player actions.

The PCs are part of the tactical analysis. The Illithids and the Rogue were predicting the PCs to have certain reactions. You counted on some of those reactions. And those tactical analyses were wrong.

In this case I expected them to talk because I said they guy was talking, what I didn't see coming was cutting the guy off and nuking everybody before identifying hostiles.

Yup, you expected them to talk to the person that was attacking them. And neither you nor the rogue realized the rogue was attacking the party. Sounds like a mistake Bob would make.

But again, that's ok, players surprise DMs, its part of the game and not a bad thing. What I don't like is them wanting me to both give them the freedom to mess up and take responsibility for their failures when they do.

In this case you failed to communicate. You did not mean to have the Rogue attack the party. But you had the Rogue attack the party. You got upset that the Players did not understand what you failed to communicate. You have previous claimed to want to learn how to communicate better. So we all have told you what caused the inverted signal. You can either learn from that wisdom in spite of Bob also saying it. OR you can remain defensively baffled to spite yourself merely because Bob was also describing the root of the miscommunication.

Pride goeth before the fall.

[NichG]

So I talked it over with the rest of the party. They all agreed that it felt like an ambush to them, but they also agreed that Bob going off and nuking everything without first establishing targets and restoring the light source was tactically inept.

Out of curiosity, what is "my tactical analysis?".

All I said was that it in general it is usually a bad idea to start attacking before you have confirmed the existence of a threat, and in that particular situation they would have been better served by going on the defensive and restoring the light, and nothing anyone has said has managed to convince me otherwise.

I'm going to consider this without the Elder Brain, because (at least going by the Lords of Madness statblock) honestly it pretty much could have controlled the entire situation by fiat if it wanted and stopped all of the aggression (e.g. dropping Prismatic Sphere, using Mass Suggestion to say 'wait!' etc). Similarly, based on that stat block it pretty much could TPK the group alone. So instead lets say just 4 illithids and the rogue.

And yes, your stat blocks may be different for all of this but as you point out: you as the DM are omniscient, the players aren't. Therefore, unless you've specifically and extensively communicated otherwise in advance, this is what someone could reasonably imagine would happen. In fact, if we just assumed that these were generic classed adversaries rather than illithids, much of this would still hold (four sorcerors spamming Web and Stinking Cloud looks very similar).

Spoiler: Defensive strategy

Show

Surprise round: Lights go out

Round 1, Party: Party member 1 casts Light. Party member 2 moves to adjacent to them, uses full defense. Party member 3 moves to adjacent to them, uses - I dunno - Protection from Evil? Party member 4 moves to adjacent to them, readies an action to melee attack anyone who comes into range.

Round 1, Illithids: Move to various positions. 'Everyone, please make four Will saves, DC 17'. A failure means that character is stunned for at least 3 rounds, average of 7.5. Odds are that at least half the party is stunned after this.

Round 1, Elder Brain: Trolling, it casts Maze on the party member with the light source. Nope, no Elder brain.

Round 1, Rogue: Moves adjacent to a stunned PC and sneak attacks.

Round 2, Party: ???

Round 2, Illithids: Repeat Mind Blast, or approach stunned targets and individually Planeshift with them to the Plane of Air to eat their brains/strand them without the chance of other members of the party intervening. If Planeshift is off the table, the rogue flanks and helps the illithids attack with their tentacles to try to get a 2-round Extract.

Spoiler: Offensive Strategy

Show

Round 1, Party: Fireball the universe, scatter formation, someone other than Bob light a torch, the other two focus fire on one illithid and try to take it down. Illithids don't have great saves, and only 44hp, so a CL 8 Fireball has a good chance of doing about half of their health to each of them. I'd say odds are, the Illithids are down to 3 after this, but the rogue is fine.

Round 1, Illithids: Mind Blast is now only going to hit individuals, so rather than forcing everyone to make 4 saves, they can make 3 of 4 PCs make 1 save. So lets say, if it was a 50% chance to be stunned following 4 saves, we're looking at either one PC stunned or all of them up. Lets say that one was stunned, and we're down to 3 vs 3. The rogue can still sneak attack the stunned target, or they can go after the torch again (lets say they do that, it's actually more effective potentially if the party really needs light).

Round 2, Party: Another Fireball would take out the remaining Illithids if they're in a cluster, but we can't assume that they would be or that Bob isn't the one stunned (focus fire on Bob with the Mind Blasts would actually be a reasonable strategy from the illithids). But the three standing party members can take out at least one more illithid together.

... and so on.

Basically, the defensive strategy leads to losing at least one additional PC and effectively doubling the health of the enemy due to losing the chance to fireball the enemy when they're clustered and in known position.

