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

[iserith]

No where did I say that the characters should never run into anything beyond them from a combat perspective. In fact, I am all for that idea. However, if they choose to engage such a creature, I think that a TPK is probably too harsh of a punishment. Especially since the DM has directly contributed to what happened.

And for what it’s worth, I think that a TPK is just as much a punishment for the DM as the players in a lot of ways.

I’m not advocating going easy on the PCs or always keeping encounters as level appropriate. I think I’ve been clear on that. I just think people are being a bit overzealous with offering a TPK as a solution to [MENTION=23]Ancalagon[/MENTION]’s problem.

The DM can have the PCs face repurcussions of their bad decisions without the need to resort to a TPK. Especially when the DM contibuted to the situation. Denying the DM’s responsibility because his “habds are tied” is a bit silly. No, they’re really not. The DM can establish if and when and why and how an encounter happens. And with whom.

Again, if the players make foolish decisions like attacking creatures that are too dangerous for them, yes I think they should face the consequences. I just don’t think the consequence needs to be a TPK. There are other less harsh and wasteful ways to handle it.

Out of curiosity, what's necessarily bad about a TPK that sees you advocating for what appears to be anything but that? If you addressed this elsewhere already, I may have missed or forgotten it, so feel free to refer me back to those posts.

Me personally, I have no particular feelings about TPKs because that's a possible if unlikely outcome when life-and-death stakes are in play and, since I'm playing to find out what happens, I'm fine with it. (I'm also always prepared for it since I ask players to create backup characters.) I have no issue with using stakes other than life-or-death either - just not after they've been established, generally speaking. Once the players stake their characters' lives on something, there's usually no backsies.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Pet peeve here: in all instances except one of the word "player" in the above quote, it should say "character"!

Grrrrr....

Yeah, that hair had it coming.

 

[Les Moore]

The big problem that I am seeing here is with DMs who see themselves as storytellers, and the players as puppets who should act out the story the DM has pre-ordained.

Whereas I've seen the problem of players getting totally sidetracked from the campaign by some niggling detail, rather than dealing with the campaign head-on.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Out of curiosity, what's necessarily bad about a TPK that sees you advocating for what appears to be anything but that? If you addressed this elsewhere already, I may have missed or forgotten it, so feel free to refer me back to those posts.

Me personally, I have no particular feelings about TPKs because that's a possible if unlikely outcome when life-and-death stakes are in play and, since I'm playing to find out what happens, I'm fine with it. (I'm also always prepared for it since I ask players to create backup characters.) I have no issue with using stakes other than life-or-death either - just not after they've been established, generally speaking. Once the players stake their characters' lives on something, there's usually no backsies.

I don't think a TPK should never happen....I realize my posts may sound that way, but I think they can serve a purpose. However, I think that it would likely be very rare where a TPK can add to a game. By nature, it subtracts.

Generally, a TPK amounts to a lot of wasted effort for everyone in the game. All the work put into these characters and the story they are building so far is simply gone. Any story hooks the DM has put out for them.....gone. Any ideas that the players have brought to the characters in terms of long term goals....gone. If the DM had taken those long term goals and incorporated them into some of the ideas he had for the game....gone.

Now, some of this effort can of course be salvaged or repurposed. But I think the question is more "is this TPK worth all that effort?" And my answer would almost always be "no", especially not if the same lesson could be taught to the players with a lesser punishment. Or when such a defeat could be the springboard to new avenues of adventure.

And for me, the idea that each player would come up with a character that would simply resume the goals of their previous character....a brother or another relative or whatever....then what's the point of even having a new character? If PCs are this interchangeable, then why change? I suppose that it could be that instead of a dwarven fighter looking for the lost city of Hammerhold, now the player will have the fighter's cousin a dwarven cleric looking to find the lost city if Hammerhold.....but is such a change really worth it? If the players were that unhappy with what they had chosen to play, then there are other issues.

Again, I am not against bad things happening to characters. Especially not when the players have them do something foolish. Nor am I against having high level threats be encountered by lower level groups. But I think it's bad advice to the OP to say "oh well, TPK those fools" rather than come up with an alternative approach.

 

[Les Moore]

But, if its not the average player at my table or yours... where was it that you have seen it enough to make you decide it is the average players?

