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

[iserith]

Some of these stories and explanations remind me of a DM I once had (not the one with the giant hand). Whenever the enemy crit, he would pull out a 6 sided die that had a different body part on each side. If he rolled a leg, your leg was crippled, and so on.

If he rolled the head your head was chopped off and your PC was dead. So after every critical hit (and he liked to throw mobs of low level goons) you had a 1 in 6 chance of dying. Was this "fair" or "realistic"? After all he wasn't deciding the outcome, his 6-sided die was. He had no control over it, it was random.

The thing is that it wasn't really random - he had decided that the die dictated the outcome. Just like a DM deciding that a random monster chart will dictate the outcome. The DM is the world. Deciding to use a die roll to determine what happens when a critical hit happens or if and what monster(s) will stumble on the party in the middle of the night is a DM decision.

I've killed off my fair share of PCs in my years of DMing and have had a couple of TPKs or near TPKs with only 1 PC surviving. My PCs don't have plot armor. They do have ... I don't know ... plot deflectors? Because they are the hero and the protagonist of their story.

That's not true for everyone. For some people, the PCs are disposable and easily replaced and a deadly game where you can just pull in a backup character is a speed bump. Personally I wouldn't want to play in that kind of game long term, so I ask my players what type of game they prefer.

There's a difference between the critical hit example and wandering monster rolls - there is at least something one can reasonably to do mitigate the threat of random encounters or wandering monsters in a well-constructed game in my view. The critical hit is totally random and offers no choice, except perhaps avoiding combat altogether or maybe questing for adamantine armor. In a game like my Yawning Portal campaign, there is a lot you can do to mitigate or eliminate the chances of a random encounter. Travel at slower pace so you can move stealthily (effectively trading the resource of time for safety and/or a significant combat advantage), assign a character or skilled hireling to track (risking surprise for that character in exchange for a reduced chance of encounter), go off-road instead of taking the Old Road (trading time and a chance of getting lost for less encounter checks), optimize exploration tasks between PCs in the dungeon so that less checks are warranted while exploring a room, focus on taking out a particular faction in the dungeon to reduce the chances of an encounter coming up, take time and resources to build a defensible camp to negate encounter checks entirely, have the wizard memorize Leomund's tiny hut for long rests in the wilderness, and so on. And if an encounter is indicated, one that is perhaps a bit too tough for the PCs in their current state, they can try to parlay or run instead of fight.

Player choices matter and the players carve out their own victory (or defeat) within the framework that is set up by the DM. That is in stark contrast to just rolling a die that decapitates a PC after rolling another die that indicates a crit. There is no real choice there. So while I don't like to get too hung up on examples, what you describe is a particularly bad one, at least where my game is concerned.

I wouldn't necessarily call the PCs "disposable" either. Players do care about their characters in my experience. But D&D has an iteration time problem, that is, the time it takes for a player to get back into the primary mode of participation after a character dies. You have to create a new character, which takes some amount of time (less so with particular apps), and then however long it takes for the new character to join the party. That's potentially a lot of time for a player to be out of play. 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.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If current movies were like how some people are saying we should play D&D, then all the people killed by Thanos would come back alive because story.

Oh...wait...

 

[Eric V]

Interesting thread.

More than a few DMs here have said how there would be a TPK or something equally dire if there was no retreat. Makes sense.

I have some questions, though:

1) Is this borne out through play, or is this theoretically what would happen. I.e. how many TPKs have you presided over?

2) If the former, what are the reactions of your players? Do they love it? Hate it? Shrug and just grab some d6s to roll up a new toon?

3) How invested are your players with their characters? Do they have a background and a couple of catch-phrases and are good to go? Detailed backstories to see fruition over a long campaign? Are they invested in leveling them up?

4) Do you ever have campaign plots that hinge on a PC, even in a minor way?

Thanks! I am running a game now, and feel that if there was a TPK I might not have a group the following week, even if it was their own fault. Happened before, with a different group, when they taunted an Efreet out in the open sky.

 

[iserith]

Interesting thread.

More than a few DMs here have said how there would be a TPK or something equally dire if there was no retreat. Makes sense.

I have some questions, though:

1) Is this borne out through play, or is this theoretically what would happen. I.e. how many TPKs have you presided over?

In D&D 5e, perhaps three. In two of those cases, death was a desirable goal, however, due to the nature of the scenario. In previous editions of the game, quite a few over the years.

2) If the former, what are the reactions of your players? Do they love it? Hate it? Shrug and just grab some d6s to roll up a new toon?

When it was an undesirable goal, generally they saw it as a fair outcome, a culmination of their choices plus some randomness, and it was usually in the context of something fairly epic. I would say on the whole they were happy with the outcome in terms of its reasonableness and the story it created. It's more fun to succeed I think, but it can still be fun to fail.

