DM advice: How do you NOT kill your party?

[Sunseeker]

I dunno. Boss fights are something I usually plan for only lightly "OH I plan for the party to fight Strahd at the end of Ravenloft." but I don't put down his capabilities until I see about where the players are before they face him. Unless there is a particular reason for a bad guy to be a specific power level when the party fights them, but then that's designed differently.

When I want to build a challenge, I usually plan for 2/5 PC deaths (death=hits 0 or less and stays there for multiple rounds). That's my bar for "challenge".

So, usually I'm planning to kill some of my party. Who that is depends a lot on luck and their strategy, and maybe a heroic sacrifice.

Almost all of my "bosses" are custom NPCs, made from the ground up 4E-style with custom abilities. They are specifically tuned for the party.

Usually, if I want to avoid killing the party, it'll be made clear through the story lead-in that the bad guy is a "capture and torture" or "capture and experiment" or "slaver" type and that he's specifically going to try to incapacitate the party and use them for his nefarious plans.

 

[TheSword]

No it's not.



And no it's not. Not at all.

To be clear i said it was ‘like’ that not that it is equal. I’m certainly not getting into discussions about what was being done. Please don’t read more into the comment than is intended. Shaving off eyebrows for instance.

An absent player is helpless, unaware, and unable to react to what jiggery pokery a DM does in their absence, so that is like being asleep.

For some players that would be a massive imposition and betrayal of trust but I guess it depends on your groups compact. Kind of like waking up to find your loved one has shaved your eyebrow off. Maybe in a frat house but probably not if you’re staying at your grandparents.

Instant death and subsequent resurrections for dramatic effect don’t count.

 

[iserith]

I agree that it could work but it requires that level of telegraphing and also the appropriate solutions being available.

What would you have done, given the options at your disposal, if you knew the mid-level boss you needed to defeat had the spell in question?

Would always staying outside of the range of the circle of death work? How about buying some goats to take into battle with you? Or perhaps a sack of puppies?

However avoiding a fight is not very satisfying a result for a NPC that needs to be overcome to progress.

That's a good example of why bottlenecks can be a problem in adventure design. It sounds like the problems began in this case long before the DM decided to use the aforementioned spell.

I think one-shot kills, mass damage spells and the like should be handled with care. In this case the NPC was four levels higher than the party. The DM could have reduced caster level, used an alternative spell, or offered a means of protection. None of these involve fudging dice rolls, but do require the DM to consider party capability.

Telegraphing or foreshadowing has the benefit of not needing to reduce caster level, use an alternative spell, or offering a means of protection. Or fudging.

 

[TheSword]

What would you have done, given the options at your disposal, if you knew the mid-level boss you needed to defeat had the spell in question?

Would always staying outside of the range of the circle of death work? How about buying some goats to take into battle with you? Or perhaps a sack of puppies?

I certainly wouldn’t expect to have bags of puppies for sale, nor did I consider my hero a goatherd. The range of the spell was 220 ft. It was save or die for three of the four characters. Three died. We can discuss how we could have countered the spell. Or just agree that some spells are not fun to suffer from. I DM 70% of the time in our groups and it was a great lesson on how not to ‘challenge’ players.

Bottlenecks are a fact in 80% of published adventures. How they are dealt with varies greatly. However the heroes generally are not going to be happy giving up and go home. It doesn’t fit the game. It doesn’t even fit grim and gritty games like WFRP or Adventures in Middle Earth.

Telegraphing or foreshadowing has the benefit of not needing to reduce caster level, use an alternative spell, or offering a means of protection. Or fudging.

Telegraphing is one tool in the toolbox. The others are there for when foreshadowing isn’t an option, or it isn’t clear enough or had already been used.

 

[iserith]

I certainly wouldn’t expect to have bags of puppies for sale, nor did I consider my hero a goatherd. The range of the spell was 220 ft. It was save or die for three of the four characters. Three died. We can discuss how we could have countered the spell. Or just agree that some spells are not fun to suffer from. I DM 70% of the time in our groups and it was a great lesson on how not to ‘challenge’ players.

Based on my reading of the spell on the Pathfinder SRD, it seems to me goats and/or puppies is a good solution. Therein lay the challenge of the spell - how to overcome it by way of your meaningful decisions. The "fun," some might say, is coming up with a way to not suffer from some spells. The issue was the DM didn't telegraph that such a spell was in play so you could come up with the goats and puppies plan.

Bottlenecks are a fact in 80% of published adventures.

This "fact" doesn't make bottlenecks advisable.

 

[Blue]

Turn this around:

Do you think you can intentionally kill the party in a hard but fair fight? HA. 5e gives a lot of wiggle room to build up the tension and stakes of "we're all going to die" without getting anywhere close.

Great, someone dropped to zero. They are closer to being unharmed then death. Literally. Because death is 3 failed death saves away (with one given for every damage taken), while any single healing action will allow the character to reenter the combat with no penalties for low HPs and fight just as well as if they are unharmed.

