This was a rough session. We had a schedule issue the previous week that led to an excellent fun session with a guest DM. There was XP awarded, so it became canon. But not everyone made it! Because of unavoidable circumstances, one player couldn't be there.
The result was that I decided one player was facing the dragon alone, waiting for the others to return whenever.
So we have one gnome level 5 fighter against a CR 6 white dragon. The dragon was already mid-air, mouth open, last session. The player decided to Dodge as their action, unaware of the fact that a Dodge affects direct attack actions, not a breath weapon. Dragon breathes cold. PC immediately goes down.
But the player is a tinker. A recent invention is an 'auto-cleric' that restores HP when reduced to 0. He's back up. He survives another 2 rounds.
The entire time, I'm rolling to see if the magical portal opens. I decide 4 or higher on a d6, the portal opens and the rest of the party comes back. Round 1: 2. Round 2: 3. Round 3: 3.
The gnome goes down. The auto-cleric invention breaks. No help in sight.
Then the player tells me that when the invention breaks, there's area damage. He takes 2 Death Saving Throw failures (more on that later).
The party returns. The monk attempts to distract the dragon. Doesn't work. The sorcerer starts casting fireballs. The cleric goes towards the gnome, but the gnome has higher initiative and fails a third Death Saving Throw.
Silence. Tension.
The cleric casts Healing Word, hoping something will take. Nothing. I rule there's no point to rolling for the healing.
Play continues. We get another round in and the gnome's player is asking 'Why was that explosion 2 Death Saving Throw failures?'
Great question. I go through my logic. When Unconscious, all attacks are Critical hits. When at 0 HP, all Critical Hits are 2 Death Saving Throw failures.
We start talking about it. What attack? It was an explosion. We read. We discuss. Rewind. The cleric had cast Healing Word. The gnome should get some HP back. He gets them and comes back into action.
This was all pretty important to me at the time. There's no mechanic in 5e that is better at making you pay attention then the Death Saving Throw. I knew the cleric could cast Revivify, so it wasn't as big a deal to me, but I don't want a player to feel bad about their death. Of course, 1-on-1 with a dragon is a pretty epic death...
I wasn't paying attention to the sorcerer's action that was currently taking place. Missed recording the damage roll, had to have the player repeat it. I didn't like that either. Felt like I was ignoring 2 players now.
At this point, we have another play issue. We've been going back and forth on alignment with another player, our monk, who is a Tabaxi. She and I have been discussing what is 'natural' as a racial impulse and what is 'moral' as a personal alignment issue. Alignment is too simple for some of these things, but in short, she wanted her personal decisions to reflect her character's beliefs, so she took a moral stand.
As a DM, I feel like the most important job is to acknowledge the choices players make. RP choices and combat decisions. The way that the monk's player wanted to handle the situation was different from the others. Everyone else decided to kill the dragon. It was important that everyone got to share their opinions though.
We moved on, exploring the Ice Palace. The rest of the adventure was less emotional and impactful, except for the scene where the cleric Dispels the magical petrification of a person found within. That person turned out to be an evil cleric that was in opposition to his deity. The result was that they were very distrusting of the party and their intentions. Combat ensued. They fought and killed the cleric. This was a second kill on an incapacitated enemy.
I feel like that's going to come into play later.
To me, alignment can be a useful way to determine what is expected of a player. When a PC goes away from alignment repeatedly, there might be further issues, including alignment shifts. That can be a slippery slope.
Finally, we had an additional fight with the spirit of a displacer beast the party had formerly killed. This monster mash-up had some fun possibilities. It's still out there for the future.
I have to say, as a session, it's hard to come on so strong at the beginning and maintain momentum and energy throughout. I was drained at the end. By the last fight, I was dragging. But it was a great session.
UPDATE 6/22/2017
Thanks to a helpful comment and interesting story (in the comments section of this post), I've been thinking more about this post.
There were some other things that came out of this game.
1. It's important to know what you want players to roll for skill checks, etc. and be ready to be questioned.
2. If a player questions your choice, listen and be ready to justify or adapt.
3. Not every call makes everyone happy and a game should resolve with everyone voicing their opinions. This is not an attack on you as a DM/whichever. Players need to know how the game will be run.
4. Not everything you do is wrong. Someone can question you, you can discuss things and, as DM, go with your original decision. This won't necessarily satisfy your players but it may be the way that you think the game should go.
5. Think about 'why' you want things to go the way you prefer. Does it affect the speed of the game? Will it have an impact on how players take turns? Is the situation improved/worsened? Does it make the game more or less fun? This is a good idea to do during play and during any conversations that result after.
