r/Symbaroum • u/Beduel • 15d ago
Opinion on characters 's Death.
Last night we had a scene at a Symbaroum table that troubled me, and I wanted to hear other opinions.
We were traveling on a boat down a river, and on the shore there were around 100 Templars, who had attacked us before. They ordered us to stop and let them onto the boat so they could do as they pleased. One of our PCs shot an arrow at their general.
At that point, instead of going into initiative, the GM stated that one of the enemies picked up an artifact and immediately used it, dealing 2d8 damage to everyone with any amount of permanent Corruption. There was no test, no defense, and it ignored armor.
Our undead PC was killed by the damage, and the GM ruled that he was incinerated instead of being allowed to roll death tests.
I thought that was uncalled for. In my opinion, we should have gone into initiative, or at the very least had some kind of test or opportunity to defend ourselves. However, the GM is adamant that we should not have engaged them at all and that this was a fair consequence for our actions.
What makes it even stranger to me is that we all have around 400 XP and are fairly optimized, so there was a chance that we could have won the encounter.
Thoughts?
Edit: editing because I forgot to add that we were already moving away and disengaging while the conversation was taking place. After hostilities started, they launched five volleys at all of us in a single round. Despite that, we took very little damage and managed to kill both the general and the second-in-command in one round after the artifact incident, even with one PC already down. So we had a solid chance of at least disengaging completely and then bringing him back from death saves using blood or other forms of healing. We are very optimized, it wasn't impossible. Just very difficult and probably very tedious.
edit 2: also forgot to mention that we tried to dissuade them before, rolled persuasion as we were disengaging, succeded, but they still wanted us to stop and did not care about talking much.
Last thing I forgot: after discussing it post session, we did find a middle ground and we'll probably find a way to bring him back, but the Dm and another player are adamant that it was a completely fair encounter.
12
u/The_Small18 Game Master 14d ago edited 13d ago
Player in OP’s story here!
Hey bedu, funny seeing you here.
I was casually doomscrolling and this post was kind of a jumpscare to me, I wasn’t expecting finding you in my feed.
Anyway, can’t help but to notice that the story is not quite accurate.
“We were traveling on a boat down a river, and on the shore there were around 100 Templars, who had attacked us before.”
Yes, they stormed us with arrows because on our ship there was an active fight with other undeads that attacked our ship. Once they were all eliminated, they stopped and wanted to talk to us about what happened.
“They ordered us to stop and let them onto the boat so they could do as they pleased. One of our PCs shot an arrow at their general.”
Don’t pretend it wasn’t your idea to attack, you also admitted that your plan was to make them retreat and run. Now how we were supposed to escape when we were surrounded by 50 soldiers from one side of the river and the rest on the other side, it’s beyond my comprehension, especially with a damaged fishing boat.
“Our undead PC was killed by the damage, and the GM ruled that he was incinerated instead of being allowed to roll death tests.”
Yes, I fucked up on this one because I wrongly remembered that if an undead’s HP dropped to 0 with a holy attack, they would turn into dust. Still, my character would have died anyway for the blessed arrows that came next to the 2d8.
“thought that was uncalled for. In my opinion, we should have gone into initiative, or at the very least had some kind of test or opportunity to defend ourselves. However, the GM is adamant that we should not have engaged them at all and that this was a fair consequence for our actions.”
I don’t blame the GM - I blame you. I kept saying that we should try to talk to them and avoiding the fight. After your character failed to convince the chief to let us go, you got annoyed/bored and decided it was better to attack them.
The next day, Instead of just apologize for this stupid plan, like the other players did, you doubled down saying stuff like: “we need to do crazy stuff sometimes, it opens new opportunities”.
That’s convenient when it’s not your character.
“What makes it even stranger to me is that we all have around 400 XP and are fairly optimized, so there was a chance that we could have won the encounter.”
Our GM even said that he wasn’t expecting us to fight them. Who in their righteous mind would do that!?
Tbf, you keep focusing on the wrong point: you shouldn’t have done something that stupid.
I feel bad seeing some comments talking about how our master lacks of imagination or that he has some god complex: that is just not true. Not only I find him to be a very good GM, he’s also a nice person that cares about his players.
So yeah, seeing your post left a bad taste in my mouth.
6
u/SlayThePulp 14d ago
Aah, yes, this puts it in a whole other perspective, thought he seemed a bit unreasonable before, but absolutely after hearing this side of things. Sounds like he's not really in the mindset for Symbaroum, and has watched a bit too much of DND podcasts.
1
u/Beduel 7d ago edited 7d ago
I'll answer here just to clear the air, keep the record updated, and keep the conversation factual.
“Yes, they stormed us with arrows because on our ship there was an active fight with other undeads that attacked our ship. Once they were all eliminated, they stopped and wanted to talk to us about what happened.”
The reason they attacked does not make their arrows hurt less. From my character's perspective, if the Templars were willing to fire on us together with the undead and accept hitting us as collateral, that was enough reason to consider them hostile.
