Another TPK - Sigh.

[Brother Shatterstone]

I don't the slack he wanted to do was related to mechanics, either... There's a lot of stuff that, when you're new to the game, you just don't think about...

I must be to old cause I've never played D&D like it was a video game and where just going to have to agree to disagree and I'll be looking forward to reading this story again in the next worst deaths ever thread.

 

[takyris]

Tacky: My problem (as opposed to "the problem") with those given examples is that they come from works of fiction. "The GM" in those situations was not a GM, but instead a writer...

I guess that, as a writer, I come at GMing from the same viewpoint. I try not to railroad, but I also try to help the drama happen. So that's probably a point where I'm skewed off in another direction.

Personally, I think fudging (or any last-minute TPK dodging) is a form of railroading -- in that you're categorically interfering with the PCs' freedom to be stupid and end up dead.

I have one player who completely agrees with you, and some who radically disagree with you, although they wouldn't admit it -- they'd complain that there was no way that they could win, that I tried to kill them, instead of admitting that they screwed up. They don't want me to gratuitously save them, but if I can make it not obvious that I'm easing up, they'd like me to do it.

It may sound odd, but I want that freedom as a player. YMMV. (emphasis Tacky's) Best thing ForceUser can do is figure out how his players feel about dying, whether it should generally be a remote possibility (the result of terrible luck or screw-ups even more fantastic than their latest), or the more ever-present threat it currently appears to be. (The ogre mission he described, even taken well by the players, did sound like an inherently dangerous one, though not "overly" so.)

I agree completely, especially with the part in bold. Getting the kind of game that they want (the GM, the players, everyone) is the important thing.

Because (a) he didn't know what the ringbearer looked like, and so couldn't provide a description, and (b) he didn't want any of the uruk-hai to get their hands on the ring, because if that had happened there's no way it would have made it back to him.

Thanks. Didn't remember the books that well. In that case, he's still an idiot. The ring, as mentioned every five minutes in the movie, wanted to be returned. It did massive nasty mind-frelling things to people's souls. The Ring-Wraiths could see it burning like a brand. If the dread lord of darkness seriously thinks that killing the ring-bearer and having the ring toodling around in the hands of an uruk-hai is a worse result than letting the ring-bearer get away, then the dread lord of darkness doesn't have a brain behind that giant floating eye of his.

How was the ring ever going to get to him? Was somebody going to have to carry the ring-bearer all the way to Sauron, not ever looking at the ring or feeling its temptation? Somebody was going to have to take it at some point. If "the uruk-hai wouldn't hand it over" is the best explanation for why Tolkien wrote the uruk-hai as carrying the hobbits off instead of just killing them and having a few less hobbits to worry about, then I remain unconvinced.

 

[Hjorimir]

The uruk-hai worked for Sauroman, not Sauron. I'm guessing Sauroman wanted the ring for himself.

 

[Soul]

It looks like a lot of you agree with/share this same attitude. I'd like to chime in and say a few things. I tend to be in the other camp of there were other options, perhaps that you didn't even think of. It sounds like your players are 'ok' with it, but I'd make sure. From my outsiders perspective it doesn't sound like you just let the dice fall where they may or let things follow their 'natural' course. It seems to me like you were punishing your players for not realizing something or just plain not thinking. Something you felt was stupid, and it doesn't sound like you gave them any indictation of what the consequences would be. Being the GM and knowing all the details it also seems like you used that to set up a more brutal ambush than what was likely. How would the Ogre's know their numbers, would they know that others weren't around? Sounds like the Ogre's spotted the fire, and you used your GM knowledge not your Ogre knowledge in setting up the outcome. I think thats highly unfair to your players. If you want opinions, I'd say its one thing to be a RBDM and another thing to be a ruthless one.

In the future however, I'd hope you'd realize that your players have a much narrower view of the world you present than you do. However, I wasn't at the game (obviously) so I can't comment anymore, than just my understanding from reading the thread. So, hopefully you don't take my opinions the wrong way, you sound like a damn fine GM, but perhaps you just didn't consider things from a view from the other side of the screen. I think its very odd that so many share the attitude of punishing players for not thinking. Not every player comes to the game fully refreshed and clear of thought, doesn't mean you have to go soft on them, but offering simple INT or WIS checks, or Knowledge checks etc.. to give the player some insight the character should have, isn't being soft, its being fair. Thats my opinion anyway, I think if the player realizes the consequences and still goes for it, then the gloves are off, or if you give them a secondary chance to like a check and they botch it, and don't take the hint that you might be trying to tell them something and they may need to rethink, then sure. Ultimately if your players still had fun dying, then you have nothing to feel guilty about. I';d only worry if they felt slighted or cheat, or the situation was out of their control. Those are my thoughts, take it for what its worth, and leave the rest.

