DM advice: How do you NOT kill your party?

[TheSword]

Hiya!



Fair enough, different strokes....

...

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

^_^

Paul L. Ming

This is an approach I’ve seen across the ENWorld boards. Funnily enough I’ve almost never seen it on the Pathfinder Boards where I’ve been posting until I switched to 5e a few years ago. I think there is a newer style of campaign that is more character and plot driven that has been championed by the adventure path system and been followed somewhat by D&D’s campaigns. These have been extremely successful - cementing Pathfinders success as the second biggest ttrpg and are one of the major components of the 5e release schedule. They all use a concept of appropriate threats (with occasional extremely hard or extremely easy encounters).

My players have given their precious time. I prefer for them to be the center of attention not my own creation. I can still have internal consistency even if the players are the cente of that particular world at that particular time. The example of the half giant having to struggle through doors is a good one. Having one or two doors is sufficient to make the Half Giant feel large and burdonsome maintaining a sense of verisimilitude. However if the Half Giant has to sit and wait in multiple sessions because ‘your’ adventure takes place in a smaller areas than they can reach then it is just bad planning. You’re the DM, you have total control. So don’t put them in situations that the have failed before they have even started. Have the temple they are exploring be two foot taller. I have to review a lot of annual appraisals and there is nothing more frustrating for me than when managers have set their employees clearly unachievable goals. Adventures design should share some similarities to goal setting... relevant, stretching and achievable.

You’ve made a few artificial distinctions between fun and enjoyment. I consider the two to be synonymous. You’re suggesting that fun has to be about getting your own way all the time which isn’t the case at all. Our Curse of Strahd game was a lot of fun, but it was also scary, fraught, twisted, tormenting and difficult. Make make no mistake though, it was all about the PCs and how their legend interweaved with Strahd’s.

I think the term ‘special snowflake’ has a particular derogatory term where a character refuses to let other players be the center of attention or is unreasonable in their expectations ahead of the rest of the party. When the DM and the players have the same expectations then that term is probably unhelpful and unnecessarily pejorative. It could easily be said that your style of DMing which refuses to change your world to the PCs despite the fact that you have the prior knowledge, and the ability to do anything you want, makes your campaign the special snowflake. It’s a term that probably isn’t helpful.

It sounds like you really know your stuff and I’m sure your players are begging for more of it. It’s certainly old school and if a DM has a style of play that works for them then that’s better than having no style. That ethos just isn’t for me though, and I don’t think my players (among which I occasional rotate) would enjoy it either.

 

[Horwath]

1. Teach the players from session 1 and fight 1 that every fight is deadly. And that they should approach it knowing that. Aside from mindless beasts every opponent will not attack 1st if cant get an upper hand.
Even the dumbest ogres or hill giant will throw some rock to soften the target a little before closing to melee.

2. Prepare NPC reinforcements for both PCs and enemies. If any side is trashing the other too easy.

3. Dont attack downed PCs.

4. As mentione before, except beasts for food all else will take prisoner, either for information, ransom or as a bait to get more dumb adventurers for food/spoils.

5. Advice players to bring backup characters to session not to get too much downtime. Life is short, no use to sit catatonic for 5hrs at the table while you friends debate about the retrival of body and find the cleric plan.

 

[Imaculata]

3. Dont attack downed PCs.

This is a pretty good one, that I use while the players are low level. I remember two instances in which I used it, and against the same player.

I had a giant spider Queen back away from a downed player, to focus on the players that were still standing. It made sense that she would focus on the current biggest threat, but I could have killed the player easily here.

I had a cannibal knock out a player, and attempt to drag him into the jungle (so his party members had a chance to rescue him). I felt this was more interesting and exciting than simply killing him. Besides, it was a cannibal! Of course they prefer their food alive!

 

[pming]

Hiya!

***snip***
It sounds like you really know your stuff and I’m sure your players are begging for more of it. It’s certainly old school and if a DM has a style of play that works for them then that’s better than having no style. That ethos just isn’t for me though, and I don’t think my players (among which I occasional rotate) would enjoy it either.

Well, looks like we just have differing styles and preferences, which is cool. One of the best things about our quaint little hobby here is that you can have ten different D&D campaigns run from 10 different DM's and every one is different...but everyone is still "playing D&D". Not many other creative hobbies can boast the level of variance and still be considered the same 'hobby'.

