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

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Personally, not such a fan of the TPK, whenever avoidable. But think about it, where would Star Trek TOS have been without their Red Shirts in the
landing party, to make the situation tense?

Yeah, and I tend to run very high risk hack and slashy games. A TPK is very rare. Even in OutA when the low level party attacked Yeenaghou like fools, one got away. He ran like a mix of Carl Lewis and Ben Johnson on meth and he got away. My last TPK was over a decade ago.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Hiya!

@hawkeyefan, rather than respond point by point and end up with another mini-novel, I'll just make a few comments about your last reply to me.

Re: The DM makes the tables/charts...so he's ultimately accountable. I don't think this is a fair assessment of claiming it's "still the DM's choice". At least not any more than anytime any other dice are involved in the game. Having a random encounter table for The Giant Hills written up weeks, months or years prior to the PC's going there doesn't put the DM 'on the hook' for when PC's encounter a Hill Giant there that kills them all. By that logic, a DM who writes "Room 22: Cooking Room - a large fire pit is in the center, with a huge 4' diameter glass cauldron (2" thick) suspended over top from chains attached to the ceiling, containing an undulating dark-grey mass. In the cauldron is a Grey Ooze that attacks any who come within striking distance"...is "responsible" for when the wizard with only 11hp's rushes over to the cauldron because he wants it because it's glass. And then gets one-shotted by the ooze. ... No, the DM is not "responsible" for the wizards death. The ooze was there, regardless of who was going to investigate it, because that was the result from the Players choosing to enter that particular room.

I don't think you can absolve the DM of all responsibility. I'm not saying that the players are not contributing...not at all. They're making decisions that have led to this point.

However, so has the DM. Now, I'm not advocating for never allowing a dangerous situation to occur. In the above example you gave of the wizard, he rushed in without being careful. And he got smacked for it. So he's down and needs to make death saving throws. Most likely, the rest of the party will rescue him in time. And if they don't, then yeah, he's done.....that's on them not to get to a fallen companion. So I wouldn't really worry about this situation. This is a perfectly acceptable level of risk.

Re: DM giving info to let Players make informed decisions. I've always said that the players should have means of gathering info to make informed decisions. I think what you and I disagree on is the specificity of that "information gathering". To me, having the setting described and the inhabitants of the setting able to convey information is all I "need" to do. I need to be able to describe the world to the Players. In this description there will be names of people, places and things. These people, places and things will have potential "information" that the Players can consult in order to make informed decisions. If the PC's just head off into The Giant Hills without asking anyone even WHY they are called The Giant Hills....well, it's NOT a failure on the DM's part. That's on the Players.

By what I'm reading from you, you would see it as an important thing for the DM to somehow 'impart' this information to the Players, assuming they "accidentally overlooked" or "didn't realize the potential danger" by having, say, a farmer on the road say "Ho there, travelers! Are you lost? The way you're heading leads into The Giant Hills! A dangerous place, infested with ogres, Hill Giants and even Stone Giants!". Is this correct? If so, that's fine....not my style, but a totally acceptable method to use. I would consider that sort of method "new skool", where the DM is more inclined to volunteer information more than only impart it if the Players "ask" (via PC interaction, history/skill checks, etc).

I don't think that I'd feel the need to offer information. But I also don't tend to make my players "gather information" like that. Usually, they arrive in a town, and rather then roleplaying each encouner with each NPC, I give them a list of NPCs and some other local details. This all constitutes the level of knowledge that I'd expect new arrivals to simply absorb in town. I don't want to waste time having them interview every NPC to try and find out what answers are dangerous.

I also have never been a fan of being so strict about this stuff. No matter what a DM conveys about the world, he cannot fully replicate actually being there. So I don't want to punish the players because they didn't think of something that their characters absolutely would have.

So I just give them some local info upfront so they can make those informed decisions. Now, the level of info they get will vary from place to place, it's all very dependent on the local situation and their view of outsiders, and all of that kind of stuff.

