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

[Oofta]

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.

Yep, for me D&D is all about collaborative story telling whenever possible. Things are going on in the world but what the PCs decide to do with what they know or hear is up to them.

Of course if they ignore the rumors of a portal to heck, Phil the Prince of Insufficient Light may make an appearance and mildly annoy the countryside. It's one of the reasons I run a home brew campaign.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

No, I don't think you have.

Yes, the players are mostly at fault here. I agree with that. Whatever happens is on them. However.....a TPK is just beyond necessary. This is my point. the DM has to work to make a TPK happen. there are any number of opportunities for the characters to get out of it. And even if they somehow don't get out of it, there are still options for the DM to avoid killing the entire party (rescue from allies or another faction, capture and then the story becomes about escape, the bad guys simply loot them and leave them for dead but don't actually finish them off, etc.)

Nope.....sorry, but a TPK is a choice the DM makes.

 

[iserith]

I think the issue might be referring to particular outcomes as being anyone's "fault." That's a pretty negative way of looking at it in my view. The DM presented a situation, reasonably informed players made some decisions, and the result of these two things led to a TPK.

The two questions that need to be asked at that point are:

1. Did everyone have fun despite coming to "a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain?"

2. Did the group's play "create an exciting story of bold adventurers confronting deadly perils?"​

If the answers to those two questions is "Yes," then the goals of play as defined by the game itself have been achieved even with the TPK. And that's a good, simple way to look at things in my view.

 

[Oofta]

I think the possibility of character death and TPKs needs to be a group decision. Some people like killer DMs, others don't.

I had a DM once who's idea of fun was to just randomly kill off PCs. As in roll a dice, and if your PC was the unlucky target a giant hand came out of the wall and smashed them flat. No save, just dead. With the right group and attitude that may be fun.

On the other hand I've had players who's PCs were basically suicidal because they wanted to know if I'd kill off a PC. I did eventually oblige him.

So part of my opening spiel is that while I assume the PCs don't have a death wish, my basic assumption is that adventuring is dangerous and death can happen. Then I get feedback on whether people would enjoy it and if they'd ever want their character to be brought back from the dead (the majority do not). I won't go as far as to say that a character could never die under the right circumstances but I do take people's preferences into account.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, the players are mostly at fault here. I agree with that. Whatever happens is on them. However.....a TPK is just beyond necessary.

Necessity has nothing to do with it. Nothing is necessary with D&D.

This is my point. the DM has to work to make a TPK happen. there are any number of opportunities for the characters to get out of it. And even if they somehow don't get out of it, there are still options for the DM to avoid killing the entire party (rescue from allies or another faction, capture and then the story becomes about escape, the bad guys simply loot them and leave them for dead but don't actually finish them off, etc.)

That's as bad or worse than the fudging/cheating discussion in the other thread. Avoiding killing the party should only happen if it makes sense given the encounter. Doing otherwise lets the players know that death is nothing to fear, because the DM is just going to rescue you. If the players charge into a red dragon lair, they are going to be toast unless some of them manage to escape by their own devices. The dragon isn't going to enslave them, ransom them or anything else like that. Instead it's going to have a toasty snack. If they attack a caravan of slavers, then yes, those not killed in the fight will be made into slaves. I'm not going to fabricate wandering powerful NPCs and the like to come save them from bad decisions.

 

[jgsugden]

....

Nope.....sorry, but a TPK is a choice the DM makes.

Not entirely true. I once killed a 6th level party with a single kobold. They decided to scale down a cliff to come at the Kobold Lair from an unexpected angle - ABOVE! They didn't spot the kobold on watch on the cliff above, and the lonely kobold was too scared to fight them... but not to cut the rope. All the PCs fell. All died when the falling damage was pretty high per die.

As a DM, I described the scenario. I set up the challenge. But the PCs decided to attack it from an angle I had not expected, and it backfired on them in a way none of us expected.

As a DM I could have said, "Nope. I'll just write the lone kobold lookout out of the adventure." I could have decided not to have the kobold try to kill the PCs. But where does that mentality end? Should I have a giant decide not to attack a PC because a max damage critical could take them down?

Both bad luck and bad decisions can put the PCs into danger. I believe the DM's job is to create a reasonable path to victory, but that does not mean there can't be real threats of death... to me, it just has to be a real threat that makes the story better.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the possibility of character death and TPKs needs to be a group decision. Some people like killer DMs, others don't.

I had a DM once who's idea of fun was to just randomly kill off PCs. As in roll a dice, and if your PC was the unlucky target a giant hand came out of the wall and smashed them flat. No save, just dead. With the right group and attitude that may be fun.

