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

Oofta said:

And what I'm saying is that there are no "agreed upon failure conditions" in most cases. In my campaigns, failure could mean many things. The PC could die. They could become a prisoner kept alive for a prisoner exchange. They could become a prisoner only to be rescued later but lose all (or most of) their loot. They could become a slave in the underdark and we could start a new campaign either to rescue them or to lead a slave revolt. They could be dead but stuck between life and death with a chance to return if they succeed at some other task.

I don't have predetermined outcomes for any campaign contingencies, why would being defeated in combat be any different?

To be clear, I'm not saying any one play style is "wrong", just that if I find myself in a player death or TPK situation the cost of failure is going to be whatever I think will be most rewarding and fun for the group. For you that may mean your player dies.

Click to expand...

Player death is undesirable. Character death is inevitable in a general sense when life-or-death stakes are in play.

When I talk about "agreed upon failure conditions," I'm talking about an understanding between the DM and players about what failure means in a given instance. I make that clear up front when describing the environment so the players can make an informed decision about how to proceed. In so many words, I'm going to tell them that the outcome for failure is death, capture, loss of equipment, escape for the villain, or whatever is appropriate to the challenge.

iserith said:

Player death is undesirable. Character death is inevitable in a general sense when life-or-death stakes are in play.

When I talk about "agreed upon failure conditions," I'm talking about an understanding between the DM and players about what failure means in a given instance. I make that clear up front when describing the environment so the players can make an informed decision about how to proceed. In so many words, I'm going to tell them that the outcome for failure is death, capture, loss of equipment, escape for the villain, or whatever is appropriate to the challenge.

Click to expand...

Let's take the scenario of the badly injured party and the fire giant patrol in the middle of the night. To me there are several possible outcomes as I relayed above. In my campaign even if there's a straight-up fight it doesn't guarantee the PCs are permanently dead.

If I hit this and was facing a PC death or TPK, I'll take the player(s) aside and ask their preference. If they want to continue playing the character I'll probably give them a chance (not a guarantee) to go on. Maybe the giants like the their meals to scream as they're being eaten and they knock them unconscious. Maybe they have a chance to be raised from the dead. Maybe the giants are working with a necromancer who wants fresh subjects for experiments. Maybe they have some youngsters that need training and half-dead PCs are thrown into the ring as a right of passage.

My point is that there's no "agreed upon" outcome of this fight any more than any other encounter. Nothing is inevitable.

Oofta said:

Let's take the scenario of the badly injured party and the fire giant patrol in the middle of the night. To me there are several possible outcomes as I relayed above. In my campaign even if there's a straight-up fight it doesn't guarantee the PCs are permanently dead.

If I hit this and was facing a PC death or TPK, I'll take the player(s) aside and ask their preference. If they want to continue playing the character I'll probably give them a chance (not a guarantee) to go on. Maybe the giants like the their meals to scream as they're being eaten and they knock them unconscious. Maybe they have a chance to be raised from the dead. Maybe the giants are working with a necromancer who wants fresh subjects for experiments. Maybe they have some youngsters that need training and half-dead PCs are thrown into the ring as a right of passage.

My point is that there's no "agreed upon" outcome of this fight any more than any other encounter. Nothing is inevitable.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you're understanding me. Perhaps I'm not being clear. Victory and Defeat conditions are clear in a combat encounter where life and death are on the line. Those are the stakes. You defeat the hill giants who are trying to kill you or the hill giants kill you instead. Life if you win. Death if you lose. That doesn't mean that has to be the stakes. I may decide as you did that the stakes are Freedom or Capture. What I'm talking about are setting those conditions at the outset and then holding true to them so that the players know the stakes in the challenge and can act accordingly. What you won't see are Life and Death presented as the stakes and then, oops, the PCs aren't faring so well, so, um, it's Freedom or Capture now.

Edit: To be even clearer since you seem to think I'm talking about inevitable outcomes, I'm not. I'm talking about what Victory and Defeat look like. Which of those outcomes come about and how they ultimately look in the fiction depends on how things go.

iserith said:

I'm not sure you're understanding me. Perhaps I'm not being clear. Victory and Defeat conditions are clear in a combat encounter where life and death are on the line. Those are the stakes. You defeat the hill giants who are trying to kill you or the hill giants kill you instead. Life if you win. Death if you lose. That doesn't mean that has to be the stakes. I may decide as you did that the stakes are Freedom or Capture. What I'm talking about are setting those conditions at the outset and then holding true to them so that the players know the stakes in the challenge and can act accordingly. What you won't see are Life and Death presented as the stakes and then, oops, the PCs aren't faring so well, so, um, it's Freedom or Capture now.

Edit: To be even clearer since you seem to think I'm talking about inevitable outcomes, I'm not. I'm talking about what Victory and Defeat look like. Which of those outcomes come about and how they ultimately look in the fiction depends on how things go.

Click to expand...

First, there's nothing wrong with what you're saying or how you run your game. You may not want to play or DM a game where the goal of the enemy is something other than killing the PCs or where death is something other than permanent. Maybe you make the decision about that the enemy will do before the final blow is struck.

However, I am saying that the DM is the one that decides what the stakes are. Every time. Until the DM pronounces that a PC is permanently dead they are not. Saying otherwise is no different than my DM from long ago that just shrugged and said "Sorry, your PC is dead because the result of this 6 sided die dictates that you just got beheaded."