There was a conversation about the use of the Investigation skill instead of Perception. I read the rules and decided that my call was wrong. I'm OK with that and want to make the game fair/fun for everyone.
Also, in retrospect on that same fair/fun issue, why did I feel there would be 'consequences' for a Good PC killing an Evil opponent? Because they were immobilized and defeated already. Does that make the game more fair or fun? Probably not. Does it make my players want to come back? I doubt it. Consider my opinion changed.
Lastly, I don't want every fight to end with the villain standing still while PCs attack them. Villains need to move around. All opponents need to move around. There are a lot of possibilities in combat, so I want to have some different things take place. It may not be as satisfying for players to have a villain run away but it makes sense for the villain to fear destruction.
The result was that I decided one player was facing the dragon alone, waiting for the others to return whenever.
So we have one gnome level 5 fighter against a CR 6 white dragon. The dragon was already mid-air, mouth open, last session. The player decided to Dodge as their action, unaware of the fact that a Dodge affects direct attack actions, not a breath weapon. Dragon breathes cold. PC immediately goes down.
But the player is a tinker. A recent invention is an 'auto-cleric' that restores HP when reduced to 0. He's back up. He survives another 2 rounds.
The entire time, I'm rolling to see if the magical portal opens. I decide 4 or higher on a d6, the portal opens and the rest of the party comes back. Round 1: 2. Round 2: 3. Round 3: 3.
The gnome goes down. The auto-cleric invention breaks. No help in sight.
Then the player tells me that when the invention breaks, there's area damage. He takes 2 Death Saving Throw failures (more on that later).
The party returns. The monk attempts to distract the dragon. Doesn't work. The sorcerer starts casting fireballs. The cleric goes towards the gnome, but the gnome has higher initiative and fails a third Death Saving Throw.
Silence. Tension.
The cleric casts Healing Word, hoping something will take. Nothing. I rule there's no point to rolling for the healing.
Play continues. We get another round in and the gnome's player is asking 'Why was that explosion 2 Death Saving Throw failures?'
Great question. I go through my logic. When Unconscious, all attacks are Critical hits. When at 0 HP, all Critical Hits are 2 Death Saving Throw failures.
We start talking about it. What attack? It was an explosion. We read. We discuss. Rewind. The cleric had cast Healing Word. The gnome should get some HP back. He gets them and comes back into action.
This was all pretty important to me at the time. There's no mechanic in 5e that is better at making you pay attention then the Death Saving Throw. I knew the cleric could cast Revivify, so it wasn't as big a deal to me, but I don't want a player to feel bad about their death. Of course, 1-on-1 with a dragon is a pretty epic death...
I wasn't paying attention to the sorcerer's action that was currently taking place. Missed recording the damage roll, had to have the player repeat it. I didn't like that either. Felt like I was ignoring 2 players now.
At this point, we have another play issue. We've been going back and forth on alignment with another player, our monk, who is a Tabaxi. She and I have been discussing what is 'natural' as a racial impulse and what is 'moral' as a personal alignment issue. Alignment is too simple for some of these things, but in short, she wanted her personal decisions to reflect her character's beliefs, so she took a moral stand.
As a DM, I feel like the most important job is to acknowledge the choices players make. RP choices and combat decisions. The way that the monk's player wanted to handle the situation was different from the others. Everyone else decided to kill the dragon. It was important that everyone got to share their opinions though.
We moved on, exploring the Ice Palace. The rest of the adventure was less emotional and impactful, except for the scene where the cleric Dispels the magical petrification of a person found within. That person turned out to be an evil cleric that was in opposition to his deity. The result was that they were very distrusting of the party and their intentions. Combat ensued. They fought and killed the cleric. This was a second kill on an incapacitated enemy.
I feel like that's going to come into play later.
To me, alignment can be a useful way to determine what is expected of a player. When a PC goes away from alignment repeatedly, there might be further issues, including alignment shifts. That can be a slippery slope.
Finally, we had an additional fight with the spirit of a displacer beast the party had formerly killed. This monster mash-up had some fun possibilities. It's still out there for the future.
I have to say, as a session, it's hard to come on so strong at the beginning and maintain momentum and energy throughout. I was drained at the end. By the last fight, I was dragging. But it was a great session.
UPDATE 6/22/2017
Thanks to a helpful comment and interesting story (in the comments section of this post), I've been thinking more about this post.
There were some other things that came out of this game.
1. It's important to know what you want players to roll for skill checks, etc. and be ready to be questioned.
2. If a player questions your choice, listen and be ready to justify or adapt.
3. Not every call makes everyone happy and a game should resolve with everyone voicing their opinions. This is not an attack on you as a DM/whichever. Players need to know how the game will be run.
