Recent TPK... would you have?

[The Thayan Menace]

Grace Jones: Olympic Swimmer

Azzemmell (OP):

Have your players watched Conan the Destroyer, by any chance?

-Samir​

 

[Admiral Caine]

On the other hand, lessons are learned, regardless of whether the DM is trying to teach one or not. What lesson is imparted when, despite warnings and chances to change their minds, the PCs choose to swim down a flooded tunnel so far that they drown, but the DM allows them to survive in order to avoid an ignoble or lackluster death? Is that a lesson that suits your game? (I'm not saying that it isn't, but I know it doesn't suit mine.)

Oh no, that wouldn't suit my style of game. I don't disagree with you in the slightest Philotomy. I do kill PCs in the course of the game, just in case that needs stating.

But you and I, we weren't there. We don't know. That we don't know the quality of warning and hint that was given. We don't know if the players were actually careless and/or not paying attention. The Original Poster and his Players can only answer that for themselves. Without being there myself I can't say for certain. I am sort of challenging the notion that anybody else could either.

All I'm saying, if the warning was downplayed enough, it might have come across as a binary "yes/no", "save or die" choice.

Here's what we have to go on:

"You've found no air pockets and the tunnel is still going down. You can tell that you've reached a point of no return - if you go back now you could probably make it back to the chamber you came from and live. ... or you can try to keep going."

The only part of that makes me pause is:

and live

Those two words are what would have made me stop and reconsider. It depends how poker-faced he was in the delivery of that line.


I'd like to have been there and seen how the question posed to the players, because that could go two ways. Any analysis on our part is subjective, which is why I redirect the OP to do some self-reflection.

to point, the Original Poster posed a question, and wondered what we might have done differently.

I'm not sure I would have done anything different. I've never said the Original Poster did anything wrong, they might have been spot on with their call. However, I have said (and continue to do so), is that the heart of the situation is in how they presented the choice to the players.

The OP has to examine that for themselves.

I'm still not fond of the "teach them a lesson" approach. I'm more of a "make them take responsibility for their choices" guy. There is a difference, and that is agenda on the part of the GM.

EDIT: I don't want to come across as backing away from what I said. The point I'm getting at is if he proposed a binary choice that is life or death, completely straight faced and without enough cues, there might be cause for concern on the part of the players. From his description, his players had that impression, because he reports them saying the warnings were vague.

In a binary "life or death" choice, you want to leave them it open enough for them to make their own decisions and be responsible for them, but if you're too poker-faced about it- you got yourself a Sphere of Annilihation in the Devil's Mouth (from Tomb of Horrors) situation.

We can't tell which it is from his text. He needs to self-evaluate that.

 

[Azzemmell]

You did the right thing. Just keep reminding the players about it.

Heh, ya I've made several jokes at their expense in the sessions we've had since then - nothing mean, they laughed too.

And as far as them learning any kind of lesson (to be fair, one guy has played D&D for I guess about fifty sessions, and for the other at that time it was about his tenth or so. But both are good friends) since "The Incident," they both maxed out their swim skills, and on their way back up to the surface they passed through a region of tunnels that included a portion with a stream. Even after they had cleared out a troop of bugbears and released a long imprisoned horde of skeletons and were making a fighting retreat, they wouldn't go near the water!

They eventually used the tunnels with the waist-deep stream to escape from the seemingly never-ending horde of skeletons, but it took me a few rounds of them making bad tactical moves and getting very close to being surrounded (they had mapped out all but the stream tunnels), then I realized what was going on. They REALLY didn't want to so much as dip a toe in the water. So even though I hadn't meant for the stream to be anything other than an interesting part of the tunnel complex, they saw it as something sinister...

 

[Azzemmell]

Azzemmell (OP):

Have your players watched Conan the Destroyer, by any chance?

-Samir​

I'm sure they have at some point... I know I've seen it at least once but its been a long time (I prefer the first conan movie). What part are you referring to?...

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Underwater Entrance

What part are you referring to?

I'm thinking about the scene with that long swim underneath the castle of Toth-Amon. It gives me claustrophobia every time I watch it.

BTW ... I agree with you. Conan the Barbarian is a much better film.

-Samir

 

[Hypersmurf]

"The way we'll know is - if they don't follow us, it's too... far... to swim!" [/herger]

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There is, as I recall, a long swimming scene.

Ditto other films like Deep Rising, Poseidon Adventure, etc.

FWIW, I'm not really one for "teaching lessons"- I just believe in actions having consequences. Again, I'll give parties a few "redos" or obvious warnings early on, but after a while, you and your PCs have to take responsibility for decisions made.

I put this down into the same category as splitting the party- do so at your own risk.

As an example from early on in a campaign in which I was a player, my Ranger went a-scouting and failed his MS roll (a 2). He subsequently failed his Listen roll (a 2). Result: a Gnoll Outrider got the drop on him with a Hvy Xbow. I had a decision to make- try something heroic to extricate my Rgr from the situation or surrender. The DM said "He has the drop on you from point blank range...heroics would be extremely dangerous." I opted for surrender, relying on my partymates to rescue me (since it seemed to me that if he wanted to kill me, he'd have shot me before announcing his presence).

After my surrender, the DM announced that had I opted for heroics, I'd have faced a probable hit for a lot of damage, and that everyone else should be aware that "He has the drop on you..." was code for "any sudden move means your PC is getting hit for a lot of damage."

The initial discussion regarding my PCs situation was a bit more subtle than I'd have handled it, but I'd been playing poker against this guy for a few years, and his body language & inflection told me something was hinky, letting me make the right choice.

Ultimately, my Rgr was humiliated- chained naked to the Gnoll's slave train- but he lived to fight another day.

 

[jdrakeh]

Ultimately, my Rgr was humiliated- chained naked to the Gnoll's slave train. . .

Talk about fates worse than death! I guarantee that most players will remember things like this for far longer than a seemingly arbitrary death. I guess I'm with Danny Alcatraz here — if you need to teach players a lesson, make it a lesson that they won't soon forget. Death in D&D is just too common and too meaningless a consequence (given the assumptions of the rule system that I mentioned earlier) to teach most players anything other than "My DM is a sadist,"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I guess I'm with Danny Alcatraz here — if you need to teach players a lesson, make it a lesson that they won't soon forget. Death in D&D is just too common and too meaningless a consequence (given the assumptions of the rule system that I mentioned earlier) to teach most players anything other than "My DM is a sadist,"

Just as long as we all realize that the lessons in this case were 2fold:

1) My DM is not going to tell me outright not to have my PC do X, even if it means my PC will probably or definitely die if my PC does X. I have to be aware of any code words, body language or other hints he's giving me. Ignoring the implied is done at my PC's risk.

2) Good DMs don't give their players Kobiashi Maru situations.

My PC didn't die, but he could have. Instead, he got to live, it set up a rescue scenario, and the PC got mercilessly ribbed by his comrades for the sequence of events- probably much like your friends would do to you over some kind of (non-fatal) embarrassment you'd suffered in their presence.

He also lived to return the heckling favor when the Monk failed a Dex roll (a 1) and fell flat on his Gnomish tuchus, the Fighter got his armor destroyed by being impulsive- he touched something similar to a Sphere of Annihilation- and had to run around the dungeon for 2 days skyclad. And so forth.

IOW, there was humor injected into the campaign.

 

[jdrakeh]

Just as long as we all realize that the lessons in this case were 2fold:

Yep. That sounds right. What I was trying to articulate is that considering death as the only consequence is just as stale, unimaginative, and capable of fostering undesireable player perceptions as never considering it as a consquence.