I'm just trying to wrap my mind around a game where almost nobody gets killed, and when they do, it's NEVER because of a decision they have made,
and when the PC dies, the player learns absolutely nothing, and gains no experience. Every PC gets killed in a manner which involves bad luck and
extenuating circumstances, in such a sterile manner than no lesson whatsoever at all can be gleaned from it. Is this, possibly, the 5E Immaculate Concept Edition you're playing?
Sounds really bor-, er interesting.

 

[Maxperson]

No where did I say that the characters should never run into anything beyond them from a combat perspective. In fact, I am all for that idea. However, if they choose to engage such a creature, I think that a TPK is probably too harsh of a punishment. Especially since the DM has directly contributed to what happened.

And for what it’s worth, I think that a TPK is just as much a punishment for the DM as the players in a lot of ways.

The DM is directly contributing to any PC death simply by virtue of being the DM. A direct connection is not enough to override a TPK. If the group enters a cave and starts heading downward and they start hearing noises ahead, and then I describe Elminster's severed head lying on the floor, it's dead eyes staring at them, it's on them if they continue and get wiped by whatever killed Elminster. That's a bit of an exaggeration to make my point. The point is, that if they are given clear warning that something is way beyond them, I have absolved myself of any responsibility when it comes to a TPK, despite directly contributing to it by creating the encounter.

 

[Lanefan]

Frankly I think DM's ARE storytellers. But I don't consider my players 'puppets'. I think a DM can (and probably should) have a story in mind, without it immediately being a railroad campaign.

For example, I'm currently preparing a session for my 3.5 pirate campaign that DOES involve a story, a dungeon, various side quests, and a main quest. I plan to spread out various plot hooks over the course of the session, as the players go about their personal goals. My objective is to then intertwine their personal goals, with the plot. And various plot hooks point towards the same story. But depending on their choices, they may come at the story from a different angle, and with a different resolution.

Are the players 'puppets' for following my carefully laid out trail of breadcrumbs? I personally don't think so. But I know what sort of mysteries to hand them to get them to chase the story.

Up to here, this is great; hence, xp for you.

But I have to ask: what if the players/PCs don't follow the breadcrumbs? What if they suddenly decide for some reason, maybe an adventure or two in, "Screw this boats and pirates stuff, all that's gonna do is drown us. Let's head for the hills and see what adventures might lie there..."? In other words, what if they never "come at the story" you've got in mind at all? While I'm sure you're capable of hitting this curveball, given some other posts you've made I'm more asking whether you'd be willing to swing at it and let the players take the campaign in a totally different direction to what you had in mind.

I would not be surprised if many, if not most DM's, run their campaign this way.

Pretty much yes, for my part.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

Whereas I've seen the problem of players getting totally sidetracked from the campaign by some niggling detail, rather than dealing with the campaign head-on.

Personally, I don't see this as a problem. If something has for whatever reason become important to the players/PCs then let them run with it, even if it's not important to you-as-DM and-or to your storyline or plot.

At least they're engaging with the game and the setting, even if it's not quite the way you hoped.

 

[jgsugden]

The big problem that I am seeing here is with DMs who see themselves as storytellers...

Of course we do. The DMG repeatedly discusses the story we craft with our players... We're all storytellers...

... and the players as puppets who should act out the story the DM has pre-ordained.

WTF? I don't see a lot of people on this thread telling their players to dance like puppets. I see DMs, as SUGGESTED REPEATEDLY IN THE DMG - OF THIS EDITION AND EVERY OTHER EDITION, talking about crafting a storyline with the players that their characters can encounter, advance and resolve.

Read Creating a Campaign in the DMG: It has four subheadings. Start Small, Set the Stage, Involve the Characters and Create Backgrounds. Focus on Set the Stage and Involving the Characters. They're all about working with the players to build your world, your story, and your game. Those of us talking about story are referencing these ideas.

A Good DM, following the advice of the DMG, will start a campaign by locating players and asking them what they want in a game. Then, they'll shape those ideas into a storyline idea. Then he'll take the framework to the players and tell them what he has planned - not the twists and turns, but what the PCs would know as new characters, and perhaps the style of game they can expect (mega dungeon, political thriller, whatever). Then they'll work with the players to build characters and craft the first adventure. I see DMs saying that they craft storylines that are more like a Choose Your Own Adventure book. The DM puts a story before the party and they decide what to do with it.