4. Not everything you do is wrong. Someone can question you, you can discuss things and, as DM, go with your original decision. This won't necessarily satisfy your players but it may be the way that you think the game should go.
5. Think about 'why' you want things to go the way you prefer. Does it affect the speed of the game? Will it have an impact on how players take turns? Is the situation improved/worsened? Does it make the game more or less fun? This is a good idea to do during play and during any conversations that result after.
There was a conversation about the use of the Investigation skill instead of Perception. I read the rules and decided that my call was wrong. I'm OK with that and want to make the game fair/fun for everyone.
Also, in retrospect on that same fair/fun issue, why did I feel there would be 'consequences' for a Good PC killing an Evil opponent? Because they were immobilized and defeated already. Does that make the game more fair or fun? Probably not. Does it make my players want to come back? I doubt it. Consider my opinion changed.
Lastly, I don't want every fight to end with the villain standing still while PCs attack them. Villains need to move around. All opponents need to move around. There are a lot of possibilities in combat, so I want to have some different things take place. It may not be as satisfying for players to have a villain run away but it makes sense for the villain to fear destruction.
What a crazy session. Three big fights, having to make one of those impossible calls on a PC death situation, retro-actively changing that call. I can't blame you for being wiped by the end!
ReplyDeleteThe death saving throw issue is a tricky one. You always want to say, "Yes and" when you can, and there's a time to stick to the rules and a time not to. That's a tough position you found yourself in -- as a storyteller, it sounds like a great moment. The fighter holds off the dragon for as long as he can, his friends racing to get to him in time, just a little too slow to save him ... that's the stuff that sticks with you. But that's also dependent on the players and the moment, and I think you probably made the right call.
I had a similar play a couple of months back:
My game's Sorcerer PC was the goodly one of our group. The other characters are more selfish, tipping towards evil, having spent more time in our corrupting gothic horror setting. As the moral conscience PC, he had been investigating the murder of a little girl in the town. A lot of the townsfolk were leading a riot that turned rebellion against the Captain of the Guard, because info had leaked to them that he was the girl's killer. The Sorcerer PC had confronted the guard, investigated him, worked with/against him -- and had finally determined that he was innocent and being set up.
But during the rebellion, the PC found his way into the Guard's private chambers, where he finally found irrefutable proof that the Captain had killed the little girl, and the townsfolk were right. Weak already from the battle, he confronted the Captain, trying to convince him to turn himself in. The Captain swung his axe and the Sorcerer PC went down. Then, the Captain kicked the PC (damage, two failed death saving throws for the auto-crit) out the window, resulting in three stories of fall damage (damage, a third failed death saving throw). In one turn, the Captain NPC killed the Sorcerer to cover up the truth of his murder.
It was brutal. You could hear a pin drop around the table when the Captain kicked him out of the window of the tower. I paused the music. I looked around at the players, who I could tell weren't sure if the PC was alive or dead. I could've ruled it as only two death saving throws -- there may have been a small chance that the healer could've found him in time to save him, but it wasn't as certain as your session's situation -- but the kill felt right in that moment, both mechanically and narratively.
I ultimately went the other way. I didn't announce the decision until the Sorcerer's next turn, for maximum effect. My players were stunned. I knew that doubling down and using the death as a major catalyst for the plot to come would be key to making sure the player of the Sorcerer felt valued, and so I've been making sure the impact has been felt ever since.
Thanks for sharing your tale!
DeleteThe best phrase for me was 'making sure the player felt valued'. That's key. I appreciate the fact that you used a character death in a thematic way, that the player had made the call to confront an enemy while weakened and that the consequence honored the decision to fight.
Thanks!
DeleteI feel like your retro-active call to let the healer heal did the same: it valued the decisions and actions of the player. After having watched the livestream of the scene now, I definitely feel like you made a great call against really nebulous rules.
But man, to have to make that call in the middle of a dragon fight while other players are rolling dice, eager to jump into the fray -- that takes some guts!
Also, I love that you're thinking about the context of the PCs' actions. Killing a helpless person, even if they're an enemy -- it takes a certain level of coldness to do that. Asking players to consider their alignment and whether or not decisions is good storytelling.
That last part, thinking about the killing of the incapacitated enemy: I don't know where I want to go with that. I think that I want it to feel slightly out of control, but I'm realizing that the PCs are really pushed to the brink. Even saving people is going against them! I don't want them to feel punished; I think it may be more of a 'divine moment' than a punishment. We shall see!
Delete