On the other hand I've had players who's PCs were basically suicidal because they wanted to know if I'd kill off a PC. I did eventually oblige him.

So part of my opening spiel is that while I assume the PCs don't have a death wish, my basic assumption is that adventuring is dangerous and death can happen. Then I get feedback on whether people would enjoy it and if they'd ever want their character to be brought back from the dead (the majority do not). I won't go as far as to say that a character could never die under the right circumstances but I do take people's preferences into account.

Deaths are rare in my game. My campaigns run for about 10 months to 1 year and a half and I average 1 PC death a campaign. Some have 0 deaths, others 2 or more and I've only had one TPK in the last 10 years. As others have said, it's pretty rare for TPKs to happen.

I don't ask whether people would enjoy a PC death. If it happens, I'm not going to fudge things unless it's my fault. Last year or maybe the year before I rolled a 1 on my encounter building and grossly misjudged an encounter. As it tore the PCs apart, I came up with a solution that saved them from death and seemed a part of the encounter. Usually PCs die to a bad decision, and occasionally due to bad luck.

I'm curious, though, about the DM who randomly killed PCs. How old were you? I encountered similar, though not so blatant DMs when I was in junior high and high school, but even by the end of high school that sort of thing disappeared. In junior high we had a player who liked to say things like, "We are now an army" and "We are invincible." when we did well(and to push the DM's buttons). The DM in turn gave us an encounter pretty much guaranteed to wipe the party whenever that happened. We were all friends and we were young, so we made new characters and moved on.

 

[Oofta]

Deaths are rare in my game. My campaigns run for about 10 months to 1 year and a half and I average 1 PC death a campaign. Some have 0 deaths, others 2 or more and I've only had one TPK in the last 10 years. As others have said, it's pretty rare for TPKs to happen.

I don't ask whether people would enjoy a PC death. If it happens, I'm not going to fudge things unless it's my fault. Last year or maybe the year before I rolled a 1 on my encounter building and grossly misjudged an encounter. As it tore the PCs apart, I came up with a solution that saved them from death and seemed a part of the encounter. Usually PCs die to a bad decision, and occasionally due to bad luck.

I'm curious, though, about the DM who randomly killed PCs. How old were you? I encountered similar, though not so blatant DMs when I was in junior high and high school, but even by the end of high school that sort of thing disappeared. In junior high we had a player who liked to say things like, "We are now an army" and "We are invincible." when we did well(and to push the DM's buttons). The DM in turn gave us an encounter pretty much guaranteed to wipe the party whenever that happened. We were all friends and we were young, so we made new characters and moved on.

We were in college. I think the giant hand coming out of the wall was the first "encounter". By the end of the game all the PCs were dead (we had each rolled up two) with my PC the last man standing that basically committed suicide by walking into the obvious trap. That was the last time he ever judged for us.

I've played one-shot campaigns set up with everyone knowing it was just going to be a fun "can you survive" type puzzle game where PCs died left and right. With the right DM and group it can be a lot of fun.

In my games if I get the feeling that someone would rather not die that's not a guarantee that they won't die. However, it does mean that they're more likely to be captured or die in such a way that they can be raised from the dead (although being raised is not as simple as the base rules and has other consequences).

 

[Oofta]

Not entirely true. I once killed a 6th level party with a single kobold. They decided to scale down a cliff to come at the Kobold Lair from an unexpected angle - ABOVE! They didn't spot the kobold on watch on the cliff above, and the lonely kobold was too scared to fight them... but not to cut the rope. All the PCs fell. All died when the falling damage was pretty high per die.

As a DM, I described the scenario. I set up the challenge. But the PCs decided to attack it from an angle I had not expected, and it backfired on them in a way none of us expected.

As a DM I could have said, "Nope. I'll just write the lone kobold lookout out of the adventure." I could have decided not to have the kobold try to kill the PCs. But where does that mentality end? Should I have a giant decide not to attack a PC because a max damage critical could take them down?

Both bad luck and bad decisions can put the PCs into danger. I believe the DM's job is to create a reasonable path to victory, but that does not mean there can't be real threats of death... to me, it just has to be a real threat that makes the story better.

If I had run into this situation I doubt it would have been a guaranteed TPK. While the situation isn't entirely clear, I would have given them plenty of chances to see either the scout or evidence of recent kobold activity at the top of the cliff. I'd question an entire adventuring party going down the rope at one time - how strong is that rope? When the kobold approached to cut the rope I'd have given the party a chance to see it. Even if it did cut the rope I'd give saving throws and possibly other checks to avoid falling to their deaths. Any one of those things would have been more enjoyable than "Sorry guys you're all dead".