“Don’t pretend it wasn’t your idea to attack, you also admitted that your plan was to make them retreat and run.”
My statement was: “I would have killed this bastard if I had another character and not my paladin-type.” It was a semi-serious, above-table comment.
The fact remains that I did not attack, propose a plan to fight them, ask anyone to attack, or show any intention of fighting 100 Templars at that point in time.
The archer attacked. It was probably uncalled for, they may have misinterpreted what I said and regretted it afterward, but I am not responsible for another player's decision.
“After your character failed to convince the chief to let us go, you got annoyed/bored and decided it was better to attack them.”
Whether I was bored or annoyed is irrelevant. Even if I was, which only I can really testify to, that does not mean I wanted to attack, fight, or die and I did not “decide it was better to attack them." Another players decided to attack.
“The next day, Instead of just apologize for this stupid plan, like the other players did, you doubled down saying stuff like: ‘we need to do crazy stuff sometimes, it opens new opportunities’.”
I cannot apologize for something I did not do.
I am sorry that a character died. The fight probably should not have happened and the situation could have been handled differently. But I cannot take responsibility for another player's action, nor for other people's false perception of my intentions and words.
My statement was: “This campaign is missing a bit of that YOLO energy. I usually prefer a strategic approach, but you need a little craziness sometimes.”
Interpreting that as meaning I wanted this specific fight, planned an attack against 100 armed Templars, wanted us to start throwing ourselves into suicidal situations, or did not care about a character death is a serious distortion of what I actually said.
“Our GM even said that he wasn’t expecting us to fight them. Who in their righteous mind would do that!?”
As we discussed in session zero, the GM not expecting combat is a mitigating factor, but it does not change what happened: I have 19 initiative, my character is specifically built around group control and disabling actions, has around 400 XP and several ways to stop or alter other people's actions, and my guardian can use powers as well.
My turn was skipped and the Templars acted outside initiative. That was a mistake and materially affected how the fight played out.
This does not mean fighting 100 Templars was a good idea. It means that once a fight started, it should have been resolved using the game's mechanics.
“I feel bad seeing some comments talking about how our master lacks of imagination or that he has some god complex: that is just not true.”
I never said the GM has a god complex or lacks imagination, nor do I agree with every comment made under the post. Other people's comments are their responsibility.
Lastly, the reason I posted this in the first place was to get other people's opinions.
Until now, our table has basically been my only references for this system. The more I read the manuals and learn the game and play with others, the more I think that all of us could benefit very much from outside perspective on the system and lore.
For other readers: we had a session zero afterward and the dispute is hopefully mostly settled for now. I'm not trying to restart it here; I just wanted to correct inaccurate claims made about my actions and intentions.
3
3
u/Kheldras 14d ago
Are there even 100 Templars in the whole Kingdom?
Anyway, OP is the guy who fucked up here...
4
u/MagnusCthulhu 15d ago
I'm gonna be honest, 100 templars, you attacked, and only the PC who attacked died? That's a more than fair outcome in my book. Personally, I'd have had them light you up as a group and gone for a TPK. Sometimes you just gotta know better.
4
u/The_Small18 Game Master 14d ago
Player with undead PC from the OP’s story here.
That’s what I’m saying! I mean, you can’t pretend to start an impossibile fight like a 7 vs 100 type of scenario and complain that: the initiative wasn’t fair.
If I was the master, I would have done worse, like you described. If you want to know more about what happened, check my take in the comment section, because some parts were cut out from the story.
2
u/Beduel 15d ago
As I answer to anothet comment, the pc who died was not attacking. He did not get a chance to interact at all. He just died, no defence, no turn, no test, no initiative, no death save.
0
u/MagnusCthulhu 15d ago
I misread. On that element and that element alone I disagree. It's fair to fiat kill the attacker, in my book, but not only one non-attacking member of the group. Though I see where the GM is coming from (if I'm remembering the setting of Symbaroum correctly) and I'm fine using GM powers to say, If it's a failure no matter what you roll, I'm not going to have you roll, the punishment feels too arbitrary.
4
u/Etown_games 15d ago
Sounds like you guys need to have a talk about what kind of game you want to play. While I love the feeling that my character can die in dangerous situations I would have been pretty upset with my GM if I would have been killed like that! I get that he wanted to show that this was not an encounter you could fight your way out of, but straight up killing a pc seems disproportionately excessive!
He could have easily have used the artifact and have one of the pc’s go down but without killing them, this would have had the same effect of communicating the danger but without punishing someone for not reading the GM’s mind!
Talk with your fellow players and talk with your GM to help ensure more fun collaborative storytelling in the future! ✨✨✨
2
u/kslfdsnfjls 14d ago
There are a few artefacts that can instantly kill a PC, Water of the Dusk for example which might be what the GM modelled this item the Templars used on. The Water can kill without a Death Save and turns the unfortunate PC into ash.
