"Run away! Run away!" ... what if they don't?

[iserith]

The world of the game, the PCs in it, and their deaths are all an illusion.

This is becoming tedious. Was my statement about PC death not clear to you?

 

[Tony Vargas]

This is becoming tedious.

Try being a main-cast character with a deathwish. That'd get really tedious.

Was my statement about PC death not clear to you?

It didn't seem too unclear: You want to apply a standard (death is final, 'deadly danger' necessarily means an established statistical probability of death that applies equally to anyone exposed to said danger) to figments of imagination, that are intended to evoke other figments that, persistently, are exposed to imaginary danger of imaginary death without every quite being imagined as dying (at least not without a good dramatic reason), and remaining dead permenantly?

Actually one bit is unclear: the problem with using redshirt style NPCs to establish a danger as deadly. If the PCs are not supposed to be aware that they are different from the NPCs, then seeing an NPC succumb to such a danger should establish the deadliness of the danger, shouldn't it?

 

[iserith]

It didn't seem too unclear: You want to apply a standard (death is final, 'deadly danger' necessarily means an established statistical probability of death that applies equally to anyone exposed to said danger) to figments of imagination, that are intended to evoke other figments that, persistently, are exposed to imaginary danger of imaginary death without every quite being imagined as dying (at least not without a good dramatic reason), and remaining dead permenantly?

I don't know where you're going with the imaginary bits, but a fair, consistent, and transparent standard is something I value. I don't have any feelings one way or another on whether PCs need to be dead permanently. I don't ban revivify or raise dead, for example.

Actually one bit is unclear: the problem with using redshirt style NPCs to establish a danger as deadly. If the PCs are not supposed to be aware that they are different from the NPCs, then seeing an NPC succumb to such a danger should establish the deadliness of the danger, shouldn't it?

I don't see how that's relevant.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't see how that's relevant.

If you want to establish a place or action is deadly, you can have an NPC go through it and die horribly.

 

[iserith]

If you want to establish a place or action is deadly, you can have an NPC go through it and die horribly.

Okay. I'm for foreshadowing. I'm still not seeing how it is relevant for how the DM handles PC death and TPKs.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Okay. I'm for foreshadowing. I'm still not seeing how it is relevant for how the DM handles PC death and TPKs.

You can have death in the game to establish that deadly danger is deadly, without having to kill off PCs or have TPKs. The party gets away while the Dragon's eating whatshisname... that kinda thing.

 

[Ancalagon]

If you want to establish a place or action is deadly, you can have an NPC go through it and die horribly.

I think that the point that is being made is that the players may believe that their characters are under plot protection. A red shirt dying doesn't really fix that. One of the reasons GOT is popular is because the author wasn't afraid to kill characters.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I don't think you can absolve the DM of all responsibility. I'm not saying that the players are not contributing...not at all. They're making decisions that have led to this point.

Ok. I think on this point we are just going to do the old "agree to disagree" thing. When a DM rolls something random, or pre-places it, and that gets a PC killed or a TPK I don't see the DM as having any tangible involvement in the deaths other than he's the one making the rolls, or wrote it down in the past. I think our disagreement is on the "power" of the Dice Roll. I see the moment the DM makes a dice roll ("for realzies"...not for "show" when he's already predetermined something for whatever excellent reason he must have), the moment the dice hit the table it absolves the DM from the outcome. The DM is "giving up" his claim on the narrative and leaving it in the hands of fate.

I don't think that I'd feel the need to offer information. But I also don't tend to make my players "gather information" like that. Usually, they arrive in a town, and rather then roleplaying each encouner with each NPC, I give them a list of NPCs and some other local details. This all constitutes the level of knowledge that I'd expect new arrivals to simply absorb in town. I don't want to waste time having them interview every NPC to try and find out what answers are dangerous.

I also have never been a fan of being so strict about this stuff. No matter what a DM conveys about the world, he cannot fully replicate actually being there. So I don't want to punish the players because they didn't think of something that their characters absolutely would have.