But even if that info wasn't imparted to them, if they wandered into dangerous territory (the Giant Hills being a name that I think would give them an idea, but hey sometimes players am dumb) then I think I'd give them a bit of a clue. Maybe the first random encounter would be something obviously dangerous, and easily avoided. A Giant and his Dire Bear companion seen from afar....the PCs can avoid it easily enough. If they don't take that as a hint that they've wandered into dangerous territory, then I won't warn them again.

If they engage the Giant and the Bear, then I'll do what I can to impress upon them the dangerous decision they've made. Have the Giant knock a PC out and send him flying...giving the party a chance to grab the downed PC and high tail it. The Giant would likely not feel the need to pursue since all he was doing was defending himself.

It'll obviously vary by encounter and circumstance, but there are always things the DM can do to mitigate the chance of a TPK without totally changing things.

Re: A TPK has to have DM approval. Sorry, firm disagree here. But we already established that, right? In my mind, a DM has no more given approval for a TPK than the Players have for rolling bad on their PC's Hit Point's. When dice and random chance are involved, the "approval of the result" is, imho, out of the hands of the DM and the Players. Simply stating that the DM or Rule called for a roll in the first place doesn't shift the result of that roll to the DM/Player for "choosing to roll".

Now, a DM or a Player who outright chooses to do something knowing full well the result...yes. Obviously. (we had one player, playing a Lizard Man Fighter waaaay back in a City State of the Invincible Overlord campaign with 1e AD&D had his PC jump off a huge underground waterfall that fell into darkness below...because a particular song from the Last of the Mohican's soundtrack was playing; the song from when the two women choose to jump off a cliff rather than be taken by the mohawks; the song just stirred up too much involuntary emotion at that exact time...so...over he went. Pretty...epic...and confusing...but definitely memorable! ). But if a random dice roll is called for something...be it Skill Check or Random Encounter...once the dice are thrown, that's pretty much it. Do I think a DM should "choose" to have or not have an encounter, and or what that encounter is with? Yes. I believe a DM is fully justified for doing that; he's the DM. But at the same time, a DM who chooses to roll the dice should abide by the results almost every time. Sometimes rolling dice "for effect" when deciding a result before hand is a good tactic for a DM to use. But this should be used extremely sparingly! Otherwise the game becomes, again imho, more of a DM trying to 'force' an outcome to a story/plot/whatever. If a DM is doing this to much or all the time...just go write a short story or book already.

So you agree that the DM can choose to have an encounter or not?

This is just one of the decision points along a series. Ultimately, and I am talking about 5E here if that was not clear, there's virtually no way to have a TPK without the DM making certain decisions along the way. There's very little chance of a one shot kill, except on a crit at very low levels.

PS: Lord Stark was a PC. So...

^_^

Paul L. Ming

So are Arya and Sansa, both on the scene and still alive.....so no TPK.

 

[iserith]

Okay, fair enough. I don't know the goals of play off the top of my head, so I don't know how much my game may vary from those. But I also kind of assume at least some amount of personalizing for every game.

The goals of play to be clear are a meta thing - this refers to the goals the players and DM are pursuing in terms of the game experience. The game sets forth two specific goals (paraphrased): everyone having fun and creating an exciting, memorable tale during play. Groups may add to those goals and I think it's a good idea to be specific about them so that the group has a clear focus on what it's trying to achieve. This informs which house rules and table rules might be implemented to help achieve those additional goals.

You stated: "So for my group, the resolution of that scenario is the goal of play. Denying any sense of resolution by having a TPK would ruin that goal of play." If I were you, I would formally add the bolded bit to the goals of play for the group. I would then set up mechanics that would push toward that end, specifically but not limited to, removing the threat of a TPK by changing the rules for what happens when you get to 0 hp. Something like Spirit of the Century's "Taken Out" might be appropriate here. What I would not do is say or imply a scenario contains life-or-death stakes, then not follow through on that by fudging, suddenly changing the monster's motivation from kill to capture because it's not going well, etc. That's an inconsistency I could not abide as DM and that bothers me as a player as it means my decisions don't matter as much as they could.