3) How invested are your players with their characters? Do they have a background and a couple of catch-phrases and are good to go? Detailed backstories to see fruition over a long campaign? Are they invested in leveling them up?

It's hard to say how invested anyone is in a character in my view. I don't ask for a lot of upfront investment in the character such as with detailed backstories; in fact, I ask that they be no longer than a tweet. Investment happens over time as the character develops during play. In my ongoing Planescape campaign, I'm sure a loss of one of those characters would be a big deal. We've only lost one so far, a few levels back, and it was enough to spur a revenge plot against a particular faction and to push certain PCs into other factions. They are very invested in leveling up, though I'm not sure what you mean by that exactly. They're always thirsty for XP.

4) Do you ever have campaign plots that hinge on a PC, even in a minor way?

I don't really think of things in terms of plots. As I said upthread, I think of situations that exist without the PCs and, when the PCs interact with them, stuff happens.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Hiya!

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.

I don't think that any single one of them is bad, really, but I generally do see a TPK as a bad thing. Sure, there may be examples that folks can provide where a TPK was fun and rewarding, and perhaps even furthered the story. This is why I'm not saying that a TPK should absolutely never happen. I question it as advice given to a DM who asks how to handle a situation where his players have foolishly gone up against an encounter that is too tough for them.

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).

Who made the list that you rolled from? Who placed the area that list pertains to?

Setting aside the whole "neutral DM" aspect of the discussion, the DM has still made several choices in regards to this. So even if ultimately, a die is used to randomize the encounter....the die is randomizing from details chosen by the DM.

Even if it's a list in a published game book, the DM has chosen that list. And this is fine....I am not saying this is a bad thing, or a bad way to handle it....but the DM has made choices about these things. He is not absolved of responsibility for them.

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).

This is not about keeping the PCs safe. It's about letting them know that the danger may be too great. For example, naming the hills the Giant Hills and having the PCs hear of giant attacks, and maybe speaking to a veteran NPC missing an arm who tells them if they ever see a giant, they should run. Those are the kinds of things I am talking about. Now, those seem to be reasonable warning signs. However, since this is a game, the players may actually see things like that as a dare. This is why I say that the DM is responsible to make sure things are clear....because different players may pick up on different cues, and what's an "obvious warning" to one player is seen differently by another.

So I have to disagree that this is not your job. The DM has to try and portray the world to the players so that they can make informed decisions. It's not about keeping them safe....it's about letting them make as informed a decision as possible.

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'.

Glad we agree here!

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.

In this case, I mean more about the decisions of monsters/enemy NPCs. When the tide of the combat seems to turn against the PCs, the DM is able to ease off a bit....there's no reason that he has to continue to run the bad guys as perfectly efficient killing machines who will not take a moment to gloat, or waste an action in some other way. There can be plenty of story related reasons for this. Yes, a lot of this depends on the reason for the combat and the creatures involved, but my point is that this is another decision point where the DM has the ability to influence the likelihood of a TPK.

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.

What about when PCs flee? That's what I was taking about. Again, I think it depends on the context of the fight, and the enemy motivation for the combat, but in most instances it would be pretty easy to justify letting PCs run away. Or if it's not, then the pursuit can be resolved with skills rather than continuing the combat, or the chase mechanics in teh DMG (weak as they may be) can be used to mitigate the results.

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.

"Far too many factors" is what I am talking about. Any of those factors may allow the DM an opportunity to mitigate the deadliness of the encounter. The Bullette drags off the downed PC to eat rather than chase the other fleeing PCs, etc.

Even once all PCs are down....unless they've all failed 3 death saves, I don't see this as a TPK. Once the last goes down, I'd stop combat and then narrate what happens. They could be taken prisoner or wake up with their gear stolen or any other option we can come up with.

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

People also like stories where there is definitely no chance that the main character will die. And such stories are not inherently weaker.

(Also, Robb Stark was clearly an NPC, so no the RW was not a TPK )

Having said that, I agree, I prefer that my game has the risk of PC death. There have been two from our current group. Stuff happens and sometimes there are bad results. But I don't think that's the same as going for a full on TPK. They don't happen by accident, despite the examples provided. A TPK has to have DM approval.

And that's fine if that's the game you're playing and that your players expect.....but as general advice? I think it's probably not a good idea.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And sometimes it only takes one bad event to act as a seed for a series of other worse events, in an otherwise relatively ordinary situation.

The only TPK I've ever DMed was like this.

The situation: during their explorations the party found a shaft with a ladder going down, so down they went, sending their toughest warrior down first (with some extra magic gear, if memory serves) to deal with any trouble. At the bottom awaited an opponent who in ordinary circumstances would have been quite beatable by this party...but not here, as it turned out. Here, as soon as the warrior reached the bottom he was heavily charmed and turned against the party, who he then methodically mowed down as they reached the bottom of the ladder. A few party members tried to paralyze or over-charm or otherwise restrain him but he just kept making save after save...