If someone drops, plentiful healing magic stands them back up. If they get dog-piled while down and three death-saves-due-to-hits occur before they get stood back up by healing, that's what revivify is for.

 

[ccs]

Quote Originally Posted by ccs View Post

So when you all die because I simply rolled high I'm doing it wrong?

I did say excepting mass stupidity.

OK, so since you also quoted that part, please explain how I'm doing it wrong when my dice simply roll high enough to kill you.

Assume something mundane - goblins or such with basic d6/d8 weapons. No more than the # of characters present. I've certainly TPKd enough low lv parties with "normal" monsters like those throughout the editions.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

This is the exact opposite of advice I would give to any DM, new or old.

Fair enough, different strokes and all that right?

“Know thy party” is the first and most important maxim a DM can follow to make sure everyone is having a good time.

I disagree with the first part, but agree with the last. I have found that in my experience it makes for a better game if the players all know and feel like their choices make the most difference. When a DM 'builds to their capabilities', he's basically stacking the deck in the PC's favour. If you are doing a one-shot, then yes...tailor to the PC's because everyone knows that it's a one-shot adventure and nothing really matters other than rolling dice and having fun AT THE MOMENT. Everyone knows that and accepts it. But for a long-lasting campaign...this "building to the PC's" has done nothing but hurt the amount of enjoyment the players and DM have. Notice I said "enjoyment". I see that as more important than just the more "instant gratification" idea of what "fun" is. A group of players (every group I've had over my time as a DM) has shown me that "fun" wears off. Yes, it's "fun" to play 18th level guys and go through the Keep on the Borderlands...once, for an hour or two. It is "fun" to play a group of non-humans who want to set up traps to repel those murderous adventurers. It is "fun" to get in battles, roll dice, and generally kick ass and take a couple points of damage...for an hour or two. But over the course of 40-odd 4 or 5 hour sessions over the course of a year, it would get boring. At least that's been my experience. YMMV.

If the Party is made up of fighters, rogues and barbarians and the DM keeps throwing challenges at them that can only be overcome by magic or grants rewards that can only be used by spellcasters then they are failing at their basic responsibility to make the game engaging and rewarding. If a DM wants to play this way they should make it very clear what classes and races the party should should be made up of. To each their own, but this smacks of a very top down gaming style.

Hmmm...nope. Not in my experience. In my experience this leads to the "I'm a special snowflake and everything should be created for ME". One of these in a group is bad enough...but half a dozen? ...shoot me now... Y'see, when a DM builds for the PC's, he's basically saying "Don't worry about anything. I'll only put you up against challenges you can handle, and you will always get stuff you need or want. If you accidentally bite off more than you can chew, or the dice shun you, there will be a way to escape or otherwise not die. I'll make sure to pre-warn anyone of a game that might hurt your character in a permanent way, because I know you think that is not fun". ... ... ... And DM'ing or playing in such a group is most decidedly "not fun" in my book.

The DM has total control. They decide monsters, rewards, setting, actions etc. the DM is essentially god. They have a huge amount of responsibility to make the game fair, enjoyable and possible.

I would reword that sentence to: "The DM has ultimate control in his campaign. The DM determines the make-up of his campaign world and can do or create anything needed. The DM has the responsibility to make his campaign world believable and it should contain a logical consistency of it's own reality. A well written, detailed, and described campaign will bring fairness and long-term enjoyment to both the DM and his players".

In my version, the end result of a DM placing the campaign world/setting FIRST allows the Players to make logical choices based on what they want to play. If a DM is running a Dark Sun type campaign, and a player chooses to play a Half-Giant that needs 4 gallons of water a day...but the DM always makes sure that there is somewhere to refill water skins, or the HG PC finds a 'broken' decanter of endless water that just happens to only produce 4 gallons of water a day, and every underground cave or dungeon has 20' wide by 25' high corridors...that is bad. It makes the players choice of a Half Giant kinda 'pointless'; they have all the great stuff of being one, without any of the big drawbacks. When the HG PC dies or is retired...and now the decanter breaks some more (now only producing 1 gallon a day), and dungeons are now 10' by 12' corridors, it causes the Players to think "Oh...I get it. The DM wants us to live and not have a hard time, because difficult things that go against us isn't "fun" I guess". That is, IMO, pretty much the death knell of a group.

I'm NOT saying that you would do such blatantly bad DM'ing calls, but I am trying to get a point across; Just because a PC dies, doesn't mean the Player isn't or didn't have fun getting there.

They are a story teller and when that story ends at level 1 with a TPK (that isn’t the result of mass stupidity) then I really do think they have failed to find the right balance.