As for there not being a plotline....how is that the case? Even something as simple as exploring a ruin and taking the treasure there is a plot. Now, my game tends to have pretty elaborate plots as things develop, but we also have very short term, basic kinds of goals that are similar to classic goals (treasure, removing a threat to the town, etc.).

It depends on how you think of the word "plotline." I would consider an adventure path to be a plotline - there's a largely pre-determined narrative to see to its conclusion that usually allows for some variation based on what the players choose to do. The plot may be linear or non-linear. The basic conceit is that the players are there to see the end of the scenario.

Contrast with an adventure location where stuff is going on (a "situation," I would say) and there's no pre-determined narrative that the players are meant to see to a conclusion. What emerges when the players interact with this situation is "the story." That story might include all the PCs dying under the default goals of play. With your added goal of play of "resolution of the scenario," that's a no-go as it's been pre-determined that the narrative must be seen to its conclusion.

To be even clearer, I'm not judging that you choose to include this goal of play in your games. It's fine. How it was implemented would be what I would care about if I was running a similar game or playing in one.

I don't think the stakes are always clearly established beforehand. Sure, sometimes a bad guy or monster is clearly out to kill the PCs....this may be especially true of recurring villains who have a bone to pick with the PCs. But I think in many encounters, exactly what the enemies may want is unclear. Certainly in a classic dungeon delve, the enemies are the ones under attack, so their goal is more about self defense. If they defeat intruders, I don't think that they must kill them. They may....or they may question them about who sent them and who else knows about their lair and so on. Or they may save them to cook later on....whatever.

I think with any combat, death has to be a possibility, and certainly that's the way my players approach it. If they're defeated and are not killed, it's not necessarily because I've changed the stakes. As you mentioned, nothing is set until it's actually established in game. I don't think some angry looks and aggressive behavior is enough to establish that the bad guys are dead set on killing the party.

I don't think the stakes are established that definitively in most cases. And I would never remove PC death as a possibility....I don't think that's at all what I'm going for. In fact, in many cases, I think the death of one PC instead of a TPK is just as "effective" as a TPK. Again, this is assuming that the goals of a TPK are to maintain the established level of danger and in teaching the players a lesson about carelessness.

Sure, lots of DMs don't make the stakes clear at the outset. I'm advocating that they should for many reasons that I've already stated. I get why people like to leave things vague - that gives them the option to ease up on the PCs or cut them a break if things are going in a direction that will interfere with a goal of play (e.g. seeing the end of the planned narrative). But then you get into these weird situations where you're putting spheres of annihilation in your game that don't actually annihilate anyone because you don't want the whole party to die when they jump in. Why on earth was this put in the adventure in the first place then? Are folks really giving any serious thought to what they want to achieve and how they want to go about that, then implementing the necessary approaches? It doesn't seem like it, by and large.

I'd much rather change the rules to fit the goals of play for the group, then make the stakes clear at the outset of the conflict. This has the effect of making clear what the PCs stand to win or lose, allows the players to buy in or renegotiate the stakes by their actions, or opt out. It informs them, based on their personal goals, how hard they need to try for success or whether failure is actually not too bad (or maybe even desirable). It also frames the challenge clearly so that when a result is achieved, the players know that no fudging was going on and that their decisions really mattered.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But then you get into these weird situations where you're putting spheres of annihilation in your game that don't actually annihilate anyone because you don't want the whole party to die when they jump in. Why on earth was this put in the adventure in the first place then?

Because it's D&D, and D&D wouldn't be D&D without arbitrary magical traps and opportunities to make uninformed decisions that could permanently alter or anihilate your character. Plus, putting a gravity-well-less Black Hole in a fantasy RPG is cool - because it's still the 70s.

Are folks really giving any serious thought to what they want to achieve and how they want to go about that, then implementing the necessary approaches? It doesn't seem like it, by and large.