 

[Spatula]

takyris, like Hjorimir says, the uruk-hai who captured Merry & Pippin were servants of Saruman, not Sauron. Saruman wanted the ring's power for his own.

Still, your original post was very funny. For someone who doesn't remember the books very well, you did a good send-up of Fellowship as run by a merciless DM.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Tacky: My problem (as opposed to "the problem") with those given examples is that they come from works of fiction. "The GM" in those situations was not a GM, but instead a writer...

Don't forget, every GM is a writer - he designs the adventure, he sets the scenario.

The issue might be whether a GM thinks that what he wrote (or the Dungeon author wrote) is gospel to be adhered to through thick or thin or whether it is worth extemporising to cover unforseen eventualities.

I think the latter position is why RPGs with people have always been more fun for me than RPGs with computers - the PCs can do whacky or clever or stupid things and the GM is able to modify his plans (his script outline) to take account of it.

The only GM that isn't a writer is the GM who just rolls random monster encounters one after another until everyone goes home.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

I’m not looking at this single instance. I’m trying to look at a bigger picture. It won’t be fun for ForceUser is he feels like he’s holding back. I am the same way.

If the choices forceuser felt he had to make in order to have fun have resulted in multiple tpks in a relatively short time, so that neither he nor his players are enjoying the game... something needs to change.

Well, I did (as well as others, though maybe not in those exact words).

yes, obviously, some of those who seek to put it as a choice of ectremes, tpks or kiddy gloves, are using kiddy gloves...

the point i am trying to make is that some of us, oddly enough, see more than these two extremes. I have run many a campgin with no tpks and at the same time not had kiddie gloves no repercussion mindsets taught to my players and even has everyone have fun.

its not either/or. A Gm can do both. usually it requires perhaps a little more forethought and prep i think. As i mentioned much earlier, throwing in a few details about the ogre camp to set the stage for them having more than rather monofocused reactions gives the Gm the leeway he sometimes needs.

Actually, the players learn the lessons and seeing how it is the players who control the characters…

That is indeed true, but sometimes if a player assumes his next characters knows lessons from previous characters its not really a good roleplaying thing. Sometimes, taken too far, those are metagaming.

But, with three tpks, this learning tough love process some people seem to think is necessary for fun in roleplaying seems to not be working for forceuser. One would think after the first few tpks, someone would have wised up some and changed something?

maybe the focus on whether the players are the ones learning quickly enough is not , well, well focused after all.

Sure, but those choices the GM makes should be tempered with logic of the situation. Given the situation as presented, the PCs deserved what they got.

Just to be clear, and highlight perhaps a distinct difference between us, without hearing the players side of the story...
working from primarily ONE SIDE view...
one which seems to really see most if not all of the fault on seemingly incomprehensible to him player choices...

I KNOW i would need more bilateral info before i would come close to saying one side "got what they deserved". I just cannot reach that conclusion with predominantly one perspective presented.

What of Boromir?

A supporting character who died at an appropriate dramatic time. he died highlighting his own character strength and weaknesses and SAVING the main character.

Don't you see the difference in that and a TPK by spetznaz commando ogre raiders? is that difference really truly lost on you?

What of Uther?

Supporting character died to enable the plot to evolve for the main character to move into the dramatic role.

What of Arthur?

Did arthur get killed in a raid by brigandsearly in the story and never manage to reach the epic tale story planned out for him to become a hero? Did i miss that copy of the legends?

Have you read George R.R. Martin? Main characters die left and right. It is awesome and you become emotionally invested in the characters hoping that some of your favorites just might somehow survive.

I agree, and its silly when main characters, the stars not the supporting cast, die without serving a major part, before becoming characters of heroic proportions.

