On Choice, Consequence and the Right to Fail

[Reynard]

NOTE: I am currently running Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus, which inspired this post, but it really isn't D&D specific so I put it here.

When I decided to run BGIA it was mostly out of laziness. I had other projects going on and did not think I would have time to properly prepare a weekly game. I generally don't prefer pre-written scenarios, and I definitely like full pre-designed campaigns/adventure paths less. I prefer the flow of the campaign to be looser, with more opportunity to wander off in random directions based on events that occur in play.

On aspect of that that I am beginning to worry about is the idea of how player choice, the consequences of those choices and the prospect of failure interact with running a pre-written campaign. In this case it was a minor thing: the PCs had just arrived in Avernus in the apocalyptic city of Elturel. The saved and spoke with the plot delivery NPC, and then decided to go searching the ruins for loot rather than heading toward the next exclamation point bearing NPC. I didn't have a problem with that (other than it might have shown a distinct lack of urgency on the part of the "heroes") and started rolling for random encounters while they dithered.

Here's what struck me: what if one of those encounters resulted in a TPK? Would the campaign be over? SHOULD the campaign be over?

The players were at a decision point and they chose an option that resulted in increased danger for potentially increased reward. GREAT! That's what D&D is about (among other things). That choice led to consequences that could potentially result in campaign level failure. Given that we chose to play this campaign (and I sunk a chunk of money into it, since I have the physical book and bought it on Fantasy Grounds), it would feel both anticlimactic and real-world irritating if that failure occurred. I might even be inclined to not allow that failure to occur, which itself grates against my every fiber as a GM in that players have agency and their actions determine the flow of the game and the "story" as it were.

Being invested in a pre-written campaign makes me feel like in many cases, those choices are really illusions and my own desire to allow for "logical" (I know) consequences is impinged upon.

Thoughts?

 

[prabe]

I think this touches on the Achilles heel of that style of adventure. Everyone is invested, failing to finish the adventure feels like not just a failure but a loss. I've seen players make choices based pretty much entirely on wanting to finish the adventure. I've seen the GM start to flail and then give up if the players didn't seem entirely bought in. I've seen the GM melt down as one question brought down all the spurious logic barely holding the whole thing together.

My answer to the stated question I see is that if there's a TPK, then yes, the campaign should be over.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I am in kind of the same boat as you vis-à-vis preplanned campaigns and adventure paths. I mostly use bits and pieces of said products as filler content for whatever is going on in the events that the player characters are pursuing.

My own response to a situation like that would be to talk it out with the other players. Describe the situation, as you see it, and ask them how they want to proceed.

If the rest of the players are okay with the potential for a campaign ending outcome, then play that out. If they are not okay with with that, then either work out some other consequence for failure, or if you can't see a way around that, have the players back off from their current course of action and return to the rails, so to speak.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think those are always going to be issues with adventure path play.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

I usually try to veer away from a full TPK into other consequences that still allow the game to go on. Capture, being looted, being forced to make a bad deal are options. Sometimes if it looks close to a TPK but the other side isn't looking too good either I might have the monsters propose a sort of truce for both sides to just walk away.

However, this can only feel natural when the enemies are intelligent and willing to let the PCs live to see another day. As I've read through Descent into Avernus I know that the area you're talking about features certain chaotic evil fiends that are known to want to kill and destroy everything. You could maybe have those that succeed their death saves wake up from the aftermath of the fight, the demons having believed that they were already dead. It's a bit of a stretch but the kind of stretch I'm willing to make to keep a game alive.

 

[Sadras]

Here's what struck me: what if one of those encounters resulted in a TPK? Would the campaign be over? SHOULD the campaign be over?

For those characters maybe yes x 3.
I use the word maybe because characters could be brought back but not necessarily without certain strings attached and those strings should be deep.

 

[Arilyn]

This is not your normal GM style, and obviously your players are willing to go along with the change of using a published adventure. With this in mind, no don't allow a TPK to occur in this particular campaign. On a practical level you have invested money, and won't want that money to go to waste. You also stated that at the moment you haven't the time to create your own campaign. I assume your players have been made aware of this reasoning.

As a skilled GM, your players are still going to have a great time. A TPK will be frustrating for all concerned. In my experience, players don't usually like to return to an adventure path they all just died in, and continue with a whole new group. And you don't want to feel you wasted money.

I wouldn't worry about the players or you feeling that consequences have lost their sting. I'm sure there will be plenty of other setbacks that'll do that for you, while avoiding the TPK.

 

[Nagol]

Yes, should the players arrange a TPK then it should happen. It' doesn't mean the rest of the campaign can't continue depending on the mood at the table. The players can create new PCs and become the new heroes of the story near the current position.

It exposes one the serious weak points of AP play though. There are touchpoints that need to occur to remain close enough to the rails the designers placed for play to rationally continue. A TPK will generally force the group away from those touchpoints. Even if new PCs are created and a new team formed it is hard to set up the situation the move the new group back to the touchpoints. McGuffins need to get reclaimed. Relationships and previous encounters are gone. Knowledge needs to be reacquired.

I understand the DM's or table's desire to limit consequence to support the purchased adventure. I just never want it to affect a game I'm playing. If there is a such a playthrough map, let's just skip all the dangerous bits and such and jump through the story.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@Reynard I have a pretty similar outlook and style preference. When I've run published material in 5E, it's largely been adapted to fit my game. My most recent example was Tomb of Annihilation, and the experience was mixed enough to make me decide to only run my own material going forward.

The way I would handle the situation you've described would be:

• Allow the PCs to die, and then have the players make new characters from Elturel who can pick up the torch, so to speak. Maybe the players will realize this particular adventure calls for PCs that are more heroic in nature, rather than self serving.
• Tweak the area to which they're going so that the likelihood of a TPK is less. Maybe create a situation there where they can do some kind of good, and be rewarded for it. Maybe there is someone to rescue and that person can provide some potions or other reward to help them. This may get the players in the mindset of trying to do good.
• Allow things to go the way they go, but don't kill the PCs if they all lose to the monsters. Maybe they're left for dead, maybe they're captured. Maybe one or two of them are captured, and you can have one or two players make a new character to replace those captured, and then the PCs can stage a rescue.
• Introduce some looming event (if there's not one already in place) that puts pressure on the PCs to act quickly. Something that says "there's no time for looting, we need to get this thing done". I would suggest perhaps allowing them to loot after the fact, if the circumstances allow; you don't want to take away any say they have, just want to prompt them toward the pertinent goals set up by the fiction.
• If you're more used to letting the players really dictate the pace and focus of play, then really just use the book as a starting point, and let them do whatever they want. Have the NPCs react accordingly. If the PCs see being in Avernus as an opportunity rather than as some calamity to be corrected, then look for how it can be an opportunity for them. Lean in to what the players have indicated they want. The game will not go as expected according to the book, but if everyone has fun and you craft a good game, then mission accomplished. Don't be a slave to what's in the book just because it's there and you bought it. This is tough, and I struggle with it myself which is why I decided not to use published adventures, but it's something to consider.
• If all else fails, and none of the above options will work, then talk about it with your players. I think a lot of the WotC published material for 5E assumes heroic PCs, so I'd explain that and ask them that they perhaps shift their thinking a bit.