In short, this would not have been a dumb enough move in my campaign to justify a TPK. It's your group and your game, but I don't think going left when you expected them to go right should mean everyone dies.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

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.

Ahhh...I misread. My bad, sorry!

I disagree with it being too harsh though. Technically, every death in the campaign is directly contributed to the DM...even PC vs PC, as the DM could have chosen to have the fight interrupted by something/somebody. But I don't think that's what you were aiming for, right? More along the line of "the DM rolled an encounter, it came up Hill Giant, there is an Ogre encounter possibility, so the DM could have chosen Ogre so the PC's had a much better chance of survival....but he/she went with Hill Giant". That kind of "direct control" is what you are referring to?

If so...I still disagree. Now, if the PC's encounter a Hill Giant, and that chance is 2-in-20. They fight...one dies, the others are REALLY hammered down. They move a few hundred feet away from the carcass and set up camp with no camp fire to rest for 12'ish hours until the next morning. The DM rolls for a night encounter, at reduced chances due to no fire and other PC actions. And the PC's STILL get an encounter due to a 'bad roll'. The DM rolls encounter and gets...Hill Giant. NOW the DM has a choice to make. Most DM's would choose to ignore it to give the PC's a break. I am not most DM's, so I wouldn't...they'd still have an encounter. Some DM's might choose to keep the encounter, but 'downgrade' it to Ogre, or maybe even Orcs(3). That's fair enough...and I do admit that I have done this on rare occasion. Usually if the PC's have been beset by the cruel hand of fate (really bad dice rolls all night), or if I have a particular fondness for the group as a whole. Every now and then my players will make a group of PC's that are just so damn fun to DM...it's sad when the dice say "Nope. You gunna diiii...!". But, still, rarely. Some DM's, such as me, would probably STILL have the Hill Giant show up. Usually with a sneak attack of a thrown bolder at one of them from the darkness. Cruel? Maybe from their perspective, but no. I don't think so. Uncaring? Yes. Unfortunate? Definitely. Winnable? Possibly. Fair? Yes.

This sort of "harsh lesson" reinforces that, yes, commoners, travelers and other adventurers information is worth money...sometimes MORE than money. This reinforces the "world" as a believable location, where when the locals all say "Don't travel too near the Jotuns! Unless you fancy seeing the inside of a giants belt sack"...they aren't just 'being colourful' with the warning; they're actually telling the truth. In my games, NPC's and yes, even monsters, if captured will generally tell the truth (exceptions are there, like fanatics of a religion or charmed/dominated, etc). There is a reason for the saying "A persons word is their bond". Without this general world-acceptance, the world would be significantly darker (a.k.a., The Old World from Warhammer).

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.

Definitely...especially when the PC's manage to get one of those "well oiled machine" groups where each PC's capabilities, personality, skills, backgrounds, etc all mesh perfectly. Those are sad to see go down.

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.

I think offering a "TPK" as a solution is, well, a solution. Not the only solution, obviously, but there are some times when it's the most logical solution. At least as far as the campaign goes. Note, Campaign, not PC's. I am firmly of the belief that if it comes down to either the campaign world getting screwed in some permanent way, or the PC's getting screwed in some permanent way...the DM should always err on the side of screwing the PC's.

Why Campaign over PC's? If the Campaign is being run 'old skool', meaning it's a single campaign setting with a consistent history (including PC's) and timeline, then it is more important. If the "Campaign" is being run 'new skool', meaning a single "adventure path/storybook" where what happens before or after it is non-material, then maybe err on the side of PC's. Obviously I feel that an old skool campaign is superior by leaps and bounds, there are a lot of folks who prefer the 'one and done' sort of 'episodic' campaigns. One of the key things for a believable "old skool" campaign is consistency; and this means that TPK's will happen due to various encounter charts, histories of an area, backgrounds of a city, temperaments of an ocean/sea/river, etc. The DM, imho, shouldn't change "the world" by ignoring his rolls and whatnot. May be fine once, but the more it happens, the less and less consistently believable the world becomes and the more and more the players start to feel like "the DM wouldn't do X to us because of Y". And when you have Players that are expecting X and get Q...whining, complaining, disappointment, and tears tend to accompany. I mean, they've been traveling around the Giant Hills for weeks and have only encountered 1 hill giant from about a kilometer away. Now, suddenly, POOF! We are attacked at night by THREE of them?! The DM just wanted to kill us! Totally unfair!

Anyway, this is getting long...again...(I have an explanation problem! ). Suffice it to say, a TPK is a solution...although it may be a solution some DM's aren't willing to or aren't comfortable with. I'm just giving my 2¢ on it in regards to my experience and preference.

^_^

Paul L. Ming