Yeah, I’ve already agreed that there are other options. But (again), those other choices should make sense within the content of the campaign setting. If, for example, the ogres made a living trading slaves, it would make perfect sense. Or, perhaps, they practiced ritual sacrifice to some dark god or demon, it would make sense. But retaliation is usually eye-for-eye and seeing how the PCs had already established a willingness to kill…

And you will possibly recall a while back my comments about seeding the ogre camp with things to provide you more detail than "ogre raiders with a druid". Again, with "hulking morons who are not stealthy at all" as the bulk of the opposition, it should not have been beyond the scope of the Gms capability to not have his encounter turn into "fresh ogres on commando raid ambush".

I don't think that was too much to expect.

Roll the dice and read them as they fall. Or, Take 10 and see what the sentry on duty gets for his/her Listen skill check. Spot checks in the dark are tougher than one might initially think. Also, not only did the ogres have the firelight and tracking going for them, it would be extremely easy to argue the smell of smoke would be a giveaway.

Obviously, the Gm setup the ogres to have the capabilty of retaliation. i have never argued that ogres with such talents should not have been able to track the PCs. of course, given ogres rather low int, skills being at a premium, their track score might not have been all that good, and if weather had not been perfect (GM decision) and a storm had come up, then maybe the ogres would have had to postpone their nightly hunt until morning or lost the trail and taken longer to find the PCs. (of course, its probably not that the Gm just did not think to use weather, he probably had an objective weather table he rolls on every few hours, so this again is probably not a slight lack on his part at all, but just another tough love ONJECTIVE let the dice fall where they may sort-of-thing.)Smoke? Sure, he probably rolled for wind direction too.

Without more detail on the terrain, which has been rather non-mentioned by the GM, which tends to lead me to suspect it was just as unimportant to him in game too, i really cannot say for sure about encounter ranges, spotting ranges, etc. What i can say is that when ogres are not used stealthfully, are not used as commandos running what seems to be flawlessly not one single error ambushes, they don't tend to produce as many tpks. Your mileage may vary.

Maybe next time the players will light a camp and fill it with straw figures “sleeping” and lay in ambush nearby. Maybe next time they will move a further away and have a cold camp. Odds are the players will have learned from the scenario.

Ok, see that whole "metagaming" thing comes in here. You seem to be recommending the players, with their next characters, not only don't make the same mistakes but actually use previous character's death specifics to set trraps for totally other opposition?

Are you assuming the memories/spirits of the dead characters passed on to the new bodies? If these new characters can setup a specific counter setup for this precise event, could they also "know where the ogres hang out" since their previous characters learned it before they died?

isn't it much better, if your goal includes both roleplaying and learning, to have situations where the CHARACTER survie a bad event and learn from their own actions, rather than just hoping the players bring out-of-character specifics and details over from their last dead pcs?

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

You are forgetting that the Ogre Druid cast entangle on the party.

nope, not at all.

A 5th level druid can drop an entangle from 600 feet away.

assuming perfect conditions, such as no intervening terrain. I don't know about you, but terrain has been not highlighted one bit in the description by the Gm to us. Was it highlighted in the game? No idea. But so far, it seems like the terrain was perfect for the ogres and played no roll.

I know that, in my games, bands hiding out tend to hide in areas which offer concealment and cover, so that they are unlikely to be spotted themselves. My gut instinct would have me placing this ogre band in dense woods or otherwise "unconducive to searhces" terrain.

In such terrain, the likelihood of a spellcaster getting good line of effect for spells at 600' is nil.

If you are asleep, I think you fail the reflex saving throw. It lasts 5 minutes. Ample time for Ogres to get within ranged striking distance and just whittling down the party.

how many spears do these ogres carry that they can do any serious wittling down? or do the ogres, on orders from their leader, head into the entangle to recover their spears, making their reflex saves because of "orders?"

ogres suck at ranged weapons. Spears are short ranged and start taking penalties very short;y. How precisely did this large area entangle get thrown at long range?

Everyhting seems to have miraculously worked out perfect for the ogres. No terrain issues, no weather issues, no noise issues, no moron issues.

flawless.

and a tpk resulted?

and we wonder why?

