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

[jgsugden]

...
But let's take an entirely different scenario. I have a sphere of annihilation in my dungeon. For whatever reason, the entire party decides to jump in.

Based on my notes, they're dead and gone. But I'm not a slave to my notes. ...Maybe they would feel cheated because there's no risk...

Hey, Buddy, if your PCs elect to jump into a Sphere of Annihilation and feel cheated because you decide to not have it annihilate them... Maybe you should take the hint.

 

[iserith]

Well, first I'm not going to tell the party "these giants are going to kill you". I may say something along the lines of "despite your preparations, you see a patrol of fire giants coming your way. What do you do?" or some variation therein.

"Their countenances are twisted in rage, burning with hostility. One of the ruthless brutes raises his black iron sword in the air, its tip white with the heat of the forge, and points it at you as the rest let out a violent howl."

But let's take an entirely different scenario. I have a sphere of annihilation in my dungeon. For whatever reason, the entire party decides to jump in.

Based on my notes, they're dead and gone. But I'm not a slave to my notes. Maybe it would be more rewarding for the players if they were plunged into some alternate dimension. Maybe they would feel cheated because there's no risk. I'll make a judgement call based on the group and decisions we had made in our session 0.

In a campaign a while back, I had planned on an npc to slowly become a BBEG. I had it all mapped out, I thought it was inevitable. Then the group did something unexpected over the course of several sessions and the npc ended up becoming a valuable ally. IMHO changing the sphere of annihilation to a dimensional portal is no different; as a DM I am not bound by preconceived ideas of what should or will happen.

My point is that I'm not a dictator [if that sounds a bit harsh to people that take a different approach, it's not meant to be I just can't think of a better word]. The players and I are creating a story together. In most cases the players have input on whether or not their character dies permanently.

I am also not a slave to my notes. In my view, nothing exists till it's established in play. But once I've put the clues out there about the dangerous nature of this sphere, then I can't go against that. If I wasn't okay with PCs jumping in and being annihilated, I shouldn't have put that there in the first place.

 

[Oofta]

"Their countenances are twisted in rage, burning with hostility. One of the ruthless brutes raises his black iron sword in the air, its tip white with the heat of the forge, and points it at you as the rest let out a violent howl."

At which point the only thing that has been declared is that the giants are hostile, like many enemies.

I am also not a slave to my notes. In my view, nothing exists till it's established in play. But once I've put the clues out there about the dangerous nature of this sphere, then I can't go against that. If I wasn't okay with PCs jumping in and being annihilated, I shouldn't have put that there in the first place.

I simply disagree with the phrase "I can't go against that". Of course you can. You're the DM. As far as putting the sphere in the dungeon, I never thought in my wildest dreams they'd simply jump into it. Assuming they're not purposely committing suicide I'll decide the outcome based on the group.

In any case I don't think there's anything more to discuss here. I don't ever assume that because X then Y outside of rule adjudication. Just because the PCs are defeated in combat (or jump into that inky black hole) that they're dead. That's all.

 

[iserith]

At which point the only thing that has been declared is that the giants are hostile, like many enemies.

My point being is that there are many ways of communicating the stakes.

I simply disagree with the phrase "I can't go against that". Of course you can. You're the DM. As far as putting the sphere in the dungeon, I never thought in my wildest dreams they'd simply jump into it. Assuming they're not purposely committing suicide I'll decide the outcome based on the group.

In any case I don't think there's anything more to discuss here. I don't ever assume that because X then Y outside of rule adjudication. Just because the PCs are defeated in combat (or jump into that inky black hole) that they're dead. That's all.

Yes, I'm the DM. Which means that consistency is important so that the players can make informed decisions. If I telegraph the deadliness of the sphere or the desire of the fire giants to kill them and roast them over the fire after marinating in garlic and sriracha, I'm not going to suddenly change that because they made an informed decision to jump into the sphere or fight the giants. If I'm not willing to have those outcomes, then there will be no spheres of annihilation or fire giants that want to kill adventurers.

 

[billd91]

No, it's exactly telling players how - and what - to play.

The first and fourth clauses above almost mandate characters to be non-chaotic and non-evil; the third clause implies they're expected to be lawful - leaving LG and LN (and maybe N and NG) as the only playable alignments in your game. And the third clause also directly tells them how to play - they have to work together, no independence, no rash actions.

Nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't mean you'll get what you want.

I think it's less telling the players how to play as much as it is telling the players what sort of game you'll run for the time being. They can choose to participate or not, but I'm not going to run a game I don't want to run. And if the game I want to run has certain ground rules and limitations on character types, then it has certain ground rules. If the players don't want to play it, fine. They can find another GM with another pitch more to their preference. The campaign I want to run can sit on the shelf until they're interested.

