Sorry, but that player sounds like they have anger issues.
Sure, their reaction was, well, terrible. BUT:
doesn't change the fact that the DM needs to establish some trust before even hinting at a rock falls you die scenario.
Sorry, but that player sounds like they have anger issues.
Perhaps 6 months ago when you killed Jareth as punishment for expertly breaking into the mayors house while everyone was asleep and punching his dagger up through the base of the mayors skull in what was clearly an expert kill, you should have inquired further. The clues were there. If you didn't see or pursue them and then 6 months later it comes back to bite you, that's not on the DM or a DM gotcha.
It seems that all of those rumors talking about the ancient red north of the town of Wefryeverysooften and the dragon encircling the mountain on the map seem to be true. Perhaps you shouldn't have gone there at 5th level and brought this eminently avoidable circumstance upon yourselves.
Would you rather fight 20 skeletons or 40? There's nothing about a necromancer who is building up that is a gotcha or unfair. Hitting her and keeping her forces down is a sound tactic. Expecting her to just sit there and not add more after a week of you guys sitting around is silly.
Of course you can come up with examples of a bad DM abusing authority, but assuming the DM is not bad(And DMs very rarely are), it will go more like I describe above than how you describe it in the quotes.
Very-low level party are walking cross-country from one town to another. DM narrates on day two that they notice a tower on a distant hill to their left. Party, having previously heard only that thos tower is a dangerous place, decide on a whim to change course and check it out. On arrival they do no pre-scouting, but instead just walk up to the front door and try to sneak in.The explicit example given previously was that there was no such evidence. Had the players inquired, yes, they would have been (potentially) able to find out--but there were zero such forward-facing clues given. Hence why I used it as an example.
Insufficient data for meaningful answer.Very-low level party are walking cross-country from one town to another. DM narrates on day two that they notice a tower on a distant hill to their left. Party, having previously heard only that thos tower is a dangerous place, decide on a whim to change course and check it out. On arrival they do no pre-scouting, but instead just walk up to the front door and try to sneak in.
The owner of the tower is a full lich (intended as a major NPC mentor/foe/etc. down the road), and it is her home. She has numerous very powerful guards, including several demons, at the front door, whose job is to forcibly repel intruders.
So how do you think that would play out at the table? Is the DM within rights to TPK them to obilvion?
This one really did happen, a long time ago (sadly, I was neither DM nor player in that game); and how it played out is that of a party of six, three fled and survived while the others died fast (the corpse of one was thrown down the hill at those fleeing and barely missed them).
Meaning they should probably ask some more in-character questions rather than just wander over and check it out. "Dangerous" is more than enough forewarning IMO, and it's on the players/PCs to then determine what "dangerous" means in that context.Insufficient data for meaningful answer.
Calling something just generically "dangerous" without anything more specific is one of the worst flags you can put out, because it can mean anything. Most places adventurers go are dangerous, and usually they'll hear about it in advance. Some are, "no, players, you REALLY SHOULD be very scared." Some are, "this would be scary to lesser folk, but you are heroes brave and true!" And some are, "this is a place that could be a threat, and an opportunity."
I wasn't around for the start of that game (I joined a bit after all this happened) but I think it was already well established that the game world was a dangerous place and would kill you dead if it got the chance. But even if not, or if the DM had played up the heroic adventure piece, I'd say it's still on the players/PCs to carry out at least a modicum of due diligence before wading in.The players generally should scout around, but from the sound of it this was really early in the game. Hard to get a feel for what is warranted investigation when you've done all of one adventure (or the like.)
So, IMO, while serious consequences are warranted, I don't think the players would be out of line to say, "wait WHAT?" in response to a TPK either. But there are several things that could tweak that. Perhaps the DM said, right at the start, "There may be places you encounter that are much too powerful for you to face. It is on you to do research and reconnaissance, and make judgment calls about what risks you're willing to take, and there is always a chance you might be wrong...dead wrong." Then yeah, this is on the players. Conversely, if the DM never said anything of the sort (or worse, talked up fhr heroic adventure stuff), then I would be quite comfortable laying the blame almost entirely at their feet, not the players'.
Meaning they should probably ask some more in-character questions rather than just wander over and check it out. "Dangerous" is more than enough forewarning IMO, and it's on the players/PCs to then determine what "dangerous" means in that context.
Not necessarily later play - in a manner of speaking that campaign is still going today; that tower and its lich owner are still there, and I think the DM would actually prefer we leave it alone. (though some of our characters might have other ideas on that...)When are PCs not heading into danger? Expecting them to somehow determine the context without more input seems odd.
You even described the tower as a place that was designed for later play... so why not cue them in? If that's the intention, then let the intention be known.
When fiction and game conflict, I'd rather let the fiction win. Sometimes "dangerous" is all the info you have to go on until you either a) ask questions of the right people or b) go and check it out i.e. learn by trial and error.And don't say verisimilitude, please. There are any number of ways to cue the danger in a way that makes sense within the fiction. Find a way that works as both fiction and game. Don't sacrifice one on the altar of the other.
Not necessarily later play - in a manner of speaking that campaign is still going today; that tower and its lich owner are still there, and I think the DM would actually prefer we leave it alone. (though some of our characters might have other ideas on that...)
When fiction and game conflict, I'd rather let the fiction win. Sometimes "dangerous" is all the info you have to go on until you either a) ask questions of the right people or b) go and check it out i.e. learn by trial and error.