This may be something where you actually need to go through the scenario as a player with someone like Quertus DM-ing to understand and actually have it play out. You tend to talk about strategy and tactics in a zoomed out fashion by analogy to real life, media, and what you would personally do in a mugging, or things like that. Those situations are not the same thing.

The problem is that a feel like I am caught between Scylla and Charydbis. I get accused of railroading if I don't give the PCs enough rope to hand themselves with, and of killer DMing if I do.

It's sort of like you're telling someone 'come to my house, I can make turkey or fish', they're saying 'I'm a vegetarian, I can't eat either of those', and your response is 'wow, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't with this guy! Lets just give him turkey this time and see what happens. Oh, that didn't work? Next will be fish. No matter what I make, this guy complains!'

As everyone has been telling you, there is a fundamental incompatibility between what Bob wants, and what you are willing to prepare. You have enough information to recognize this. When you still insist on trying to force feed meat to the vegetarian, you don't get to receive pity for how difficult they're being, just like they don't get to receive pity if they keep asking you to prepare meals when they know you're going to make something they can't eat.

[Talakeal]

The PCs are part of the tactical analysis. The Illithids and the Rogue were predicting the PCs to have certain reactions. You counted on some of those reactions. And those tactical analyses were wrong.

I disagree. Reading how someone else is likely to react can be a part of a tactical analysis, but it is not by itself a tactical analysis.

In this case you failed to communicate. You did not mean to have the Rogue attack the party. But you had the Rogue attack the party. You got upset that the Players did not understand what you failed to communicate. You have previous claimed to want to learn how to communicate better. So we all have told you what caused the inverted signal. You can either learn from that wisdom in spite of Bob also saying it. OR you can remain defensively baffled to spite yourself merely because Bob was also describing the root of the miscommunication.

First off, who said I was upset? I said I was baffled by Bob's statement that someone looking to a get a tactical advantage over someone during negotiations always justified an attack from both a moral and tactical perspective.*

Second off, out of character I told them that he was talking to them, and then Bob said he wanted to retroactively attack first. How is that in any way a failure to communicate?


*: This was an example I used: "You are threatening to shoot a man if he doesn't cooperate. His minion sneaks up behind you and puts a knife to your throat, and then the man say's 'Are you sure you don't want to put your gun away and talk this over before someone does something they will regret?" In my mind, pulling the trigger is both tactically and ethically un-justified, but Bob full heatedly disagreed, and went further to say that if the guy had instead ducked behind cover it will still be a justified attack.

I'm going to consider this without the Elder Brain, because (at least going by the Lords of Madness statblock) honestly it pretty much could have controlled the entire situation by fiat if it wanted and stopped all of the aggression (e.g. dropping Prismatic Sphere, using Mass Suggestion to say 'wait!' etc). Similarly, based on that stat block it pretty much could TPK the group alone. So instead lets say just 4 illithids and the rogue.

And yes, your stat blocks may be different for all of this but as you point out: you as the DM are omniscient, the players aren't. Therefore, unless you've specifically and extensively communicated otherwise in advance, this is what someone could reasonably imagine would happen. In fact, if we just assumed that these were generic classed adversaries rather than illithids, much of this would still hold (four sorcerors spamming Web and Stinking Cloud looks very similar).

All of those assume AoEs. The enemy in this battle had absolutely no form of form of AoE attack; if they had I would have suggested a different tactic.

Also, a single fireball does not in any way come close to halving the HP of every enemy in this situation.

It's sort of like you're telling someone 'come to my house, I can make turkey or fish', they're saying 'I'm a vegetarian, I can't eat either of those', and your response is 'wow, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't with this guy! Lets just give him turkey this time and see what happens. Oh, that didn't work? Next will be fish. No matter what I make, this guy complains!'

As everyone has been telling you, there is a fundamental incompatibility between what Bob wants, and what you are willing to prepare. You have enough information to recognize this. When you still insist on trying to force feed meat to the vegetarian, you don't get to receive pity for how difficult they're being, just like they don't get to receive pity if they keep asking you to prepare meals when they know you're going to make something they can't eat.

The thing is, fish and turkey are mutually exclusive; difficulty and freedom are a gradient of things that must be used in moderation.

I do agree that Bob wants a lot more freedom and a lot less difficulty than the rest of the group, but I legitimately don't know how to run a game otherwise without constantly fudging, ret-conning, and dropping idiot balls to make sure Bob always wins, which are also things Bob has objected to.

Maybe some DMs can handle it, but I can't figure out how as Bobs desires seem mutually exclusive. So, I guess, to use your analogy, its like going to a butcher shop and demanding him to make great salad, maybe someone can do it, but I just don't have a clue.