I am definitely an "old school DM" (but to me, it's just "DM"). I "know enough" lets say, having just shy of 4 decades of experience RPG'ing (about 90% as DM/GM; started in '80). I prefer DM'ing. I really enjoy the creation aspect and seeing my players eyes light up while exploring my campaign setting. The reason I'm so hard-up on the whole "Campaign FIRST" is that, well, without a campaign all a game of D&D is is an exercise in rolling dice and watching a story unfold without much of anything to support that story. It's like taking the Spider-Man movies and comparing them against the Avengers+ movies (Avengers, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Guardians of the Galaxy). Spider-Man was done how many times? With how many actors playing Spidey, doing the same "story thing" over?

The Avengers+ "marvel movie universe" is like a well run "Campaign FIRST" game. Each character had their own 'thing' going on, but all of it was tied to the campaign setting. Each "PC" had a solid base of understanding of the "campaign world", so to speak. They heard of others and commented about things that happened in other heroes movies. However, the Spider-Man Re-Make Fest was more along the line of "So you are THIS kind of spider man? Ok, I'll adjust the world to fit your particular capabilities and personality". Each "spiderman PC" had the world (campaign) conform to their particular "Heroic telling of a story centered around Spider-Man".

That's how I see a "Campaign FIRST" based game versus a "PC's FIRST" based game. I'd rather have a solid playground where anyone of my players can choose any type of PC they want. As the players play, they fit into the world. If they do heroic things and get notices, then they do heroic things and get noticed. If they are very mercenary and pay-us-first, and become known for "getting anything done...for a price", then so be it. If they die in the second room in the dungeon...well, nobody said adventuring was easy! As long as the campaign remains consistent, the Players know that how the story unfolds and how their PC's evolve is almost entirely up to them. I'm just the DM; I don't write the stories...they do.

PS: As an aside... I got my order of 4 copies of the "Dungeon World" RPG. I had bought the PDF a while ago and thought it had an interesting way of handling a heavy story-based fantasy game, without it being totally freeform. I've only read up to about page 30 or so. I'm bringing this up because in my first posted reply to you, [MENTION=6879661]TheSword[/MENTION], I was trying to point out that this is how I DM for "D&D" (and games very similar to). But some RPG's support a much more "DM tailors more to the individual PC's" type of narrative games. Dungeon World RPG is most definitely in that "narrative, collective, story-telling" bucket. Two of my players are reading through it now as well (lent them each a book). When I end up DM'ing my first Dungeon World game, I will most certainly be doing it MUCH more like what you prefer; tailor to the PC's, make it challenging and interesting, but also make sure there are lots of opportunities for the players PC's to "win" more than die. But...for D&D...I'll stick to my "Old Skool Killer DM" style.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Li Shenron]

If you are planning a major combat, (such as a boss fight) one that has potential to be extremely lethal, what steps do you follow to keep the party alive?
What tactics do you use to prevent a party wipe without the party knowing you helped them out a little.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not an easy DM. I've killed a few PC's in my day, and I'm good with that if it happens here. But this is a boss fight. I want them to win. But I also want it to be dramatic. I want them to survive by the skin of their teeth.

How do you guys create that illusion if you sense things are going very very badly for the party?

I don't.

Because I don't like the game to be directed by the DM to a pre-decided outcome. I don't want the game to be like a movie, if I wanted that I'd watch a movie. Despite the fact that the "saved by the bell" situation is possibly the most rewarding, I want it to happen when it happens, not to be staged by myself.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Wow, reading answers in threads this like really illustrates the differences between combative and cooperative gaming styles. For me, I got tired of the Players versus Dungeonmaster style about 20-25 years ago, long before 3.X and 4E got the reputation of being that type of game. I believe the players and DM are telling a story together. Sure, the players have to survive the trials the DM has created for them, and sure, really dumb choices and lots of bad dice rolls can doom them, but I never set out to try to kill the party and I do not play with DMs whose mindset is that either. So to answer the question, you don't go out of your way to try to kill them. Don't save them from their own stupidity, but if they can come up with decent ideas and they do not have suicidal dice, then you find ways to keep them alive. Maybe they have to run away from a fight or maybe they have to rescue captured teammates or maybe you just happen to make something very lucky or very unlikely happen for them, as many books and movies do, but the DM's job is not to kill the PCs, it is to make sure everyone is having fun. And if a DM gets his jollies at the expense of the fun of the players, then that person should probably not be a DM.

 

[Imaculata]

So to answer the question, you don't go out of your way to try to kill them. Don't save them from their own stupidity, but if they can come up with decent ideas and they do not have suicidal dice, then you find ways to keep them alive.

I don't try to find ways to keep my players alive, once they are beyond a certain level threshold. While they are level 1-5, I'm generally nice to them. But once they reach level 10 and up, the gloves are off. Monsters will do their best to kill them, and I will not go easy on them.

