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

[hawkeyefan]

Okay, thanks for explaining. It seems your objection is mostly rooted in "wasted effort." I can see that as valid in particular ways of playing and from some perspectives. Imagine the TPK of, say, a beloved cast of characters on a popular vodcast. What about all that unsold merch?! It's definitely a concern.

For a table game like mine, I would say it's less of a concern for several reasons. I ask the players to put very little "work" into their characters. Backstories are no longer than an old-style tweet, for example. And since "the story" is an emergent property, an artifact of play let's say, it's not like we really put any effort into it. As far as story hooks go, my players already have backup characters ready to go who are also easily tied into those hooks and can continue where the dead characters left off. The players prioritize the adventure goals over some nebulous backstory goal created before the game even started, so there's really no loss of DM prep tied into long term goals. Perhaps during play I might be inspired to tie some aspect of the adventure to something about the character's backstory, but that's about the amount of work I'm willing to put into it. And honestly, having done it the other way, I think this way is far better. It's less prep, less planning, less caring whether there's a payoff for that prep, and it leaves me flexible to insert it at the best moment possible as it arises in play. Oh, you're trying to avenge the death of your parents by an orc tribe? Well, it just so happens this orc tribe right here is the one responsible!

So, while a TPK is actually pretty hard to come by, if one happens it's really just not a big deal. The backup characters come in, very little effort is lost, and we're back at it within minutes.

Yeah, my views are geared toward my style of play, or at least a game similar in style. We play a very story heavy game. To clarify, the story is based on ideas the players have brought to the game in addition to some I’ve brought as DM. The story does emerge through play, but there’s a good deal of effort put in by all. So the idea of a TPK seems totally negative.

I think it would have to somehow add more to the campaign than it takes away in order to be worth it. And I have a hard time seeing how that could be.

Now that doesn’t mean that this is true of all games and all players or DMs. I’ve played in games that were very differemt in style, and where the lethality of the game is ramped up. That can be fun, of course.

What started me down this avenue of the comversation is that so many were advising [MENTION=23]Ancalagon[/MENTION] in response to his OP to go with a TPK. To me, that seems a bit extreme. Especially since he ends his post asking for ways to avoid drastic measures to save the party.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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



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.

I’m not saying you should introduce elements out of the blue. I think that in any case, there are options along the way that can easily avoid a TPK.

The dragon’s a good example, as it can likely easily kill a whole party. Does it need to? Can it simply eat one PC and send the others scurrying while it shouts “tell the other mortals of my greatness” or something like that.

Or maybe it does need underlings for some reason. Perhaps it’s trapped in the lair, and only small creatures like the PCs might be able to make it through the dungeon below to activate the mechanism that will free it.

There are any number of things that can be done. They don’t need to be forced.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Hiya!

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).

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 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

I think that there must be a series of decisions for the DM to make that leads to a TPK. The players are certainly contributing, but still the DM is making decisions along the way that head in the TPK direction.

The DM picks or rolls a very difficult encounter.
The DM doesn’t give ample warning that it may be a deadly encounter.
The DM does not allow for other ways of dealing with the encounter beyond combat.
The DM does nothing to mitigate the deadliness of the encounter.
The DM has the monsters pursue PCs who try to flee.
The DM has the monsters kill any down but living PCs.

Again, the players can certainly continue to make things worse for themselves...attacking when they could sneak away, not running when they realize they’re in trouble, and so on. But the DM still has to make decisions for the TPK to happen.

As for the campaign vs characters thing...I’m not sure if I agree with you. My campaign is taking place in the same setting all our campaigns have taken place in since the AD&D days. But that setting doean’t mean anything if there aren’t characters to adventure in it. I don’t know if that means I’m new skool or old skool...probably a bit of both.

I just fail to see the upside to a TPK. Or at least enough of an upside to it to ever suggest it as advice on wjat to do with players who make foolish decisions for their characters.