The Mighty Nein on Critical Role are an excellent example (if you don't listen, go buy a compass, because I'm about to lose you) - They arrived in Zadash and have some adventures that give them time to decide what they want to do - Join the military? Work for a crime boss? Head off to address something from one of their backstories? Corner the market in Educational Smut? Mercer, the DM, had ideas of what to do regardless of which direction they headed. He was ready for whatever they decided to do and they clearly didn't feel constrained by his story demands... but he had story elements ready to develop and unleash on them. And, I'd put a lot of money down that he has long term storylines that are unfolding week by week, session by session - storylines that evolve as the party interacts with them. The PCs have a lot of free and open opportunities to craft a path, but they also have story elements that happen to them that force them to decide how to respond.

This is that target middle ground that exists perfectly between an aimless Sandbox and a constricting Railroad. It allows the DM and players to work together to JOINTLY craft a great story, where players get a mix of the unexpected, the desired, and ... perhaps ... educational smut.

So, to pull this back to the original topic: When a DM drops powerful monsters into a game that have no story reason to be there, but can easily kill the PCs, just so that the PCs can be intimidated by the dangers of the world - he is doing something just as bad as the DM that railroads players with a choiceless storyline. He is forcing a story on the players where they have only one reasonable choice: Flee, because failure to flee is certain death. The DM is better served to only put these types of monsters in a game when there is a story reason for them to be there... and best served doing so when the PCs have a spectrum of options for how to interact with it.

 

[iserith]

I don't think a TPK should never happen....I realize my posts may sound that way, but I think they can serve a purpose. However, I think that it would likely be very rare where a TPK can add to a game. By nature, it subtracts.

Generally, a TPK amounts to a lot of wasted effort for everyone in the game. All the work put into these characters and the story they are building so far is simply gone. Any story hooks the DM has put out for them.....gone. Any ideas that the players have brought to the characters in terms of long term goals....gone. If the DM had taken those long term goals and incorporated them into some of the ideas he had for the game....gone.

Now, some of this effort can of course be salvaged or repurposed. But I think the question is more "is this TPK worth all that effort?" And my answer would almost always be "no", especially not if the same lesson could be taught to the players with a lesser punishment. Or when such a defeat could be the springboard to new avenues of adventure.

And for me, the idea that each player would come up with a character that would simply resume the goals of their previous character....a brother or another relative or whatever....then what's the point of even having a new character? If PCs are this interchangeable, then why change? I suppose that it could be that instead of a dwarven fighter looking for the lost city of Hammerhold, now the player will have the fighter's cousin a dwarven cleric looking to find the lost city if Hammerhold.....but is such a change really worth it? If the players were that unhappy with what they had chosen to play, then there are other issues.

Again, I am not against bad things happening to characters. Especially not when the players have them do something foolish. Nor am I against having high level threats be encountered by lower level groups. But I think it's bad advice to the OP to say "oh well, TPK those fools" rather than come up with an alternative approach.

Okay, thanks for explaining. It seems your objection is mostly rooted in "wasted effort." I can see that as valid in particular ways of playing and from some perspectives. Imagine the TPK of, say, a beloved cast of characters on a popular vodcast. What about all that unsold merch?! It's definitely a concern.

For a table game like mine, I would say it's less of a concern for several reasons. I ask the players to put very little "work" into their characters. Backstories are no longer than an old-style tweet, for example. And since "the story" is an emergent property, an artifact of play let's say, it's not like we really put any effort into it. As far as story hooks go, my players already have backup characters ready to go who are also easily tied into those hooks and can continue where the dead characters left off. The players prioritize the adventure goals over some nebulous backstory goal created before the game even started, so there's really no loss of DM prep tied into long term goals. Perhaps during play I might be inspired to tie some aspect of the adventure to something about the character's backstory, but that's about the amount of work I'm willing to put into it. And honestly, having done it the other way, I think this way is far better. It's less prep, less planning, less caring whether there's a payoff for that prep, and it leaves me flexible to insert it at the best moment possible as it arises in play. Oh, you're trying to avenge the death of your parents by an orc tribe? Well, it just so happens this orc tribe right here is the one responsible!

So, while a TPK is actually pretty hard to come by, if one happens it's really just not a big deal. The backup characters come in, very little effort is lost, and we're back at it within minutes.