Alternatively, the players can pitch the game they want to play to me with whatever options or restrictions they want. I don't consider that them telling me how to GM. And if I'm down with GMing that campaign, I'll do it. If not, they can find another GM more amenable to their tastes.

 

[Lanefan]

At which point the only thing that has been declared is that the giants are hostile, like many enemies.

And worse, that they've seen you.

I simply disagree with the phrase "I can't go against that". Of course you can. You're the DM. As far as putting the sphere in the dungeon, I never thought in my wildest dreams they'd simply jump into it.

Heh - I've seen it done.

Tomb of Horrors - "we can't figure out how to move forward, but there's this black hole; someone went in there and didn't come back - hey, maybe that's where we have to go."

So in they all went, one by one...

Assuming they're not purposely committing suicide I'll decide the outcome based on the group.

Your call.

Me, it would depend on the situation at the time but my first leaning would be to wipe them out and start over, particularly in a combat scenario.

In any case I don't think there's anything more to discuss here. I don't ever assume that because X then Y outside of rule adjudication. Just because the PCs are defeated in combat (or jump into that inky black hole) that they're dead. That's all.

Being defeated in combat and jumping into a black hole are kinda two different things from both a DM and a play perspective.

With the black hole the players really don't know where it leads, so the option's open to have it go somewhere other than annihilation if you want.

With combat, however, the players can see that they're slowly dying one by one - Gloramir's down in a puddle of blood; Chandra's head is in her left boot; Bjarnni is fighting on but he's at single-digit hit points, outnumbered 4 to 1 and surrounded; Tuarthia's paralyzed and helpless with a coup-de-grace coming soon, and the acid has turned Pandora into a small mound of goo. So you've already got 3 dead out of 5, a 4th about to die, and a 5th in very dire straits.

Now sure Bjarnni could surrender at this point and his player could role-play the menu for tonight's meal, and maybe he'll find a way out before suppertime; but I wouldn't be getting my hopes up were I Bjarnni's player. Might as well get it over with now, and go down fighting.

Lanefan

 

[MechaPilot]

Hello

Now this is not a universal opinion, but some DMs (and I'm one of them) believe that not all encounters should be balanced. Once in a while your party should encounter bandits and crush them, but also once in a while the party should encounter a monster that is just *too much*. The encounter isn't a "fight the monster!" challenge, it's a "hot damn, *three* fire giants? Let's get the hell outta here!" challenge. If the party manages to hide, move quickly, create a distraction etc etc, they can escape.

BUT... what if they don't?

I share the philosophy of your opening paragraph. Some encounters should be easy, and some should be quite hard. If the encounter is deadly, the DM should telegraph that.

As for what to do when the PCs don't run away, that's a pickle. And, it's largely dependent on the creature in question.

I don't like to kill PCs. I'm not afraid to. I've done it before and by God I'll do it again. . . if they cross me.

But, I don't like to do it. A lot of my players aren't the type to have backup characters. Several of my players don't even own copies of the PHB. I hate having to make a player sit out because her character died, or having to call a session early so we can make new characters for one or more players.

So, I usually make my monsters defeat the party instead of killing them. Ransoming the party back to a patron, keeping a party's gear and dumping them in the wilderness, running a prisonbreak scenario, or geasing them into performing a deed for the foes who defeated them are far better answers in my opinion than killing the PCs.

But, some monsters don't do that. Some monsters eat fallen foes, or convert fallen foes into undead minions, or something else just as horrible. I let those monsters do their thing. I telegraph it beforehand. But, I won't pull punches or reduce HP totals.

I don't like killing characters. But, sometimes we all have to take our medicine. Especially if the PC died doing something profoundly stupid.

 

[pming]

Hiya!
[MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION], rather than respond point by point and end up with another mini-novel, I'll just make a few comments about your last reply to me.

Re: The DM makes the tables/charts...so he's ultimately accountable. I don't think this is a fair assessment of claiming it's "still the DM's choice". At least not any more than anytime any other dice are involved in the game. Having a random encounter table for The Giant Hills written up weeks, months or years prior to the PC's going there doesn't put the DM 'on the hook' for when PC's encounter a Hill Giant there that kills them all. By that logic, a DM who writes "Room 22: Cooking Room - a large fire pit is in the center, with a huge 4' diameter glass cauldron (2" thick) suspended over top from chains attached to the ceiling, containing an undulating dark-grey mass. In the cauldron is a Grey Ooze that attacks any who come within striking distance"...is "responsible" for when the wizard with only 11hp's rushes over to the cauldron because he wants it because it's glass. And then gets one-shotted by the ooze. ... No, the DM is not "responsible" for the wizards death. The ooze was there, regardless of who was going to investigate it, because that was the result from the Players choosing to enter that particular room.