If the ogre leader is a druid, perhaps these ogres have learned to avoid areas where the leader says not to tread. Listen checks from 600 feet away get a -60 penalty.

according to dnd 3.5 the maximum spot check to notice nearby foes is 2d6x10'. So, if liie my hiding guys they hide in areas that dense (and remember the PCs stayed close) that means the mob of ogres rolled a PERFECT boxcar result (add flawless dice rolling to the mix) to spot the other PCs at 120'. Thats well closer than your 600'

flawless.

now if they are in medium wood, its only 2d8x10' so they only needed to be in the 84th% iirc of the rolls. basically, iirc the rough equivalent of rolling the 6 on a d6. So they did not even have to be flawless there, just close enough.

Am i maybe getting somewhere close to pointing out that the Gm had plenty of options still within "the sense of the scene" to not have every single thing work the ogres way and make the repercussions of the event the most lopsided against his players they could possibly have been and extract the highest price from them?

am i maybe possibly starting to provoke the faintest of thoughts that "maybe it didn't have to be so bad"?

And while I'm guessing the druid didn't drop the entangle from that rediculous distance. 120 feet is reasonable and a -12 penalty more than makes up for the -8 check you are talking about.

so a max best possible, FLAWLESS, roll in favor of the ogres if we were using terrain on the order of dense woods for where the ogres decided to HIDE their camp. or a 6 on a d6 level roll if we just assume medium woods?

its really a shame that forceuser's hands as a Gm were so tied by his "way things should play out" sense and he had no real fair option other than the lopsided "no chance tpk". Shame on those bad players for removing from him any option other than butchering the heroes.

bad players! bad, bad!

 

[ForceUser]

swrushing, I think your vitriol is off-base, and I think your frustration that other opinions differ from yours has made you downright insulting. Take a breather, would you?

I acknowledged early in this thread that I may have made some mistakes. Going forward, I will endeavor to do better. Hopefully, my players will also ask more questions about what's going on around them and think about the consequences of their actions. We need to meet somewhere in the middle.

Funny, in over ten years of pre-3E gaming I never had a single TPK. Since switching to 3E, I've had two, and more near-wipeouts than I can immediately recall. It's true that my gamemastering style has changed since 3E to become more tactically focused. At times, I have allowed the grid to overshadow the storytelling. But it's also true that D&D has just gotten deadlier than in previous editions. With this particular group, I think less is more when it comes to combat. I've found that balance with them a few times and its worked beautifully. I will find it again.

Thanks for all the input. This is why I love ENWorld.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

ummm.... common sense here sw, I was talking about the players learning a lesson.

and why would you automatically assume their next characters, if roleeplayed, learned from the dead pcs of a former world?

An angry mob doesnt have to be a stupid mob.

an angry mob of stupid people, well, for me, that does usually mean a stupid mob. Remember, the majority of these ogres are int 6. Whats the charisma and leadership skills of the orgre chief? he has apparently already spent more atts on improving int and wisdom significantly and in purchasing skills for use with track. How good is his leadership skills? How high did he raise his charisma? How good was he at reigning in, while tracking, his half dozen vengence-driven int-6 morons for a couple hours of nightime tracking AFTER a long day of raiding and pillaging?

just how flawless was this ogre chief/shaman whatever guy?

Put another way, would you expect a druid/fighter PC after investing in all those area he needs to be able to flawlessly without snafu rangle and manage a gaggle of powerful but stupid people into such a flawlessly executed raid after already having done "their days work"?

Why do they have to come in with burning testoserone? Why wouldnt they want to soften them up from afar first with an Entangle and possibly a Call lightning?

because ogres are mostly int 6 rather unintelligent brutes.

they don't have to all come in that way. But one ogre or two out of the six non-leaders having the failing is enough to radically change the setup.

As a simple hypothetical... marching thru the woods behind their leaders two of the dumb ogres in the back are neither one thrilled and calm and cool headed. They wanted to rest and sort plunder. They did not like seeing barney's head on a pike. And they should be eating the horsemeat now, not tramping thru the woods. One of them has his attention waver, his severe focus lapse for a moment and, being so dextrous, he trips and half stumbled into the ogre trudging in front of him. Said ogre, does not react calmly and cooly but reacts wuickly and instinctivel and off the cuff as a dimwit who is tired and not in a good mood might and he shoves/slugs the other ogres who goes clumping down thru a tree and over a rock and gets up cursing. before they actually come to blows, flawless leader steps back and with an icy glare and a few eloquent and well spoken snarls gets them to stop the nonsense. being a very good leader he gives them a worse detail and maybe spearates them. the leader grumbles something about "even bad help being hard to find" and gets back to his job.