So I just give them some local info upfront so they can make those informed decisions. Now, the level of info they get will vary from place to place, it's all very dependent on the local situation and their view of outsiders, and all of that kind of stuff.

Ahhh....different DM'ing styles at play here. You said you don't make your players gather info like that so you just hand a list of NPC's names, locations, occupations, whatever and...I'm guessing here... say something like "After an hour walking through town and stoping at a couple shops or taverns, you have a feel for the town". Is that closer? Sort of a 'quick narrative' to gloss over all the stuff that "wastes time" talking with NPC's and stuff? That's fine, and I admit to having done this a handful of times in my day...but usually due to severe time constraints and a player leaving the campaign due to a move, extended vacation, expired-student visa, etc....where we wanted to get to the "end game" quicker in the session, so to speak.

But as a common occurrence? Naaa. Something about that method just sort of makes me feel like I'm cheapening out as a DM. I'm depriving myself and my players of opportunities to have all those cool surprises we get when we least expect it. Like a player playing a self-centered dwarven barbarian (I think that's what he was; it was a 3.5e campaign a decade and a half ago)...who, after a street urchin girl tried to pick his pocket. Normally he'd have punched the would be thief out cold (regardless of the fact it was a 9 year old girl). In stead, he talked to her, asked why, wanted her story...he bought her a nice warm meal and walked her back to the orphanage/church. He then pretty much became that orphanage's "protector" and donated most of his adventuring money to them and paid to fix up the place. It was all "out of character" up until that point. The player figured that it reminded his PC of his best friend growing up...a girl...and something bad happened to her. This was the 'straw' that turned him into a cold-blooded mercenary.

If I had just handed them a list of places and names "Orphanage: Thelda, F human, 47", he wouldn't have been wandering around town with the group, getting to know the lay of the land and talking to folks. They would have headed straight to the inn/tavern. Yes, this could have happened...I could have "chosen" it as an encounter to see what happens...but then I'm not surprised nearly as much. Besides, all that RP'ing we did was "on the fly"; I had no idea who the little girl was, what her story was, why Thelda was the matron at the Orphanage...hell, I didn't even know there WAS an orphanage in town. All this wonderful character interaction and story building because I rolled on a table because the PC's were "forced to waste time" in a town they'd never been to.

But even if that info wasn't imparted to them, if they wandered into dangerous territory (the Giant Hills being a name that I think would give them an idea, but hey sometimes players am dumb) then I think I'd give them a bit of a clue. Maybe the first random encounter would be something obviously dangerous, and easily avoided. A Giant and his Dire Bear companion seen from afar....the PCs can avoid it easily enough. If they don't take that as a hint that they've wandered into dangerous territory, then I won't warn them again.

This I agree with. I think I even said something similar in one of the mini-novels we've been writing here. I think our differences is the reasoning. For you, you'd do this to "give them a hint" and if they didn't abide, or didn't care, you don't "warn them" again. Good! For me, however, I would roll to see the Encounter Distance. (again, probably 1e/Hackmaster4e/BECMI...I really gotta get all this organized again!) Outdoors, this can be pretty far, it usually isn't anywhere near 'melee' range. So if the distance dice turned up far enough, then there ya go. Alas, if the dice turned up the distance as pretty much 'right there', then we move onto Surprise. Maybe the Giant is sitting down, back to a big tree, and the PC's kinda wander around an upturned tree to see him only 20' away. Or maybe the Giant is laying in wait behind said tree. This is where I take what the dice have given me, distance, surprise, reaction, reason, and weave it into an interesting "encounter".

At this point...yes. I agree that I, as a DM *DO* have some control over the situation; I can try and "guide" the rolls to a more neutral "encounter". And I do sometimes, but only because it's what pops into my mind as 'fitting the situation'. Other times it's more against the PC's for the same reason. So...in THAT sense, ok. I agree that I, as DM, bare some responsibility if a TPK occurs. But usually the dice tell a pretty obvious story and the creature in question's alignment/intelligence/"attitude" usually point towards one type of "situation".