Re: DM giving info to let Players make informed decisions. I've always said that the players should have means of gathering info to make informed decisions. I think what you and I disagree on is the specificity of that "information gathering". To me, having the setting described and the inhabitants of the setting able to convey information is all I "need" to do. I need to be able to describe the world to the Players. In this description there will be names of people, places and things. These people, places and things will have potential "information" that the Players can consult in order to make informed decisions. If the PC's just head off into The Giant Hills without asking anyone even WHY they are called The Giant Hills....well, it's NOT a failure on the DM's part. That's on the Players.

By what I'm reading from you, you would see it as an important thing for the DM to somehow 'impart' this information to the Players, assuming they "accidentally overlooked" or "didn't realize the potential danger" by having, say, a farmer on the road say "Ho there, travelers! Are you lost? The way you're heading leads into The Giant Hills! A dangerous place, infested with ogres, Hill Giants and even Stone Giants!". Is this correct? If so, that's fine....not my style, but a totally acceptable method to use. I would consider that sort of method "new skool", where the DM is more inclined to volunteer information more than only impart it if the Players "ask" (via PC interaction, history/skill checks, etc).

Re: A TPK has to have DM approval. Sorry, firm disagree here. But we already established that, right? In my mind, a DM has no more given approval for a TPK than the Players have for rolling bad on their PC's Hit Point's. When dice and random chance are involved, the "approval of the result" is, imho, out of the hands of the DM and the Players. Simply stating that the DM or Rule called for a roll in the first place doesn't shift the result of that roll to the DM/Player for "choosing to roll".

Now, a DM or a Player who outright chooses to do something knowing full well the result...yes. Obviously. (we had one player, playing a Lizard Man Fighter waaaay back in a City State of the Invincible Overlord campaign with 1e AD&D had his PC jump off a huge underground waterfall that fell into darkness below...because a particular song from the Last of the Mohican's soundtrack was playing; the song from when the two women choose to jump off a cliff rather than be taken by the mohawks; the song just stirred up too much involuntary emotion at that exact time...so...over he went. Pretty...epic...and confusing...but definitely memorable! ). But if a random dice roll is called for something...be it Skill Check or Random Encounter...once the dice are thrown, that's pretty much it. Do I think a DM should "choose" to have or not have an encounter, and or what that encounter is with? Yes. I believe a DM is fully justified for doing that; he's the DM. But at the same time, a DM who chooses to roll the dice should abide by the results almost every time. Sometimes rolling dice "for effect" when deciding a result before hand is a good tactic for a DM to use. But this should be used extremely sparingly! Otherwise the game becomes, again imho, more of a DM trying to 'force' an outcome to a story/plot/whatever. If a DM is doing this to much or all the time...just go write a short story or book already.

PS: Lord Stark was a PC. So...


^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Sunseeker]

The first thing I remove from player spell lists is revivify adn raise dead. They suck all the danger out of the game. I agree with the backup PCs though, that's a great idea. I like the party to have a few hirelings or henchmen with them, mostly in the background for porting gear, watching the horses, whatever. If a PC dies, they take over an NPC.

Removing spells that return someone to life only solves the "danger" issue if the only "danger" you present in your game is death.

I don't know how many pla...er...characters I've horribly mutilated. And it's AMAZING how pla...er...characters will react to things like losing a hand, an eye, being stripped of levels, magical gear, compared to being killed. Generally speaking, one of the reasons I don't like to kill characters is because death isn't actually very dangerous.

Living on the other hand, living is very dangerous. Especially when you've got a broken leg, are moving at half speed, and just got 3 fingers bit off forcing you to make a spellcraft/arcana check each time you cast! The lengths that players will go to to see their characters restored as quickly as possible is patently astounding!

One time, I infected all the players with a "negative energy" curse. It would build 1 point of negative energy within their bodies per day until they had enough negative energy equal to their con score, and then they would perma die. Then, that night I had them all visited by demons in their dreams offering each of them the chance to save their friends, in exchange for that PC being later bound to kill one person (who wasn't one of the just-saved party members) per party member they saved.

There were 5 players.
The next morning there were 4 demonic pacts.
And the demons presented them with a list of 20 targets.
-The DM (me) subsequently laughed manically.

It was probably one of the best moments of the game. Sadly, all the characters died shortly thereafter in an unrelated prison-break...except the one who didn't make the pact. Which just meant their souls were placed into the service of these demons until their pacts were fulfilled.

So to sum this all up: death really isn't dangerous. I highly recommend mutilating your pla...er...characters instead.

But then, I'm a cat...so what do I know.

 

[SkidAce]

Standard Spheres of Annihilation are hard to jump through.

Only 2 feet in diameter. I would suspect the other characters would have noticed the missing torso, as the head, arms, and legs fell to the ground after the character tried jumping into it.


Hehe...