DM advice: How do you NOT kill your party?

[ccs]

When I said Mass stupidity, it was regarding the 1st level PCs attacking the dragon or lich that you had as a story NPC. That would be my example of mass stupidity.

If you are TPKing 1st level parties you probably have the difficulty off. You can adjust numbers of foes, reduce HP (have an old ogre, or young bugbear, or have the NPC already wounded). Or the goblins recognize their own mortality, flee, take captives etc.

I don’t think you’re doing it ‘wrong’ as such. There are advantages to killing players even at 1st level as other posters have said. I just think it’s a waste of everyone’s time to spend 3 hours generating characters, doing the setup only to wipe them all out in the 1st/2nd session.

None of what you suggest stops the D20 from still hitting, the damage dice rolling high enough, the PCs rolling low, or any combination.
Like I said, we roll our dice in the open. And my DMing dice are bright yellow with black #s because I want you to see them.
So as there's not going to be any fudging of #s/cheating going on, please don't suggest that.
If I wanted a certain result? Then I would narrate it to you, not waste time rigging encounters to ensure it.

 

[Lillika]

I like to create the illusion of difficulty. I mainly did this in 4e with lots of minions. You can do the same thing sorta with low lvl "minions" in 5e. The system is rather forgiving with the pop up mechanics of healing downed players. I support most of the above suggestions. If the encounter is a solo baddie be prepared for the pc's to make very short work of him/her, hence minions. Alternative forms could be good, just as they think they destroyed the bad guy he transforms into something more powerful. Or his true master appears after they think that they just killed the main enemy.

BBG's also like to capture and torture people and kill them in some strange ritualistic way instead of killing them in combat, so if they losing he doesn't kill them, he captures them and then heals them up so they can be worthy sacrifice to his dark god, but one of them manages to loosen his bonds while the baddies aren't looking. I know you that you know this, but just remember you are in control of the story and preparation for any situation is your weapon.

 

[TheSword]

None of what you suggest stops the D20 from still hitting, the damage dice rolling high enough, the PCs rolling low, or any combination.
Like I said, we roll our dice in the open. And my DMing dice are bright yellow with black #s because I want you to see them.
So as there's not going to be any fudging of #s/cheating going on, please don't suggest that.
If I wanted a certain result? Then I would narrate it to you, not waste time rigging encounters to ensure it.

I think you’re missing my point. You can still roll dice in the open but modulate the difficulty by having varying monster hp, ability stats, monster equipment, monster buffs, to suit the particular PCs condition when they find them.

Why is it all or nothing? Why is it ‘narrate the game’ or play it exactly by the book. What happened to nuance and a happy medium?

it isn’t ‘rigging the game’ it’s functionally no different to having one less or more monster or PC.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I just don't think there's a system fix for it that keeps death on the table

Clearly system fixes can reduce the frequency of the kinds of issues, while keeping more 'appropriate' deaths on the table.

and illusionism sounds like Forge Waffle for "dishonesty."

It does seem like an intentionally-loaded term, meant to impose a connotation of deception ('dishonestly is, well, honestly pushing it - is a magician 'dishonest' for not explaining his tricks? No. Indeed fellow magicians might question the honor of one who did.) on a technique that merely withholds information from the player, in order to present the experience the game is shooting for.
Consider Mike Mearls's recent post about playing 1e with Luke Gygax, where he was going on, semi-coherently, about the system adding to the sense of mystery of exploring the dungeon.

It's My position is also that the system doesn't need fixing. It's not a mechanics thing, but a technique thing as far as I can tell. If you want death to be a real possibility, keep the stakes as they are and prepare for that possibility - good advice for both DMs and players in my view.

The least productive solution to a problem is denying there's a problem.

I like to create the illusion of difficulty. I mainly did this in 4e with lots of minions. You can do the same thing sorta with low lvl "minions" in 5e.

Being outnumbered can start to tell heavily under BA, so that's the kind of thing a DM should be careful with...

The system is rather forgiving with the pop up mechanics of healing downed players.

As long as there's healing promptly available it quickly becomes so, sometime between 2nd and 5th level.

