Personally, I think that if players make a plan that the DM knows will fail, it's OK to let them execute it and taste failure.
In this case, the party's expectation that they could dominate the brain with the netherstones was unworkable, because the brain had become too powerful. The party couldn't know that in advance of course, so they had to experience the failure to revise the plan. (Let the emperor revise it)
Not allowing them to fail that plan, I would consider railroading.
The rolls add some suspense and expectations that the plan could work.
I can empathize with players being upset with this, but I see a logic and reasoning behind it.
I guess you wouldn't like to have me as DM. (But then, I was raised on 1st edition AD&D and the basic-expert system, which was quite a bit rougher than the 5th ed.)
Last edited by ldo58; 22/04/24 04:34 PM.