A game where in most cases the player decides whether their PC dies* may not be for you. One of the great things about D&D is it's flexibility to suit different groups.

*In my campaigns, it's normally a chance to continue on when they would normally die permanently. It's not a guarantee.

Imaculata said:

Doesn't 3e have the withdraw action?

Click to expand...

yes probably, like a move that negates OA's. I think it did. But that isnt the kind of retreat rule I'm talking about. that's just the 5' step rule.

iserith said:

Revivify and raise dead are D&D 5e's solutions to this if the party is of the appropriate level and has characters capable of casting those spells. My solution is to have backup characters at the ready, already written into the situation, since that doesn't require those spells. This doesn't mean the PCs are disposable, just that we recognize that the PCs frequently put their lives on the line for fortune and glory and failing to recognize that this might mean a character may die, forcing a player to sit out or maybe play an NPC, is simply poor planning in our view.

Click to expand...

The first thing I remove from player spell lists is revivify adn raise dead. They suck all the danger out of the game. I agree with the backup PCs though, that's a great idea. I like the party to have a few hirelings or henchmen with them, mostly in the background for porting gear, watching the horses, whatever. If a PC dies, they take over an NPC.

Oofta said:

First, there's nothing wrong with what you're saying or how you run your game. You may not want to play or DM a game where the goal of the enemy is something other than killing the PCs or where death is something other than permanent.

Click to expand...

Where are you getting this idea?

Oofta said:

Maybe you make the decision about that the enemy will do before the final blow is struck.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I telegraph that accordingly. The players will know that the fire giants want to kill them or capture them so they can decide what they want to do.

Oofta said:

However, I am saying that the DM is the one that decides what the stakes are. Every time. Until the DM pronounces that a PC is permanently dead they are not. Saying otherwise is no different than my DM from long ago that just shrugged and said "Sorry, your PC is dead because the result of this 6 sided die dictates that you just got beheaded."

A game where in most cases the player decides whether their PC dies* may not be for you. One of the great things about D&D is it's flexibility to suit different groups.

*In my campaigns, it's normally a chance to continue on when they would normally die permanently. It's not a guarantee.

Click to expand...

I would say the DM suggests the stakes and the players decide if they want to buy in. If I have the fire giants roll up on the PCs and threaten to kill them, then ask what the players want to do, they can decide whether they're up for that gamble or not. They might decide they aren't and flee or effectively suggest other stakes by way of parlay, then I can consider what to do from there. The point is, once we've agreed on those stakes, it's on. I hope you can see the difference between this and the DM just rolling a d6 after rolling a d20 then saying your head is chopped off. The former involves choice, the latter is just random chance (outside of choosing to play in that game).

Ancalagon said:

BUT... what if they don't?

Click to expand...

Late to the party, but I'd have them turn to the beginning of the PHB and follow the step-by-step instructions for creating new characters.


Good discussion [MENTION=23]Ancalagon[/MENTION] - thanks for getting it going!

Psikerlord# said:

The first thing I remove from player spell lists is revivify adn raise dead. They suck all the danger out of the game. I agree with the backup PCs though, that's a great idea. I like the party to have a few hirelings or henchmen with them, mostly in the background for porting gear, watching the horses, whatever. If a PC dies, they take over an NPC.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it removes the danger from the game to ban those spells. It just means that the outcome of some life-or-death challenges can be reversed at the cost of a set amount of resources. I don't ban these spells, but I can count on one hand how many times they've been used in many years of gaming. Players just don't seem all that interested in those spells in my experience. Do you think your players would use them a lot if you allowed them?

My players almost always opt to take hirelings along with them on adventures. Mostly to abuse them, I think.

iserith said:

Where are you getting this idea?



Yes, and I telegraph that accordingly. The players will know that the fire giants want to kill them or capture them so they can decide what they want to do.



I would say the DM suggests the stakes and the players decide if they want to buy in. If I have the fire giants roll up on the PCs and threaten to kill them, then ask what the players want to do, they can decide whether they're up for that gamble or not. They might decide they aren't and flee or effectively suggest other stakes by way of parlay, then I can consider what to do from there. The point is, once we've agreed on those stakes, it's on. I hope you can see the difference between this and the DM just rolling a d6 after rolling a d20 then saying your head is chopped off. The former involves choice, the latter is just random chance (outside of choosing to play in that game).

Click to expand...

Well, first I'm not going to tell the party "these giants are going to kill you". I may say something along the lines of "despite your preparations, you see a patrol of fire giants coming your way. What do you do?" or some variation therein.

But let's take an entirely different scenario. I have a sphere of annihilation in my dungeon. For whatever reason, the entire party decides to jump in.

Based on my notes, they're dead and gone. But I'm not a slave to my notes. Maybe it would be more rewarding for the players if they were plunged into some alternate dimension. Maybe they would feel cheated because there's no risk. I'll make a judgement call based on the group and decisions we had made in our session 0.

In a campaign a while back, I had planned on an npc to slowly become a BBEG. I had it all mapped out, I thought it was inevitable. Then the group did something unexpected over the course of several sessions and the npc ended up becoming a valuable ally. IMHO changing the sphere of annihilation to a dimensional portal is no different; as a DM I am not bound by preconceived ideas of what should or will happen.

My point is that I'm not a dictator [if that sounds a bit harsh to people that take a different approach, it's not meant to be I just can't think of a better word]. The players and I are creating a story together. In most cases the players have input on whether or not their character dies permanently.