My First TPK

[Darklone]

Second level PCs are still very fragile, and I'm guessing that there was an unfortunate critical hit or two. A raging first level barbarian with a greataxe who makes a critical hit and a high damage roll can kill even high level characters. d12 damage +5 Str x3 crit means that the barbarian could do 51 HP damage.

Yeah, nearly without a critical hit.

Simply take an orc level 3 with str 22, rage +4, enlarge, perhaps a potion of bulls strength and a +1 weapon and full Power Attack plus Cleave (don't worry, he'll hit)... 1d12+23 without bard and other buffs.

Looks like a falchion might be more fun for more criticals.

 

[green slime]

Perhaps a nitpick, but you likely cannot surrender to a raging barbarian. You can certainly try, but the outcome is much like not surrendering, only faster. Maybe can't outrun one either.

Why not?

Do you force your players with barbarian characters to ignore instructions/suggestions from the other PC's? Perhaps they are incapable of using ranged weapons as well? Fact is, most PC's wouldn't even have the thought, of surrendering. Therein lies the critical error.

Do you need to be able to outrun someone? Is it not enough that they see you running way, ceding the battleground to them? Chasing someone deliberately requires far more effort. Secondly, with a few hindrances (i.e. not a flat open plain), it isn't unreasonable to assume with two people splitting in opposite directions, at least one will survive the raging barbarian.

I believe these "no-retreat/no-surrender" behaviours are reinforced through DM-player interactions early in the campaign. They have become so reinforced, by perceived anticipation, that the very thought of surrender is foreign. Which IMO is kind of sad, as this removes a large number of possibilities vis-a-vis adventures and stories.

For the party, while it may be expedient to chase someone and finish them off, this entails the risk that it is actually just a trick to divide party resources (someone is invariably faster than the others) and ambush the chaser, killing or capturing him. Secondly, dealing with surrendering foes, creates interesting party dilemmas, and as an aside, letting vanquished foes go, while it may provide the possibility of a future enemy returning, may also provide the party with an unexpected ally, when it is most needed.

DM's need to:
1) Introduce surrendering foes more often, and earlier in the fights. Failure to accept by the party means a greater deal of resources must be expended in the form of healing, etc to defeat the foes, and therefore, slower progress.
2) Rumour spreads as the heroes level. Do they treat their foes fairly, or is it a waste of time to surrender to these bloodthirsty adventurers?
3) Introduce more fleeing foes (animals prefer to flee unless hunting for food, but will generally back away from a coordinated group.)
4) Likewise, constantly chasing fleeing foes sets the possibility of having a fantastic ambush, which can cause at least 1-2 character deaths, if they are careless and obstinate.

 

[borc killer]

Wow. Just simply wow...I can't believe I just killed the entire party.

Ahh yes my first TPK was just as glorious! The slaughter was magnificent! You can now truly call your self “DM”.

 

[borc killer]

Why do players never consider the option to surrender?
Why do players seldomly consider fleeing, and when they do, they have usually left it far too late?

Simple. Most PCs that I have played with think it is the DMs job to create encounters designed for them to overcome. Thus if they see a large red dragon they assume they can defeat it and attack.

In my opinion the DM should make a realistic encounter area and the let the players deal with it. If the players want to run into the horde head on let them. Maybe the next bunch will be smarter.

 

[Numion]

It happens, don't sweat it.

In the 60 or so levels of D&D I've DMed, there's only one instance where I felt sorry for a TPK. I played the opposition intelligently, they sent a couple of assassins with an Ogre Mage to scout where the party went for rest (it was a big dungeon, so they assaulted at days and went to rest at night.). One PC was guarding, but was silenced and killed. Then I had the assassins kill rest of the party in their sleep.

I gave them really easy listen rolls to wake up after each kill, but the dice were cold as ice. Still, I feel like I shouldn't have done it.

 

[green slime]

Simple. Most PCs that I have played with think it is the DMs job to create encounters designed for them to overcome. Thus if they see a large red dragon they assume they can defeat it and attack.

In my opinion the DM should make a realistic encounter area and the let the players deal with it. If the players want to run into the horde head on let them. Maybe the next bunch will be smarter.

Exactly.

But even with "balanced" encounters, things can go pie-shaped: The enemy twice crits the fighter, dropping him in the surprise round, and the rogue fails his Will save versus Dominate Person. Time to reconsider.

 

[Numion]

Why do players never consider the option to surrender?

Depends on the enemy. Usually I'll rather have my character die heroicly than be the punk bitch of some joker who's going to take my stuff

Why do players seldomly consider fleeing, and when they do, they have usually left it far too late?

This I have no problem with. I can easily flee, and come back with the deck stacked in my favor.

Why do adversaries (DM-controlled NPCs) never consider the surrender option?
Why do adversaries seldom flee?

I guess adventures feel more satisfactory with closure. In some cases the DM might want to alter this, to have recurring villain, or to create moral dilemmas for the players. I've done both.

Why is it assumed that the surviving "bloodthirsty" combatants leave the wounded & unconscious opponents to die?

Usually there's no gain in keeping enemies (either DMs NPCs or the player PCs) alive. Interrogation is very useful in some cases, but some random orcs are better off dead. There being speak with dead available and all.

In other cases it's a waste of resources.

Ironically really powerful entities are better left alive, since their lackeys might be able to true resurrect (doesn't need body).

 

[Doug McCrae]

Players really hate to surrender. This is pretty much universal in rpging, but doubly true in D&D where losing your gear is worse than losing than your life.

Why this is I dunno, perhaps they don't want to give up control over their characters. Maybe they think being imprisoned will be boring. Maybe they fear having their PCs humiliated by the GM. It's like conceding in a board or card game in which you've obviously lost but the final victory will take time to achieve. There's no sense dragging things out. You've lost, move on to the next game asap.

Personally I have no problem whatsoever running away though it can often be impossible in D&D if a party member is downed or has 20 ft. movement. I found it was only feasible once we had dimension door and even then, one PC usually bought in the course of the retreat.

 

[Nifft]

Does a TPK make me a bad GM? They all wanted in on my next campaign, but I feel as if i have let them down by not going easier on them.

One TPK makes you neither good nor bad. It happens, just like death in general, because the PCs go to dangerous places and do dangerous things.

It's important to decide how to handle it, for this one and in the future. One TPK doesn't have to mean the end of a campaign.

Cheers, -- N

 

[derelictjay]

Never count on the players surrendering.

One of my TPKs was because, I was expecting the PCs to surrender. I made sure the player's knew they were facing overwhelming force (always beatable with good rolls), and even hinted that there would be an easy escape. No, they have to fight, afterwards, one of my players tells me the TPKs alright because he never would have surrendered. At least the player understood what I was trying to do.