Page 1 of 1
Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:17 pm
by wolfsgrin
yes. and the more it happens the better. let 'em cry over red herrings. when their assumption is wrong and poo hits the fan, it usually shuts 'em up pretty fast. as in your situation, i magine, once the hunter turned his sights on the characters, they complained about something totally different.
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:43 am
by verdilak
wolfsgrin wrote:yes. and the more it happens the better. let 'em cry over red herrings. when their assumption is wrong and poo hits the fan, it usually shuts 'em up pretty fast. as in your situation, i magine, once the hunter turned his sights on the characters, they complained about something totally different.
Yup, gotta love it.
BTW, where at in Joplin are you?
Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:10 pm
by Noon
Well in the end he did save them from the skaven.
Basically they were calling it an orcestrated event. For example, I bet the witch hunter couldn't die during the fight with the skaven. The players were to an extent, describing it as rigged, and they were right.
But yeah, they were wrong on the flavour of it.
Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 4:38 am
by KillWatch
except that you put it in their face. I'm guessing it was more than one player vs some guy who is a) taking their source of information and b) engaging in combat without knowing the context. Sure the players shouldn't attack the witchhunter but the battle was going to happen anyway because they were not going to let this lone guy take someone right in front them
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 12:17 am
by KillWatch
Never Never EVER use the words Players and Suppose To together again. What you think is obvious or at least reasonable is either going to be misconstruded or blown completely out of the water.
The witchhunter didn't bother to explain himself either. He barged in and began slaying. why would the PCs have any other reason to believe this guy wasn't A) completely off his rocker, B) evil, C) at the very least providing a kink in whatever their plans may be, D) Provide a definate + in the eyes of the noble if they were to put him down, E) A real threat to them as he was mowing everyone else down and was going to try to do the same thing to them
Posted: Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:22 pm
by KillWatch
but that would have changed the second he started in on the royal court
wow he just tore that rat man a new one awesome. Oh wait now now he's taking on the guards. He does know that ratman is dead right? Berserker? He's not stopping we should probably either leave everyone to their grisley fate or try to be heroes and put this guy down. Where are you going?
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:22 am
by KillWatch
wait why were the players attacking guards?
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 6:30 am
by Noon
Macgraith wrote:Noon wrote:Well in the end he did save them from the skaven.
Basically they were calling it an orcestrated event. For example, I bet the witch hunter couldn't die during the fight with the skaven. The players were to an extent, describing it as rigged, and they were right.
But yeah, they were wrong on the flavour of it.
He was very killable (I rolled up stats for him, and he was outnumbered), and I actually planned for him to not fight them at all. They started a fight, and by the time the witch hunter got there I just said to myself "Well in the fray of battle I guess he just decides they're all heretics and attacks". He was originally going to arrest the noble, kill the skaven, and then leave the players without the knowledge that they went to get, so that the players could attempt to break him out of prison before his execution (I figured breaking a rich noble out of jail would be a good idea, because the players expressed a wish to start a crime organization, and what crime organization doesn't want a rich noble in debt to them?).
Not unkillable and not orchestrated.
I won my bet, didn't I? He was unkillable in the fight against the skaven. It'll be a sign of class to just acknowledge this, cause I'm not interested in beratting you over it, it's just a point to base discussion on.
And what I base on it is that players can detect this - they detected that that fight was going to go exactly how you decided it. So...if that fight does, perhaps every fight will go the way you want it?
That's why players grabbed, slightly incorrectly, onto the accusation of deus ex. It's a coded way of saying 'We know your rigging something and were not buying into it'.
What? Isn't that useful to you to know, somehow? I'm not beratting your, I'm giving you behind the scenes info - I'm sure you can find a use.
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:00 pm
by Mouser13
Though I have no problem with players being mistake on what is going on just be carefully. I played in a D&D game where made a dm made monster with the soul purpose to look like and other mobs to make pc run. Or not use their ability to the fullest don't use fireball because the real mob is immune.
Taking the Gloves, I say yes if you think they will still have fun, because all is ok if you are having fun and they are too.