 

[iserith]

Clearly system fixes can reduce the frequency of the kinds of issues, while keeping more 'appropriate' deaths on the table.

I don't think the game makes any serious judgment on what "appropriate" deaths are by way of its design, nor should it in my view.

It does seem like an intentionally-loaded term, meant to impose a connotation of deception ('dishonestly is, well, honestly pushing it - is a magician 'dishonest' for not explaining his tricks? No. Indeed fellow magicians might question the honor of one who did.) on a technique that merely withholds information from the player, in order to present the experience the game is shooting for.
Consider Mike Mearls's recent post about playing 1e with Luke Gygax, where he was going on, semi-coherently, about the system adding to the sense of mystery of exploring the dungeon.

I'm going to stick with dishonest. It's certainly not dishonesty of any ruinous sort, since we are talking about a game here, but I prefer to be honest and transparent. Trust in the DM is a precious commodity in my view. I'm not going to intentionally do anything that risks squandering it. I simply don't have to in order to produce a solid play experience.

As for Mearls' comments, it's not certain whether any illusionism was going on based on what I remember of said comments.

The least productive solution to a problem is denying there's a problem.

I know you're fond of criticizing the system, directly or indirectly, for not being D&D 4e. But perhaps we can try assigning some responsibility to the DM (for setting stakes appropriate to the group's preferences or maybe skipping apprentice levels) and players (for playing smart, especially when the characters are weak).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think the game makes any serious judgment on what "appropriate" deaths are by way of its design, nor should it in my view.

It's the DM who makes that determination, the system can be a good or bad tool for carrying it out, and, if bad, can be 'fixed.'

I'm going to stick with dishonest.

"Illusionism" is bad enough. I'll tolerate it, because it evokes the idea of a stage magician entertaining with 'illusions,' which is a pretty good analogy. But calling it dishonest is inappropriate. Do you rail against magicians in 'Vegas for being 'dishonest?' No.

RPGs are all about characters who don't exist doing things that never happen.

As for Mearls' comments, it's not certain whether any illusionism was going on based on what I remember of said comments.

What was going on, and went on in D&D as a matter of course back in the day, was that the players did not have full knowledge of the system nor how it was being used to resolve their actions and the events around them that might affect them. That's all that's required for illusionism.

perhaps we can try assigning some responsibility to the DM (for setting stakes appropriate to the group's preferences

It's entirely the responsibility of the DM (we are talking 5e, DM Empowerment is a big thing, with it comes DM Emresponsibilityment). Whether he decides to fudge a bit when a resolution swings too far, or he decides never to run certain sorts of scenarios to avoid such swings coming into it, it's his responsibility.

We can 'blame the system,' but it's generally the DM who chooses the system, and the DM has latitude to change that system, as well.

or maybe skipping apprentice levels) and players (for playing smart, especially when the characters are weak).

Skipping apprentice levels is a fine option, and an example of 'fixing' the system. 'Smart play' is perhaps even more often brought up in the context of classic D&D, and is very much of the same ilk as 'illusionism,' an approach (technique/tool) that worked very well for many people, for decades.
It's just obviously named by it's defenders rather than detractors.

 

[Schmoe]

The easiest way is to just make sure you have backup characters with a "trapdoor." A trapdoor is something established in the game that would allow for one character to be replaced by another one as easily as you can manage. Then just make sure either you're not running a set storyline or that the plot you're presenting doesn't hinge on a particular character or characters.

Do this and know what it is to truly be free!

Well, I've been doing something sort of like this for years! Mostly for times when not everyone can be there or when new people join. I'm not sure I totally buy in to the thought that it keeps a campaign from melting down, as you can still lose a lot of continuity. But I can certainly agree that having story not tied to the PCs helps keep things going.

 

[iserith]

"Illusionism" is bad enough. I'll tolerate it, because it evokes the idea of a stage magician entertaining with 'illusions,' which is a pretty good analogy. But calling it dishonest is inappropriate. Do you rail against magicians in 'Vegas for being 'dishonest?' No.

It's not the same thing. A player isn't aware of illusionism (otherwise it would be "participationism" or whatever) in the same way I'm aware I signed up for being tricked by a magician. Even the DMG suggests not letting players know you fudge. I think that's bad advice because it's encouraging acting in an untruthful manner. I'd rather the DM tell me he or she does that so I can opt not to play in that game.