But somewhere, off in the distance, an alert sentry on duty hears two ogres cursing and throwing about somewhere down the hill and suddenly he gets a little more worried. An awakened party realizes they got trouble and skeedadle away. But now the hunt is on and you have two groups each trying to outmaneuver the other. The PCs need time to gear up but have to evade in the dark, where most of them are at a disadvantage. They are behind the eight ball tactically now in several ways, against a force than can hurt them real good.

if they survive the fight, or evade it but lose a lot of gear, its still going to be punishing and something they learn from.

or, none of this happens and flawless commando ogres kill them all and the Gm wonders about how bad his players can get?

And what is it with your "Tom Clancy-like" Ogre references?

just a little awareness that perfect circumstances are usually the sign of lack of thought on the scenario setup as opposed to lack of thought on those acting.
just a little amazed at how forceuser seems to think his hands were tied by his setup and his adherence to principles when in fact he had troops with so many organic weaknessses in JUST THE TYPE OF AMBUSH he had them flawlessly conduct that a minor bungle or slip along the way to alert the party and let them be in something other than "dead meat sleeping" position is likely, not impossible.

Amazingly, in my last game which never had a tpk in three years, almost every single time the party sent the dwarven tank, whose hide and silent chekcs weighed in at -6 or so, on stealth missions those stealth missions quickly turned to straight out combat missions. They found that sneaking up as a tank was really really hard.
When their spellcasters started casting buffs before a fight (the buff spells last 5 minutes now or so) they found the DC 0 chance to hear casting meant they often got heard if they were anywhere close to an enemy.

So, to me the notion of a half dozen vengence driven ogres conducting flawless commando style ambush on a party with a sentry... yeah that strikes me as "outside the ntrrative truth" as opposed to being "i was stuck".

Thats if they would come in the way you would play them, each DM has his own feelings and style. Even if he wasnt surprised, the party was still hit with an Entangle from a good distance. Those caught would not have been able to do much with the incoming "angry mob".

again, the distance is limited mucyh more by terrain, yet of course, in this case, it was perfect terrain... flawless even.

I agree here, but it doesnt mean you need to run a Barbie-style game to have fun.

the only people tqlking about barbie style campaigns are those using it as a boogeyman.

trust me, or perhaps ask other your trust, there is a large breadth of other possibilities between "three tpks" commando ogres and barbie style campaigns.

Most Gms play well within those limits session after session.

its not a frictionless slope betwee "weather, terrain, lack of stealth, int 6 etc do not at all impede the perfect flawless ambush for my ogres" and "my ogres are kobold sized and swing feather dusters" that means that one will slide into the other.

Saving the players every time would take away all the danger from it.

no one is saying save the players every time, except perhaps those who want to use it is a boogeyman.

let me repeat... their is a wide gulf between flawless morons staging tpks using flawless tactics in flawless circumstances staging the third tpk in a year AND taking away all danger from the game and destroying the fun.

Really, honestly, there is a range between there and most Gms play in it session after session to the enjoyment of their players.

Constantly coming up with viable easier alternatives does the same. When is it enough hand-holding for you?

Actually, i tend to joke that i find it mor enjoyable to "go for the pain" instead of the kill. i have gotten much better results when the PC lives but suffers, perhaps for a long time, for his mistakes. heck, the BESt results have been when OTHERs suffer the most, as frankly, the guilt drives him to avoid the mistakes more than personal loss did.

Losing characters means caring LESS about them in the long run. The third character in a short period does NOT encourage more care and concern with the characters, it usually fosters less. This is especially true with TPKs where everyone starts over as there is really no downside beyond character attachment... and the previous two tpks usually would lessen pc attachment to characters.

I had a shadowrun gm tell me as i handed him my character with write up to "not get too attached. he will almost certainly die. have a backup ready." i did not need two tpks to teach me the lesson, because thank god he warned me up front. I simply said "thanks, but no thanks" and left.

3 tpk's 10 months could be different for them, maybe they play twice a week where your group plays biweekly. Maybe they also have longer sessions. I dont think I would ever pass judgement on a DM based on time between frags.

Sp, you haven't passed judgement on whether forceuser was "right" or should have done things differently? You haven't passed judgement on whether it was his players fault or if they got what they deserved?

you still undecided?