 

[Sunseeker]

I just fail to see the upside to a TPK. Or at least enough of an upside to it to ever suggest it as advice on wjat to do with players who make foolish decisions for their characters.

There's a reason I like playing Tabaxi. I am fundamentally a cat. As such, I greatly enjoy toying with my players, but killing them is boring.

Foolish decisions may present opportunities to teach "Hey, don't poke the friendly dragon in the eye!" but generally speaking I seek to teach my players to learn from their mistakes. Players I have noticed have an impressive capacity to meta-game the knowledge that benefits them (such as where the hidden door is) and an equally impressive capacity not to metagame the common sense I try to teach them.

HOWEVER, I find that they're much more likely to retain the knowledge of "FIRE HOT!" if I keep their PCs alive.

 

[5ekyu]

I'm just trying to wrap my mind around a game where almost nobody gets killed, and when they do, it's NEVER because of a decision they have made,
and when the PC dies, the player learns absolutely nothing, and gains no experience. Every PC gets killed in a manner which involves bad luck and
extenuating circumstances, in such a sterile manner than no lesson whatsoever at all can be gleaned from it. Is this, possibly, the 5E Immaculate Concept Edition you're playing?
Sounds really bor-, er interesting.

I have no idea where that concoction you just went on about came from.

But back to the question, when you gave that long explanation of what an average player does, then clarified its not the average player at your table... Where did you see that player stuff you ascribed to average players enough to convince you its what an average player does?

 

[Ancalagon]

So, to pull this back to the original topic: When a DM drops powerful monsters into a game that have no story reason to be there, but can easily kill the PCs, just so that the PCs can be intimidated by the dangers of the world - he is doing something just as bad as the DM that railroads players with a choiceless storyline. He is forcing a story on the players where they have only one reasonable choice: Flee, because failure to flee is certain death. The DM is better served to only put these types of monsters in a game when there is a story reason for them to be there... and best served doing so when the PCs have a spectrum of options for how to interact with it.

These is a story reason for that powerful monster to be there: these jungles are lethal. They are perhaps 100 miles wild and separate a heavily populated area (landlocked) from a major port. And yet despite the immense commercial value of cutting a way through (instead of traveling 500-1000 miles via river boats), no one has, because the jungles are just that deadly.

To repeat an example given previously, it would be peculiar to enter the Giant Hills and never see a giant.

The players had a choice - they could have said "... you know what, that thief can keep the doodad, we don't want it anyway" and not entered the jungle. They knew how bad it was.

They can avoid and circumvent the monster and keep pursuing the thief. They can give up and retreat and return to the Yellow City. They can do battle... if they do they are probably going to lose party members, maybe even TPK... or they might just pull some miracle and be victorious. They could do... something else I haven't thought of. Players do that sometimes, and that's great.

 

[5ekyu]

I think that there must be a series of decisions for the DM to make that leads to a TPK. The players are certainly contributing, but still the DM is making decisions along the way that head in the TPK direction.

The DM picks or rolls a very difficult encounter.
The DM doesn’t give ample warning that it may be a deadly encounter.
The DM does not allow for other ways of dealing with the encounter beyond combat.
The DM does nothing to mitigate the deadliness of the encounter.
The DM has the monsters pursue PCs who try to flee.
The DM has the monsters kill any down but living PCs.

Again, the players can certainly continue to make things worse for themselves...attacking when they could sneak away, not running when they realize they’re in trouble, and so on. But the DM still has to make decisions for the TPK to happen.

As for the campaign vs characters thing...I’m not sure if I agree with you. My campaign is taking place in the same setting all our campaigns have taken place in since the AD&D days. But that setting doean’t mean anything if there aren’t characters to adventure in it. I don’t know if that means I’m new skool or old skool...probably a bit of both.

I just fail to see the upside to a TPK. Or at least enough of an upside to it to ever suggest it as advice on wjat to do with players who make foolish decisions for their characters.