Ahh...that old bugaboo. The "But now the story is ruined!" idea. This is one mindset that I just never have understood. I remember all the advertisements for D&D that used an awful lot of "if's", "will you", and "can you". Reading the rules reinforced the "It's your game, your story, your fate" vibe all throughout them. So from my perspective, if a group of level 1's TPK, then that is just part of the story. The story hasn't ended in any way. A campaign is an ongoing series of stories...some end in heroics, some end in riches, and some just end up with the PC's becoming the 'dungeon dressing' (ever wonder where the human leg the orcs are cooking, or where the evil sorcerer got that skull to use as a candle holder?....yeah...PC's... ). Ever hear the ever popular "So, you are heading into the Black Dungeon of Woe? I wish you luck, my lords and ladies. Many have entered and very, very few have returned to tell the tale...". Well, just because the adventurers that just wandered into it were PC's doesn't mean that they should 'automatically' or even 'most probably' survive. Maybe THEY are just part of that majority that never return.

Besides, when you get a TPK, and the new PC's talk to that guy in the bar and he says "The Black Dungeon of Woe? Hhehe... Not more than two weeks ago a small band much like yours now ventured in...not one of them human. Haven't seen them since. Too bad, that elf girl was fine on the eyes! Maybe she still lives? Captured? Ahh...an old man can dream. I don't suggest you go there. Nothing but loss and sorrow". ... ... ... The Players now feel a part of an ongoing story. They are now part of the worlds history. There is an instant sense of continuity, time and reinforcement that the world isn't there for them to "win".

Creating new characters takes effort, creativity and a fair amount of time to do it properly. When players put that effort in they have a reasonable expectation to get a chance to use that PC. There is nothing wrong with the odd unwinnable challenge but throwing liches at players because they took the wrong path smacks of bad design to me.

A lot of "story based" games would fit this. To each their own, as I said in the beginning. But to me, D&D has always been about challenges. About consequences for your actions. It's about trying to win...not assuming you will win (re: not die). It's about taking a character, boldly exploring the unknown, and testing their mettle. The Players get to use their imagination to overcome situations, be they RP'ing, puzzle solving, or combat; it's the PLAYERS that determine that. A DM who is "building a story and adventure so the PC's can be heroic and win" is basically missing the entire point of an RPG (well, at least "D&D", imho). I'd rather hear a story I've never heard before then hear yet another retelling of Hoard of the Dragon Queen but with different PC's; same set up, same factions, same events, same ending. Yuk.

If you have a party rogue, make sure they get chance to do some stealthy stuff or trap finding etc. If you have a party bard then make sure a few fights have opportunities for dialogue and negotiation. If you have a party wizard they need to find the odd scroll or staff to keep relevant. If your party fighter uses an axe and only ever finds magic long swords then you’re doing it wrong in my honest opinion.

With great power comes great responsibility. You can be fair without going easy on characters.

I think your idea of "fair" is different from mine. Fair to me is "Expectation of Opportunity"...not "Expectation of Outcome".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[TheSword]

Quote Originally Posted by ccs View Post

So when you all die because I simply rolled high I'm doing it wrong?

OK, so since you also quoted that part, please explain how I'm doing it wrong when my dice simply roll high enough to kill you.

Assume something mundane - goblins or such with basic d6/d8 weapons. No more than the # of characters present. I've certainly TPKd enough low lv parties with "normal" monsters like those throughout the editions.

When I said Mass stupidity, it was regarding the 1st level PCs attacking the dragon or lich that you had as a story NPC. That would be my example of mass stupidity.

If you are TPKing 1st level parties you probably have the difficulty off. You can adjust numbers of foes, reduce HP (have an old ogre, or young bugbear, or have the NPC already wounded). Or the goblins recognize their own mortality, flee, take captives etc.

I don’t think you’re doing it ‘wrong’ as such. There are advantages to killing players even at 1st level as other posters have said. I just think it’s a waste of everyone’s time to spend 3 hours generating characters, doing the setup only to wipe them all out in the 1st/2nd session.

 

[Imaculata]

I do the following things to limit the chance for a party wipe (slightly):

-I provide some healing items during the dungeon or encounters that lead up to the big fight.

-I provide a learning curve in the encounters leading up to the big fight, so that the players are already familiar with some of the enemies/threats they'll be facing.

-I give my players the opportunity to learn about their opponent, before they fight him.

-I put a lot of thought into the design of the room(s) for my big fight, so that the players have a lot of tactical options. If things go sour, there are always other options to turn the tables.

-Sometimes when I'm not sure if the fight is balanced correctly, I may have some optional reinforcements for the players that can show up in the nick of time. During a huge naval battle that I ran two sessions ago, I had dwarves in submarines that could assist the players halfway through the battle. I ended up not using them, because the battle was perfectly balanced. But it was my first huge naval battle, so I had no idea how it would play out.

-I foreshadow danger. Most of the time I will include hints before a big fight, so the players are not completely caught off guard.

-Most enemies prioritize their targets based on who is the greatest threat. But this depends on the type of creature.