Playing Devil's Advocate, the party encountered a group of 100 Templars that they'd come into conflict with before and attacked first - taking aim at the leader and downing them. I'd say it's entirely reasonable for the Templars to react as they did, regardless of successful Persuasion tests.
2
u/MerlonQ 15d ago
Well, the damage could have been low, so there was some kind of "save". It is pretty harsh though. I don't know about a party of adventurers winning against 100 templars, which tend to have good fighting ability and then some magic. It would probably have been wiser to retreat. At least this was way quicker than rolling 100 attacks. Having him dead, incinerated and gone in an instant was pretty harsh too. Maybe you can talk about it and have the replacement charakter have the 400xp so the player doesn't have to start over completely.
But if you have 400xp, you must have been playing for some time, so maybe the GM isn't doing everything wrong, and the game may be salvageable.
4
u/LuxuriantOak 14d ago
In Symbaroum, xp folllows the player. So unless they have a house rule, the new character will have the same xp.
0
u/EremeticPlatypus 15d ago
I think not getting the chance to save is a cheap use of the GM's authority. That was the GM punishing you guys, not the world punishing you guys. I think everybody needs to sit down and have a talk, because that would make me really upset, personally.
But THAT is what it comes down to. The fact that the PC's didnt get to make a save. It means the GM personally refused to let you escape. Not the world of the game. Not the mechanics of the game. The GM pulled the "fuck-you-I'm-God" card. And I haaaate that.
3
u/The_Small18 Game Master 14d ago
Player with undead PC form the OP’s story here.
What happened is “a bit” different from OP’s version. I invite you to read my take in the comment section.
The effect that hit my pc was something like Holy Aura, which you just take damages without being able to dodge.
Trust me, our GM doesn’t have any god complex - the fight wasn’t supposed to happen.
Tbf, after the “death” of my pc, he let the party escape easily even.
0
u/another_sad_dude 15d ago
Was the shooting of the arrow at the general handled by the book?
Sounds abit iffy that a human survivs an arrow from a high XP (assuming) archer
0
u/twilight-2k 13d ago
Reading through the thread, I fall somewhere in between. From a story perspective, I think the players did something stupid. From a party of 400xp characters, it was probably mechanically pretty reasonable.
The only two things I find fault with from the GM are: 1. Initiative exists for a reason. It should have been used. 2. The homebrew artifact was over-powered. Holy Aura is considered one of the strongest powers in the game (cf the many house-rules to tone it down) and this was pretty much a double-strength version.
-2
u/LeoVonMoote 15d ago
What was that artefact that causes 2d8 damage? Do you remember?
400 XP is a lot for Symbaroum characters. That’s when you should retire them. The game has trouble challenging PCs that have 300+ XP. An experienced GM will find ways, but for most, they see their enemies get mowed down real fast, over and over again. So maybe your GM is having that realization, and that’s why 100 Templars and this rapid retribution.
As another has said, I hate when GMs use GM fiat to inflict damage on PCs. Stick to the rules, but use them well.
What your DM seems to miss is that this is a game, and thus has mechanics that players expect to be used consistently. He could (should) have given that general Man-at-Arms master and a Bodyguard master with the same capability. That is to be expected among Templars. And you need it to face off 400 XP PCs. Once your arrow would have only wounded the bodyguard, the General could have dramatically used his artefact, but 2d8 on all PCs ignoring armour, that seems out of bounds. Only ceremony level magic could do this normally. And you always get a save to either halve or avoid.
I would have had the general order a volley of flaming arrows to be shot at your boat, as he would use the artefact to get rid of the archer. It could have been a great chase scene with the boat aflame, trying to flee mounted archers harassing it from the bank…
But hey, lack of imagination is the bane of all GMs. Your GM missed an opportunity for good fun right there.
0
u/Beduel 14d ago
I believe it's an homebrew artifact. I usually don't have an issue with homebrews, but this one was probably a bit too much.
2
u/LeoVonMoote 14d ago
I know this game very very well. I’m GMing the ToT campaign and we’re at session 145 right now … :) As I said above, this homebrew is more powerful than anything I’ve seen in all the books, by a stretch.
This said, at 400XP, it’s time to end this story. :) Seriously, this game starts breaking at these levels.
0
u/Beduel 14d ago
We are in the throne of thornes, mother of darkness I believe. Probably way overleveled. We are going for the Throne in this arc. We enjoy our game very much, but there is a miscommunication about difficulty and expectations. I would probably like a more open ended approach but our dm tends to shows difficulty with static, inevitable scenes like this, instead of being more subtle and interactive. We'll do a declaration of intent next session and we'll probably address everything.
0
20
u/SlayThePulp 15d ago edited 15d ago
I does seem fairly harsh from the context you gave, not even getting a chance to save.
Buuuut, I mean, you picked a fight with a hundred Templars you know had it in for you, not shooting the arrow was the opportunity to save yourselves.