I gotta say, in an edition where a direct failure on a check to climb a wall, sneak by someone, pick a lock, persuade a guard, translate a scroll, scribe a spell etc etc etc is explicitly allowed in the PHB to be a progress with setback... Its just odd to see how limited some folks seem to ferl there options are for resolving "failure" at a combat encounter without tpk or other such problems.

The PHB seems fine with... The jump is 20 feet and you can jump 15. The fall can be lethal... 1000 feet down. GM assigbs hard dc 20 to the check...

Athletics check of 8 well under the GM 20...

You fall short, catch the wall a bit down but lose your pack and take 12 hp. You have to climb up now...

"or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM."

But fail to win in the brawl with ogres... so limited some GMs seem to think they are.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I think that there must be a series of decisions for the DM to make that leads to a TPK. The players are certainly contributing, but still the DM is making decisions along the way that head in the TPK direction.

The DM picks or rolls a very difficult encounter.
The DM doesn’t give ample warning that it may be a deadly encounter.
The DM does not allow for other ways of dealing with the encounter beyond combat.
The DM does nothing to mitigate the deadliness of the encounter.
The DM has the monsters pursue PCs who try to flee.
The DM has the monsters kill any down but living PCs.

Again, the players can certainly continue to make things worse for themselves...attacking when they could sneak away, not running when they realize they’re in trouble, and so on. But the DM still has to make decisions for the TPK to happen.

As for the campaign vs characters thing...I’m not sure if I agree with you. My campaign is taking place in the same setting all our campaigns have taken place in since the AD&D days. But that setting doesn't mean anything if there aren’t characters to adventure in it. I don’t know if that means I’m new skool or old skool...probably a bit of both.

I just fail to see the upside to a TPK. Or at least enough of an upside to it to ever suggest it as advice on wjat to do with players who make foolish decisions for their characters.

I agree that there is a series of decisions a DM makes that leads to a TPK. I do not see this as wrong or a bad thing.

The DM rolls a very difficult encounter. Check (NOTE: I removed "picks", because I don't do that; I have encounter chances and table for a reason...to help me remain neutral and unconcerned about the outcome).

The DM doesn't give ample warning of a potentially deadly (TPK) encounter. Not my job to keep the PC's safe. My job is to be the cold, cruel and uncaring 'world'. It doesn't care if you are only 3rd level...if there is a chance of meeting, however slim, a huge, ancient red dragon in the Dragon Hills, and the dice come up 01. Not my problem. Sorry, PC's. Death is highly likely unless they take immediate and successful 'evasive/pre-emptive' measures (like jump behind whatever is closes...rock, tree, horse, etc). I would also point out I do use the "Monster Reaction Table" (mine, I think I based it off of BECMI or 1e...honestly can't remember; it includes reasons for the monsters appearance...traveling, hunting, searching for something, fleeing, wandering, etc). So it is entirely possible to have a potential TPK turned instantly into a "small break for the PC's as they wash their loincloths in a creek" after a huge, ancient red dragon flies overhead on it's way to a nearby lake to get a drink of water).

The DM does not allow for other ways of dealing...other than combat. Check/agree. This would fall into the "being a Richard" more than "setting up for TPK 'jus cause'.

The DM does nothing to mitigate the deadliness of the encounter. Check. Again...not my job to make the PC's lives 'safe'. Sometimes dice just have it in for PC's...just like sometimes the PC's dice have it in for a monster, or a challengeing skill situation, or an NPC. I don't "fudge" the DC's to make it impossible/harder for them to succeed...why should I do it the other way? All that does is lead to the Players getting used to "the DM won't let us die...not a TPK anyway..."; and then when a TPK does happen, they are shocked/surprised and pissed off because NOW it's "unfair". Best to nip that little "the DM will save us" subconscious (or conscious) idea right from the get go.