If they engage the Giant and the Bear, then I'll do what I can to impress upon them the dangerous decision they've made. Have the Giant knock a PC out and send him flying...giving the party a chance to grab the downed PC and high tail it. The Giant would likely not feel the need to pursue since all he was doing was defending himself.

It'll obviously vary by encounter and circumstance, but there are always things the DM can do to mitigate the chance of a TPK without totally changing things.

This I don't agree with. I can see why you believe the DM has more of a role in a TPK or not, though, because of this response. You could have the Giant knock a PC out...but in doing so you have now taken the side of the PC's. You are no longer a neutral party to the matter. You are no longer the "world", and now more like an omnipotent being "watching over" the PC's. Can I assume you keep track of the HP's each PC has? Or is this more of a blatant "Hmmm...he hits you so hard he knocks you out and sends you flying 20' back the way you came"? Point is; how do you "knock him out" without it being painfully obvious that you are "trying to keep the PC's alive"? And what's to stop the Players from thinking you won't keep doing that if they press the attack? Sure, if you do this enough...encounters where you just decide X happens to "send a message", the Players will know that when something like this, that is 'out of the rules', happens that is you saying "Ok. I saved you. Now I want you to run away. Or I'll let your PC die". To me this seems far too...risky...to do. One thing a DM can not ever have his Players thinking is that the DM is "weak" or "spineless" (sounds pretty CE, huh? LOL!) If the Players think the DM is going to try and cut them a break anytime a TPK is on the line, or some other major plot-destroying event happens, they will use that. Maybe not even consciously, but it will be used.

So you agree that the DM can choose to have an encounter or not?

This is just one of the decision points along a series. Ultimately, and I am talking about 5E here if that was not clear, there's virtually no way to have a TPK without the DM making certain decisions along the way. There's very little chance of a one shot kill, except on a crit at very low levels.

I agree that a DM can just decide "No encounters tonight", then roll dice behind the screen for effect and say "The night passes by uneventfully". Yes. My point is that if a DM grabs those dice, and rolls them, then gets an encounter, rolls for what, and gets the worst possible result for the PC's survival...and THEN says "The night passes by uneventfully", or even changes the "Medusa" to "Black Bear"...THAT is a bad DM'ing move. Sometimes...VERY RARELY...should a DM do this, imnsho. I have done it, a handful of times over the decades, and every single time I feel bad or "dirty", like I put a stain on my DM'ing soul.

We were playing 5e from the release of the Starter Box up until last year'ish? I've had multiple TPK's and a lot more PC' deaths. As I said, highest level PC has been a 7th level Goliath Barbarian. After that it's a 5th(?), a couple 4th, and more and more of lower and lower levels. We don't find 5e TOO much more 'safe for PCs' than other editions. A little bit more, yes, with the whole "never go into negative hps" and the flat 50/50 x3 Death Save mechanic...and HD healing. But when bad stuff is happening, and the brown stuff is hitting the fan faster than the PC's can dodge the spray...well...not so much.

So are Arya and Sansa, both on the scene and still alive.....so no TPK.

Ok, I conceed. No TPK. But at least a PC died in the first season. I also think that The Mountain being raised as an undead guard of the bad guy is the DM getting some payback on "that player" who min/maxed the hellubejeezuz outta his Fighter. "Oh, look at that! Looks like the guard walking in is none other than your old PC, The Mountain! Except now he is in control of the bad guy...and you can't reason with him...and he's undead! Fancy that?...huh..."

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think that the point that is being made is that the players may believe that their characters are under plot protection. A red shirt dying doesn't really fix that. One of the reasons GOT is popular is because the author wasn't afraid to kill characters.

Well, if the characters are supposed to seem special and set appart, they do and not-dying is just part of that, and if they're not supposed to seem special, they shouldn't differentiate between themselves and the poor NPCs and just feel greatful they didn't die. (And we've been around the GoT example.)

 

[iserith]

You can have death in the game to establish that deadly danger is deadly, without having to kill off PCs or have TPKs. The party gets away while the Dragon's eating whatshisname... that kinda thing.

We're not actually talking about that though? We're talking about PC death and TPKs.