Not if they're really running real D&D that's really D&D, really. ;P

Seriously, though, the point of most-gross-dangers in a game where PCs aren't supposed to die (at least not permanently) is the same as the point of deadly redshirt-eating monsters in a TV show where the main cast aren't supposed to die (at least not permanently). They're dangers that the PCs/main-cast will be menaced by but avoid or otherwise survive.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The goals of play to be clear are a meta thing - this refers to the goals the players and DM are pursuing in terms of the game experience. The game sets forth two specific goals (paraphrased): everyone having fun and creating an exciting, memorable tale during play. Groups may add to those goals and I think it's a good idea to be specific about them so that the group has a clear focus on what it's trying to achieve. This informs which house rules and table rules might be implemented to help achieve those additional goals.

You stated: "So for my group, the resolution of that scenario is the goal of play. Denying any sense of resolution by having a TPK would ruin that goal of play." If I were you, I would formally add the bolded bit to the goals of play for the group. I would then set up mechanics that would push toward that end, specifically but not limited to, removing the threat of a TPK by changing the rules for what happens when you get to 0 hp. Something like Spirit of the Century's "Taken Out" might be appropriate here. What I would not do is say or imply a scenario contains life-or-death stakes, then not follow through on that by fudging, suddenly changing the monster's motivation from kill to capture because it's not going well, etc. That's an inconsistency I could not abide as DM and that bothers me as a player as it means my decisions don't matter as much as they could.

Yeah, sorry...that was unclear on my part. The goal of seeing resolution of the stories is more a character goal than a player goal, although the players all want to see their character goals realized. But they know there is a chance that may not happen.

There's no pre-determined narrative in play. There are ideas that I have on where things will go, but those are largely dependent on the players' decisions. So a TPK wouldn't disrupt that goal, so much as I think that it disrupts both of the meta goals that you sited, at least for my group. They're at 11th level and well invested in their characters and the stories we've created so far. The campaign has a feeling of being "theirs" to the point that if I wiped them out and then they used alternate characters to resume, it would not feel the same. This campaign is THEIR story alone.

I hope that's clear.

And they have lost 3 party members along the way, not to mention several NPC allies....so it's by no means a case of me taking things easy on them.

It depends on how you think of the word "plotline." I would consider an adventure path to be a plotline - there's a largely pre-determined narrative to see to its conclusion that usually allows for some variation based on what the players choose to do. The plot may be linear or non-linear. The basic conceit is that the players are there to see the end of the scenario.

Contrast with an adventure location where stuff is going on (a "situation," I would say) and there's no pre-determined narrative that the players are meant to see to a conclusion. What emerges when the players interact with this situation is "the story." That story might include all the PCs dying under the default goals of play. With your added goal of play of "resolution of the scenario," that's a no-go as it's been pre-determined that the narrative must be seen to its conclusion.

To be even clearer, I'm not judging that you choose to include this goal of play in your games. It's fine. How it was implemented would be what I would care about if I was running a similar game or playing in one.

My game is far less pre-determined than that. It consists of many "situations", but most are brought to the game by the players. Others are ideas I have. None of the outcomes are predetermined, although there are obvious avenues they can take. I didn't mean plotline as in an adventure path like narrative that's largely preset. More like "will the wizard avenge his mentor by slaying the mentor's treacherous one time apprentice?" or "will the elven ranger help reestablish his tribe?" Things could go either way on those...it depends on what the players decide to do. But those stories will be a part of the campaign for sure, unless one of the players decided that their character no longer cared about the goal...but that's not likely.

So I think any single character goal may not be realized, and that's a risk that's certainly in play. However, for all of them to amount to nothing because of a TPK....yeah, I think that would be too much. And it's just unnecessary.

Sure, lots of DMs don't make the stakes clear at the outset. I'm advocating that they should for many reasons that I've already stated. I get why people like to leave things vague - that gives them the option to ease up on the PCs or cut them a break if things are going in a direction that will interfere with a goal of play (e.g. seeing the end of the planned narrative). But then you get into these weird situations where you're putting spheres of annihilation in your game that don't actually annihilate anyone because you don't want the whole party to die when they jump in. Why on earth was this put in the adventure in the first place then? Are folks really giving any serious thought to what they want to achieve and how they want to go about that, then implementing the necessary approaches? It doesn't seem like it, by and large.