The DM has the monsters pursue PC's who try to flee. Check. Again, I have a "monster reaction" and "morale" tables I use to help in deciding. Pretty sure it's from 1e and/or Hackmaster 4th. Basically, there's a Percentage Chance a monster will 'succeed'. It keeps fighting if it succeeds. If it fails, it's reaction is based on by how much it failed. Modifiers to Morale are done before the roll. The more it fails, the more likely it will surrender or flee...the less it fails, the more likely it is to disengage or try and do a fighting withdrawl. If the PC's press the attack, well, yeah...it keeps fighting. Obviously.

The DM has the monsters kill any down but living PCs. Check. This depends on far too many factors. Intelligent ones may "coup de grais" because they know better. Stupid ones...maybe yes, maybe no. I base this chance on why the creature was encountered in the first place (if it's hunting...it's hungry; it will probably start eating right away, or try to drag off the downed PC...this could result in death). If a DM has every monster resort to "killing a downed opponent" regardless of situation, intelligence, alignment, etc...then the DM is being more "Richard'ish" than Neutral.

I think the "up side" to a TPK...if you can even call a TPK that...is reinforcing the Players suspension of disbelief and their believably of the campaign itself. I mean, look at serial TV shows. Are they entertaining? Yeah, could be (face it, most TV sucks). But why do shows like Babylon 5 (old sci-fi show), Game of Thrones, and various Netflix/HBO shows have such high regards and followings? Because the viewers BELIEVE that at any time, if a character gets into a situation where they are likely to die...they WILL LIKELY DIE. I mean, in the first season, when one of the "obviously main characters" (Lord Stark) is captured, beaten, etc, and about to be killed... (1) In a more "new skool" style campaign, he wouldn't die. Something would miraculously happen (Deus Ex Machina) to stop or otherwise postpone the execution...giving the "PC" another opportunity to escape. ...-or-... (2) In a more "old skool" (like my games), he dies. That's it. Dead. Head, off. The "PC" doesn't escape. His execution isn't postponed by a freak attack by some unknown army at the gates, or some monster swooping down, or a guard rebellion, or anything. Dead. Sorry. Grab the dice and roll up a new 1st level PC.

People like GoT for a lot of reasons...one of which is because at any time, any 'major' character can be killed or severely screwed over. The Red Wedding episode? TPK. It didn't stop the campaign. It changed it. The TPK may have been "unfortunate" to the PC's involved, sure...but better to TPK and continue the story, adding depth to the campaign history and giving both the Players and the DM a very cool and powerful 'hook' for backgrounds, goals, hatreds, rivalries, etc...then to "just capture them instead". At least in my not so humble opinion. Then again -->[self]<-- = "Killer DM", remember?

I think it really boils down to how much "realism/simulation" versus how much "serialisation/narrativist" a DM and the Players are. Obviously I fall into the first style. You may fall into more of the second, or likely some combination. I can see the benefit to avoiding TPK's in that it makes the game 'lighter' and easier to just play and have fun rolling dice, seeing what unfolds, and role-playing. But I just find more benefits to letting the dice help tell the story...even if that story ends in tragedy.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Caliburn101]

Frankly I think DM's ARE storytellers. But I don't consider my players 'puppets'. I think a DM can (and probably should) have a story in mind, without it immediately being a railroad campaign.


For example, I'm currently preparing a session for my 3.5 pirate campaign that DOES involve a story, a dungeon, various side quests, and a main quest. I plan to spread out various plot hooks over the course of the session, as the players go about their personal goals. My objective is to then intertwine their personal goals, with the plot. And various plot hooks point towards the same story. But depending on their choices, they may come at the story from a different angle, and with a different resolution.

Are the players 'puppets' for following my carefully laid out trail of breadcrumbs? I personally don't think so. But I know what sort of mysteries to hand them to get them to chase the story. I would not be surprised if many, if not most DM's, run their campaign this way.

Indeed GMs are storytellers, and ones with a difficult balancing act to ensure player freedom and yet challenge; risk of death and yet continuation of the story; weaving a satisfying story arc yet allowing real agency for the players.