What was going on, and went on in D&D as a matter of course back in the day, was that the players did not have full knowledge of the system nor how it was being used to resolve their actions and the events around them that might affect them. That's all that's required for illusionism.

While that may be true in some cases, we can't know that was exactly the case for Mearls. If I remember his comments correctly. In any case, it doesn't matter.

It's entirely the responsibility of the DM (we are talking 5e, DM Empowerment is a big thing, with it comes DM Emresponsibilityment). Whether he decides to fudge a bit when a resolution swings too far, or he decides never to run certain sorts of scenarios to avoid such swings coming into it, it's his responsibility.

We can 'blame the system,' but it's generally the DM who chooses the system, and the DM has latitude to change that system, as well.

Skipping apprentice levels is a fine option, and an example of 'fixing' the system. 'Smart play' is perhaps even more often brought up in the context of classic D&D, and is very much of the same ilk as 'illusionism,' an approach (technique/tool) that worked very well for many people, for decades.
It's just obviously named by it's defenders rather than detractors.

I wouldn't say skipping apprentice levels is fixing the system in the same way that house ruling mechanics is fixing the system. I would also say it doesn't solve the problem of "inglorious" or "ridiculous" deaths. It just mitigates it.

As for smart play, unlike "illusionism," it isn't based on being untruthful about how you're going about things.

 

[iserith]

Well, I've been doing something sort of like this for years! Mostly for times when not everyone can be there or when new people join. I'm not sure I totally buy in to the thought that it keeps a campaign from melting down, as you can still lose a lot of continuity. But I can certainly agree that having story not tied to the PCs helps keep things going.

I think concerns about continuity typically arise from basing the plot or storyline on the PCs, especially on their backstories. As characters drop out, holes in the story start to appear as things go unresolved. Avoiding doing that deals with that problem. We seem to agree on that.

In my last three D&D 5e campaigns, I have a player pool of 8 to 12 players. Each of them has 2 or more characters. Only 5 PCs can take part in any session. So week to week, I don't really have any clue as to which characters will be in the spotlight - there's perhaps more than two dozen! My adventures are generally created without reference to the characters at all and typically we have some kind of fictional reason why characters can reasonably drop in and out. It creates no issues with continuity.

If someone wants to create campaigns that chiefly revolve around particular PCs and their backstories, that's going to come with some trade-offs that few DMs in my experience address up front, which leads them to fudging in order to preserve the character and the related subplots. To the extent the group is okay with fudging (or is blissfully unaware), it's not an issue. I just think there are ways to structure the game to avoid that.

 

[Ranthalan]

I think concerns about continuity typically arise from basing the plot or storyline on the PCs, especially on their backstories. As characters drop out, holes in the story start to appear as things go unresolved.

I've never had this problem. I think of the story as a cloth and each character a thread. Parts of the story are built around each character. If a character drops out, things get missed, but the other players wouldn't notice. They still have their own threads. My last campaign was very tightly tied to the PCs and this did occur.

The monk Player wanted to be an orphan (why do players always want to be orphans? After four orphan concepts, I started to consider that the PCs met in an orphanage, but two of the players changed their minds). I told her that her father was an ambassador and went missing during a trip to City X many years ago. The cleric (also an orphan) had memories of his destitute father leaving him at a temple when a very young child, and then he never saw his parents again. What they didn't know is that the monk's father was in City X to broker a deal that would keep City X from attacking the Home City by allowing City X to enslave the undesirables of Home City. Naturally, this included the cleric's parents. The cleric player had to leave the group before the party got to City X where he would have discovered his parents still alive, and still slaves. A little later, the party would discover why they were slaves in City X (and who was responsible).

It was unfortunate that we lost that element of the story, there was no inconsistency as, despite the loss of a thread, the cloth remained. The cleric's parents were still slaves in City X, the party just never discovered that fact. After the compaign completed, I told them some of the behind the scenes stuff and they too were a little bummed that part of the story was lost. It happens, but can be dealt with elegantly.