I'd much rather change the rules to fit the goals of play for the group, then make the stakes clear at the outset of the conflict. This has the effect of making clear what the PCs stand to win or lose, allows the players to buy in or renegotiate the stakes by their actions, or opt out. It informs them, based on their personal goals, how hard they need to try for success or whether failure is actually not too bad (or maybe even desirable). It also frames the challenge clearly so that when a result is achieved, the players know that no fudging was going on and that their decisions really mattered.

I get you for the most part. I think the risk of death is understood in my campaign. I'm reasonably certain my players would never consider a TPK as something that simply would not happen. I've never said anything like that to them. And as I said, we've lost 3 PCs. So I think the stakes are clear at the campaign level.

But at the individual encounter level....that's where I think being a little vague makes sense. You can try and convey the motives of the enemies, and sometimes it may be clear as could be. But many times it woudl not be clear. The PCs come across a group of drow in the underdark and are discovered and attacked; nothing inherent in that description that says the drow absolutely want to kill the party. They may want slaves, they may want to question them, they may have mistaken them for other enemies.....any number of things. Other times, an enemy may be clearly out to kill and only kill. I think having it vary makes sense.

If a DM decides to not go for a TPK, I'd say he's no more easing up than one who decides to TPK is gunning for the PCs. Sure, I think that the terms may apply to some extent, or they do on the surface, but I think either designation is a bit too simplistic for something where there is a lot more thought going into the decision.

 

[iserith]

Because it's D&D, and D&D wouldn't be D&D without arbitrary magical traps and opportunities to make uninformed decisions that could permanently alter or anihilate your character. Plus, putting a gravity-well-less Black Hole in a fantasy RPG is cool - because it's still the 70s.
Not if they're really running real D&D that's really D&D, really. ;P

Yeah, and in this case the DM puts an arbitrary, deadly magical trap in the adventure, then when the trap is effectively sprung, the DM gets cold feet and say it's not a deadly trap at all, but a portal!

Seriously, though, the point of most-gross-dangers in a game where PCs aren't supposed to die (at least not permanently) is the same as the point of deadly redshirt-eating monsters in a TV show where the main cast aren't supposed to die (at least not permanently). They're dangers that the PCs/main-cast will be menaced by but avoid or otherwise survive.

I'm cool with that - just don't tell me there's actually the threat of death when there really isn't. Let's change the mechanics to change what happens at 0 hp and/or three failed death saves instead to take death off the table. Then we can play with different stakes which are still compelling.

 

[iserith]

Yeah, sorry...that was unclear on my part. The goal of seeing resolution of the stories is more a character goal than a player goal, although the players all want to see their character goals realized. But they know there is a chance that may not happen.

There's no pre-determined narrative in play. There are ideas that I have on where things will go, but those are largely dependent on the players' decisions. So a TPK wouldn't disrupt that goal, so much as I think that it disrupts both of the meta goals that you sited, at least for my group. They're at 11th level and well invested in their characters and the stories we've created so far. The campaign has a feeling of being "theirs" to the point that if I wiped them out and then they used alternate characters to resume, it would not feel the same. This campaign is THEIR story alone.

I hope that's clear.

And they have lost 3 party members along the way, not to mention several NPC allies....so it's by no means a case of me taking things easy on them.

My game is far less pre-determined than that. It consists of many "situations", but most are brought to the game by the players. Others are ideas I have. None of the outcomes are predetermined, although there are obvious avenues they can take. I didn't mean plotline as in an adventure path like narrative that's largely preset. More like "will the wizard avenge his mentor by slaying the mentor's treacherous one time apprentice?" or "will the elven ranger help reestablish his tribe?" Things could go either way on those...it depends on what the players decide to do. But those stories will be a part of the campaign for sure, unless one of the players decided that their character no longer cared about the goal...but that's not likely.

So I think any single character goal may not be realized, and that's a risk that's certainly in play. However, for all of them to amount to nothing because of a TPK....yeah, I think that would be too much. And it's just unnecessary.

I get you for the most part. I think the risk of death is understood in my campaign. I'm reasonably certain my players would never consider a TPK as something that simply would not happen. I've never said anything like that to them. And as I said, we've lost 3 PCs. So I think the stakes are clear at the campaign level.