Players should not be puppets for GMs who railroad, just as much as GMs should not be the puppets of their players with the inevitable excesses of overusing the 'rule of cool' some people seem to be rabidly fond of.

 

[jgsugden]

I'm not sure what you are arguing here, but I think there is more opportunity for you to enjoy the game.

These is a story reason for that powerful monster to be there: these jungles are lethal. They are perhaps 100 miles wild and separate a heavily populated area (landlocked) from a major port. And yet despite the immense commercial value of cutting a way through (instead of traveling 500-1000 miles via river boats), no one has, because the jungles are just that deadly.

That is a situation, not a story. Right? There is no protagonist, no climax... it is a setting. So far...

To repeat an example given previously, it would be peculiar to enter the Giant Hills and never see a giant.

Don't put a gun in the play if it won't be fired? Don't put the GIant Hills in the game if we won't see Giants? Guns can be used as more than a boom stick, and Giants are more than than CR 5 to 9 brutes.

Don't get me wrong: There is definitely something to this statement, but there is more to this than you are noting, I think... as well as less. However, I kind of feel like this is a sidetrack. Regardless....

There is more to it in that the Giant Hills can be the Giant Hills without the PCs seeing Giants. They can know there are giants there without seeing them, obvously. Low level PCs would be wise not to venture into the Giant Hills, right? Does that mean there are no Giants there? And if the PCs have cause to enter those Hills... can there be an adventure that is all about NOT seeing the Giants? In avoiding being found by the overwheling threat and sneaking around to find the the McGuffin and escape alive? There are a lot of movies that tell that story, right?

There are a lot of stories that could be told of he Giant Hills, and they don't all involve fighting giants.

And, of course, there is less to this statement in that a label is just a label. My PCs hang out in the Green Dragon Tavern and have never seen a Green Dragon there. The Giant Hills may have been the home of giants, once, but no more. Sometimes a label is not sigificant.

The players had a choice - they could have said "... you know what, that thief can keep the doodad, we don't want it anyway" and not entered the jungle. They knew how bad it was.

They can avoid and circumvent the monster and keep pursuing the thief. They can give up and retreat and return to the Yellow City. They can do battle... if they do they are probably going to lose party members, maybe even TPK... or they might just pull some miracle and be victorious. They could do... something else I haven't thought of. Players do that sometimes, and that's great.

And all of that is fine. The thief escapes into the jungle, foolishly, with the doodad. There are a lot of stories to be told, there. The story is at the core. This is drastically different than having the PCs get off the ship and be told the jungle around them is dangerous, the city they're in is dangerous, and there is no ship to go back to civilization. It is a dangerous world and they need to run from the big scaries that HAPPEN to find them...

As a DM, I might very well have the Giant Hills be located around the town that my low-level PCs begin their campaign within, but I would not likely expect them to be running off to fight a giant at level 1. Instead, I will be providing them with other story opportunities that they could adventure within with the full knowledge that the Giants are out there somewhere in the Hills. There will be several story threads that they could develop, move forward, and resolve before they were ready to venture out and face a giant as part of an unfolding story. As a DM, it is my job to give them a good story that they can engage and enjoy.

Now, if the PCs foolishly decide at level one to rush off into the hills and look for the first giant they can find, there is little I can do as a DM (without railroading them away from such a choice) to protect them from themselves. We're telling a story together, and if that is how they want to end it, that is how it will end. Both the DM and the players have a certain amount of control over how the story will resolve. In a really good game, the eventual resolution is one that the players and the DM both fine to be appealing. That takes cooperation between the players and the DM.

D&D is an RPG. A role playing game. It is all about characters playing a role in a story... and making that story great. It is not itself a strategy game, although there are subgames within D&D that are strategy games. No, it is a story game. Read the DMG. Very little of it is actual guidance, as opposed to resources, but what is guidance is ripe with discussion of the story of the game.