Once the rest were all dead, having achieved all of 3 points damage to the actual opponent, the charmed warrior became a slave of said opponent...who being undead didn't need to eat (and who could renew the charm on a whim). The warrior, however, did need to eat; and thus eventually starved to death.

This wasn't a case of bad decisions, just sheer bad luck for the most part. And in a truly rare occurrence, nobody had a getaway car.

It's hard to get a full picture from that description, and it certainly seems that the players continued to make bad decisions over and over, but I'm sure there were ways it could have been avoided.

Again I reiterate, you're 99% of the time not going to get a full TPK - somebody is going to have a getaway car of some sort, and the party will go on.

Lanefan

I think perhaps then this needs to be explained to those advocating for TPKs, no?

There are so many ways that they can be avoided. And plenty of those "getaway cars" are ones at the DM's disposal.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Interesting thread.

More than a few DMs here have said how there would be a TPK or something equally dire if there was no retreat. Makes sense.

I have some questions, though:

1) Is this borne out through play, or is this theoretically what would happen. I.e. how many TPKs have you presided over?

2) If the former, what are the reactions of your players? Do they love it? Hate it? Shrug and just grab some d6s to roll up a new toon?

3) How invested are your players with their characters? Do they have a background and a couple of catch-phrases and are good to go? Detailed backstories to see fruition over a long campaign? Are they invested in leveling them up?

4) Do you ever have campaign plots that hinge on a PC, even in a minor way?

Thanks! I am running a game now, and feel that if there was a TPK I might not have a group the following week, even if it was their own fault. Happened before, with a different group, when they taunted an Efreet out in the open sky.

Good questions, and I'll be interested to see how people reply. Here are my answers:

1) I have presided over one TPK in my entire DM career, going back to the 2E days. Plenty of individual character deaths, but only the one TPK.

2) The one time it happened, they accepted it, but they were upset. It was a fitting end given the particular story and what they had chosen, but they were still sad to see those characters go, and I think the next campaign we started fizzled as a result. They were enjoying the previous one so much that the loss made starting a new campaign difficult.

3) My players tend to get very invested with their characters. When we start play, they have a bit of background that they use to help portray their character. The longer the campaign goes, and the higher the level the character attains, the stronger their investment becomes. Every now and then, someone grows bored with a character and we retire them or kill them off, but usually the longer the character lasts, the more attached the players become to them.

4) We do tend to have plots that hinge upon specific PCs. Usually, we have many plots in play....some are general and apply to the group, but others are more personal and pertain to specific PCs. How close or far they are from such goals can also play a big part in how attached the player may be to a character.

 

[iserith]

There are so many ways that they can be avoided. And plenty of those "getaway cars" are ones at the DM's disposal.

It probably bears repeating that this only matters to folks who play the way you do - with a plot heavily influenced by work the players and DMs do prior to the game which would be curtailed or wasted in the event of one or more PC deaths and for which it might not make a lot of sense for backup PCs to take over the same plot.

If you don't set up you game this way, as many in this discussion probably don't, then one or more PC deaths just isn't a big deal and there's no need for the DM to throw "getaway cars" in there to save the players from their decisions and bad luck. Nothing is wasted or curtailed and backup PCs can jump in to continue.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

My current game is a meat grinder dungeon. The plot is minimal and PC are replaceable. The fun is in the players defeating this dungeon that in the3e days claimed many of their PC before they fled. There is a hook back to the old campaign though in that some of those dead PC now serve an Ancient skeleton warrior in death. So they will see their old guys again! I love reunions.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It probably bears repeating that this only matters to folks who play the way you do - with a plot heavily influenced by work the players and DMs do prior to the game which would be curtailed or wasted in the event of one or more PC deaths and for which it might not make a lot of sense for backup PCs to take over the same plot.

If you don't set up you game this way, as many in this discussion probably don't, then one or more PC deaths just isn't a big deal and there's no need for the DM to throw "getaway cars" in there to save the players from their decisions and bad luck. Nothing is wasted or curtailed and backup PCs can jump in to continue.

Yeah, I realize that this is relevant to my style, and that there are other games that would work this way and everyone would have fun.

But tying it back to the OP.....he asked for ways to mitigate the situation when the PCs got in over their heads. He gave an example of the Fire Giants only having 14 HP each as an example of a bad way to handle it, and asked for better ways.

To me, a TPK isn't much to offer as a solution.

And even in games where PCs are replaceable and the likelihood that a TPK can happen is high.....many players will still not be happy about it. I think that the concept of a group that's okay with a TPK is really small. Yes, they exist under the right circumstances....but I think in even a casual game, generally speaking, players will be annoyed when their characters die, and very annoyed with a TPK.