Another TPK - Sigh.

[Blue]

Yes, but there are 7 PCs. That makes a huge difference. That party should fairly easily handle EL 6.

...

You really do seem to be underestimating how much more powerful 7 4th-level characters are than 4. It's very nearly like having 4 4th-level characters under permanent 3.0 haste. They'd need to fight smart, but the challenge is definitely appropriate.

I respectfully disagree. 7 characters have a lot more actions and damage output, but they're a lot more fragile. I agree CR 6 is about right, but think about it.

Think about the standard "equal CR encounter should use up 20% of your party resources". Well, 20% of the total party HPs, concentrated on one or two characters, is a death.

I hate TPKs. I would have fudged a way for them to run (leaving behind all of their horses, undonned armor, etc.) if they were smart enough to take it. Ogres who can be taken in small groups from preparation and surprise are a completely different encounter then one encounter with that many ogres, especially when it's the ogres who have time to buff and have surprise. That's overwhelming force, and if I did that I would expect all of the characters who don't retreat to die. I don't mind throwing PCs against overwhelming force, but I definitely mind throwing them against unavoidable death. It seems like entangle nixed any chance to escape. Smart opponents is fun (and a learning experience). Unescapable death is not.

Some things that could be different:

1. Survival rolls to place the campsight well - defensive, hide the campfire, etc.

2. A band of ogres isn't stealthy. Give the sentry listen checks with range penalties when they first came close and when the leader was casting (hear a spell is DC 0, modified by range. And if they really did it 1/2 a mile away then bull's strength would have more likely then not been gone by the time they got close.

3. Several people mentioned spells and wounds from raiding the barrows. Good idea. Even if the leader gets back spells at night so he can heal, make him down spells.

Mind you, I think having the ogres track them was correct, you just as DM are the only one in position to make sure that such an overwhelming force isn't a TPK, so leave them a way to escape if they want (say, when their friends start dropping). If they don't take it, that's their choice.

Cheers,
Blue

 

[BryonD]

Do your players want to play the same kind of game that you want to run?

It sounds like you may want to play a thought out game while your players are more interested in fighting monsters.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Mind you, I think having the ogres track them was correct, you just as DM are the only one in position to make sure that such an overwhelming force isn't a TPK, so leave them a way to escape if they want (say, when their friends start dropping). If they don't take it, that's their choice.

Me, I kinda thought that they had a chance to retreat, back when they killed the first ogre, and knew that there were up to seven more out there, one of whom was at least 5th level. They didn't take it, and that was their choice.

Now, this didn't mean that the scenario had to end in a TPK, granted. Some very nice alternate scenarios have been suggested.

But please take into account that the DM set up a scenario specifically where the PCs had the opportunity to (1) guage their foes ahead of time, and (2) plan where and how the battle would take place. These are extremely serious mitigating factors. These are, in short, the same mitigating factors that DMs face every time they place creatures in dungeons or lairs. Creature X is a lot more powerful when it can intelligently select the circumstances it fights under.

The rub is that the PCs did not intelligently select the circumstances that they fought under, although they were afforded ample opportunity to do so. It got them killed. That is an unfortunate turn of events, but, in this case, a fairly predictable one. As a player in that game, I wouldn't be crying "unfair". I'd be doing the Homer Simpson "D'oh!" though. Frankly, from the bit of information that ForceUser gave us, I suspect I'd enjoy playing in his game.


RC


P.S.: ByronD, you may be right about ForceUser's players not wanting to play in the sort of game that he wants to run. Personally, though, I don't think that DMs are obligated to alter their playing style. The DM sets the table, and if you want to eat, you eat what he's serving. If you don't want to eat, make room at the table for someone else.

The game has to be fun on both sides of the DM's screen. Everyone involved is obligated to make it fun, not just the person who spent the most time and money setting it up.

That said, the DM sure shouldn't hide or misrepresent the kind of game he wants to run. There is no indication that this is the case here. Quite the opposite, because ForceUser made certain that his players knew that they had the time to plan....and, of course, they've had previous experience with the results of not planning.

RC

 

[green slime]

7 4th (average) level PCs, with the Strategic advantage (the ogres didn't even know they existed, coupled with an opportunity to FREELY pick the time and scope of their attack), should be able to handle this encounter, (EL10 as it may be).

The group completely squandered their strategic advantage. That group had a death wish.

 

[Li Shenron]

Could I have let them slide and not followed the logical outcome of their actions, based on the monsters' capabilities? I suppose. Could I have gone easy on them during the fight and flubbed a few crucial die rolls? I guess I could have. I didn't, though, because I believe in fair play. I believe in adhering closely to the rules and the capabilities of my NPCs.

I don't know what I would have done different. I suppose that the encounter level was already high enough to be quite challenging: the leader is a 5th level character + Ogre levels, then there are the normal Ogres about as many as the PC. This sounds to me as the death of a couple of PC would have been quite likely even without the surprise factor. I think at least you could have imagined that it was going to be probably deadly, but hey DMs make mistakes as well as the players? At least I do...

I think you sound like a very good DM, because only a very good DM is saddened when a TPK happens, even if the players made mistakes: there is no worse DM that one which feels great because he punished the players, it's like a soccer referee who gives red cards to all the 22 players and feels like he has won the game

Anyway I agree with you that the game should be fair and the dice not fudged. When players behaves less smart that their characters, I think it's fair for the DM to give them hints, or if you prefer free Int- or Wis- checks to realise when something they're doing is really a bad idea. You can make them "pay" in other ways without spoiling the campaign plot, for example reducing the encounter reward.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Anyway I agree with you that the game should be fair and the dice not fudged. When players behaves less smart that their characters, I think it's fair for the DM to give them hints, or if you prefer free Int- or Wis- checks to realise when something they're doing is really a bad idea. You can make them "pay" in other ways without spoiling the campaign plot, for example reducing the encounter reward.

My method would have been to ask: "Are you sure that you want to light a fire, take off your armor, and bed down within half a mile of the ogres you just enraged?"

If they said "yes", then I'd let them take the results thereof.

RC

 

[Mystery Man]

My method would have been to ask: "Are you sure that you want to light a fire, take off your armor, and bed down within half a mile of the ogres you just enraged?"

If they said "yes", then I'd let them take the results thereof.

RC

I dunno, if they were stupid enough to do that perhaps they got what they deserved. I read that part and laughed so hard I sprayed coffee out my nose. That hurt.

 

[Raven Crowking]

BTW, we are pretty far removed from the sources of food in our society, so it is understandable to think along the lines of "meat keeps fresher when its alive." In reality, though, red meat has to be allowed to sit for a while before it becomes truly tasty. You may not be aware of this (and you may not want to be), but the best piece of meat you've ever eaten has probably sat for weeks prior to being served. Probably, someone had to scrape mold off of it. Red meat is simply better tasting when it has been allowed to decompose for a bit.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I dunno, if they were stupid enough to do that perhaps they got what they deserved. I read that part and laughed so hard I sprayed coffee out my nose. That hurt.

Sorry!

 

[Wraith Form]

I find it interesting that ForceUser hasn't replied to any of these posts yet...