And because I know they can easily handle encounters of a normal challenge rating, I pick monsters of two CR's higher. I want them to barely survive a big battle at their current level.

but the DM's job is not to kill the PCs, it is to make sure everyone is having fun. And if a DM gets his jollies at the expense of the fun of the players, then that person should probably not be a DM.

I think most DM's don't get enjoyment out of killing the players. But you do have to establish stakes and suspense as a DM. If the players know that no matter what they do, they'll always be saved by their DM, then the DM is shielding his players from any danger, and ruining the suspense of the campaign. I want my players to feel genuine suspense. I want them to feel like their choices are sometimes a matter of life and death. And there's no better way to get this across, then to occasionally throw a foe at them that is above the normal challenge rating for their level.

The higher the level of my players, the more the encounters will be skewed in favor of the bad guys. I purposefully add a difficulty curve to my campaign, because I want them to do more than just spam their abilities. I want to challenge them to use tactics to try and even the odds with their more powerful enemies.

My players recently discussed visiting a dragon on an island, and they hesitated, because they know that if their DM throws a dragon at them, and it happens to be hostile, that it will mess them up. They know that dragons in my campaign will probably be scary and angry, and that I will play that dragon to the full range of its capabilities. It will set fire to their ship, and if they manage to flee, it will chase them and set fire to what ever town/village/city they try to hide in. And it is awesome to see them nervously squirm at the prospect of having to fight a dragon.

And yet they are also excited to fight one, because of their slim chances for survival.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Really? When they show up late, pay more attention to their phones and facebooks then your descriptions, take the last slice of supreme pizza when they insisted on the Hawaiian that has barely been touched, borrowed your favorite set of dice because they can't be bothered to buy their own set even though they've been playing the game for years, and still spends ten minutes on their turn looking up spell descriptio s because they still don't know how most of the third-level spells work even though they're 15th level now and refuse to play a non-spell casting class because they feel it has fewer player options? How are you not killing them every game?

 

[Schmoe]

There are some great suggestions earlier in the thread, but I'll add my own experiences. I do a number of things that tend to reduce the lethality of the game while still keeping things dramatic.

Non-lethal combat. First, I try to introduce early on that combat isn't always about killing, it's about winning. Humanoids will surrender or flee, creatures will run away when wounded, etc. A lot of battles will end with the party victorious and the other side still alive. I find this encourages them to consider those options when they are losing.

Telegraph danger. I try to give suitable warning when there is overwhelming danger in the area and then make sure there are non-combat ways for the party to deal with it. But if I do so, I'm also not afraid to use the encounter. If the party wants to test their mettle they certainly can, but in that case their deaths are on them. They also can opt to try to flee/avoid/escape/hide, and those are usually the wiser choices. I've never run a campaign where the party didn't flee in a panic at least a few times. This isn't strictly about boss fights, but it leads into the next point, which is...

Don't always use boss fights. Don't get me wrong, I have certainly designed and used a few of them, but a climactic encounter is just as likely to be climactic for its dramatic effect as it is for its kill factor.

Foreshadowing. As others have said, when the climax of an adventure is a deadly showdown with a powerful foe, I make sure the party is forewarned and has some opportunity to gather resources or otherwise prepare for the fight. If the party ends up dying in one of these encounters, then I see it as a heroic death and a suitable end to the campaign. What better way to go out than in mortal combat with the BBG?

Use discretion. Sometimes, if the chips are down for the party, I find that I don't always have to use the most ruthless tactic to keep the fight interesting.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

If you are planning a major combat, (such as a boss fight) one that has potential to be extremely lethal, what steps do you follow to keep the party alive?

Nothing, really. In fact, I rather try to get the party killed instead.

But here is a few points of note:

- I usually don't make my party face encounters that are impossible to win, if they try to enter an area that's too hard for them, I give subtle warnings like "You have a bad feeling about this" and will also make it clear when they face an enemy that's too hard to beat

- I mostly let monsters act reasonably to get the party killed, smart enemies might target the PC that's most dangerous to them, beasts might just attack whoever hurt them last

- My PCs are responsible for staying alive, though I do support their ideas, like if the tank shouts out provocations, they might actually work

- I do not go out of my way to get a single PC killed, unconscious PCs are usually considered not a threat, so I make the enemies go for the conscious ones first rather than deal a killing blow

This works pretty well for me. I do accomplish the two things I want:

1. My players are permanently scared of death and act accordingly.

2. Whenever my players die, they don't blame me for being unfair, but admit it was their own fault (bad tactics, not listening to my warnings, etc.).