So, death for some, but not for all. Or at least not all at one time. That seems pretty hard to guarantee if stakes are set up front.

Setting aside what may be viewed as bad-faith play on the players' part for a moment, consider this: The DM will take out one or more PCs, but a TPK is effectively off the table. So wouldn't the smart move for the players when one PC goes down to all opt into going down, knowing that the DM won't TPK them? This is a philosophical question more than anything. But if that is indeed the smart play logically (bad faith claims aside), what does that say about the approach? Especially in light of your statement that your players are probably unaware of your viewpoint as it relates to TPKs? That's interesting to think about in my view.

But at the individual encounter level....that's where I think being a little vague makes sense. You can try and convey the motives of the enemies, and sometimes it may be clear as could be. But many times it woudl not be clear. The PCs come across a group of drow in the underdark and are discovered and attacked; nothing inherent in that description that says the drow absolutely want to kill the party. They may want slaves, they may want to question them, they may have mistaken them for other enemies.....any number of things. Other times, an enemy may be clearly out to kill and only kill. I think having it vary makes sense.

If a DM decides to not go for a TPK, I'd say he's no more easing up than one who decides to TPK is gunning for the PCs. Sure, I think that the terms may apply to some extent, or they do on the surface, but I think either designation is a bit too simplistic for something where there is a lot more thought going into the decision.

I bolded the part that jumps out at me, as it relates in part to your statements about the DM having responsibility for his or her choices. There is no "would" in my view, only "might" or "could." The DM is choosing to keep the stakes vague here. Among the reasons for that may well be, as I already asserted, to have the flexibility to ease up on them due to holding to the desire to avoid TPKs (even if some PC deaths are okay).

As for the DM who is okay with TPKs, I think it's perfectly valid to be gunning for the PCs when the agreed-upon stakes are life-or-death. The fire giants are coming and they mean to do you in. Are you opting into that fight to get that sweet XP and gold or will you flee, parlay, or something else? Then we can set up stakes for that challenge instead, as appropriate to the scene. But if you opt into a life-or-death fight, you're going to pay if you fail. You made a reasonably informed choice to put your life on the line for some kind of reward. I'm not going to save you by killing one or more of your characters, then deciding the rest can be captured. I'd rather not put forward life-or-death stakes at all if I can't accept a TPK. (And that's not to say my game is only life-or-death stakes, far from it.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, and in this case the DM puts an arbitrary, deadly magical trap in the adventure, then when the trap is effectively sprung, the DM gets cold feet and say it's not a deadly trap at all, but a portal!

Really arbitrary, magical portals that really feel like real magic are also a real part of the real D&D tradition that's a traditional part of all version of D&D that are really D&D, really.

The thing about an arbitrarily deadly magical trap, and a magical portal that takes you to an arbitrary location, with no way to tell the one from the other, is that the other may, indeed, be the one...

I'm cool with that - just don't tell me there's actually the threat of death when there really isn't. Let's change the mechanics to change what happens at 0 hp and/or three failed death saves instead to take death off the table. Then we can play with different stakes which are still compelling.

Threat of death and actual death are two different things, though. If you're the player or viewer, you quickly realize who's gonna die in a given scenario. If you're the PC or the character, you've know idea. "Today we honor ensign Chemise L'Rouge, she died bravely in the line of duty, and were it not for her sacrifice, we'd have had no way to know the danger the pink fluffy bunnies of Rigel XVII presented, and the whole landing party would most likely have died..."
... I mean, the survior's guilt those main-cast characters have to deal with must be brutal...

 

[iserith]

Threat of death and actual death are two different things, though.

I mean threat of death in the sense that actual death can occur - not an illusion. And if it can occur to one PC, it can occur to all of them in one go. If I wasn't okay with the latter, then I'm going to take away the former, too. Otherwise I get into a situation where I have to change the stakes after a PC drops and I'm not for that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I mean threat of death in the sense that actual death can occur - not an illusion.

The world of the game, the PCs in it, and their death (or improbable survival) are all an illusion.