Guilt Puppy
First Post
Fates worse than death
Probably the same thing you did, although I'd need a bit more information to be sure... If the battle was really one-sided, then I might have taken the capture-and-humiliate route... Only if it makes perfect sense within the context of the story (they can be ransomed off, or whatever), and even then, a few PCs would probably die -- so long as the PCs posed a real threat, I would never have an enemy deal subdual damage, unless they had a very real interest in keeping said PCs alive.
It's not a matter of "punishing" the players for stupid decisions -- most of my enjoyment as a DM comes from the creative satisfaction of being, in some way, an effective entertainer, and I think that's the same in most cases. Sure, we may enjoy the tedious mapping/planning/plotting/etc on its own terms, to some degree, but for the most part even that enjoyment comes from anticipating the reaction it gets from your players. TPKs are a downer. It's hard to take pleasure in the anticipation of a downer.
Yet still, there are (to abuse the term) fates worth than death to be considered. Which kills the fun more? A TPK, or deus ex machina? The TPK may be worse today, at the end of this session, but how much more exciting and tense are future battles going to be, when the players know I won't pull any punches? Alternatively, how dry are these battles going to be, with the players knowing -- however much they try to ignore it -- that there's an invisible safety net waiting for them when they hit bottom? If there's no chance for failure (and admittedly, a TPK is not the only means of failure -- more on that in a second), then how do the successes mean anything? If there are always second chances, why not just take 20 on the whole campaign?
I may or may not be a rat bastard DM -- I have had TPKs, for a variety of reasons. Usually it's a matter of players making mistakes that just can't be avoided without compromising the game's integrity... On occasion, it's just because I've made really really difficult encounters/situations for the PCs, ones where the odds were stacked against them, and they got wiped out. I don't mind doing this (I don't make a regular habit of doing this, either), because of all the other times when the PCs have won encounters like these. "We survived an encounter that threatened one-sixth of our resources!" is one helluva lot less exciting than "We survived an encounter which, by all odds and logic, should have wiped us out entirely." I've seen it happen plenty -- it always involves the players reaching into the farthest depths of their resourcefulness (which, as a player, I find the most satisfying part of the game), making clever, risky plays, and having a lot of damn good luck to boot. There's agony and ecstacy in the possible TPK. The only downside is that, by necessity, it opens up the possibility of a TPK.
Back to your specific problem, though: Three TPKs in two months (or whatever it was, I'm too lazy to browse back and check) is a lot... As much as I love the insanely dangerous encounter, they have to be used sparingly; like anything, they lose their thrill after a while, especially when the players realize that, at this rate, they're bound to have the bad luck to get killed off before their long-term objectives can be completed. It's hard to pick a frequency for this sort of encounter, but as a rough rule of thumb, I'd say once every six or seven levels -- so, if you look at a 20-level-spanning campaign as a three-act epic, these are the climactic, defining battles of each part (it sounds formulaic, but it works well with peoples' narrative sensibilities, so why not?)...
How do you keep things spicy in between? Well, moderately tough encounters are a little spicy, but if you really like challenging the PCs, I suggest getting a bit more creative with the definitions of success and failure. What are their goals in the campaign? Surely there are things other than death which can prevent these things from happening -- the magic item they need gets destroyed by some good clerics, who the party failed to convince of said magic item's necessity. The dark ritual which shall usher in a new age of doom is performed, and now there is a new age of doom. You didn't get the beef jerky when you had the chance, and now the cook and his brother will never be reunited. Et cetera.
Really, these are better than TPKs, because they seem just as urgent, but there's still an out -- at least, a better way out than rolling up new characters. If you play it off right, the players will be crushed and demoralized every bit as much as if their characters had died ("well damn, there goes the campaign... who wants pizza?")... but give them some time, and any player worthy of the name will hunker down and say "Okay, even though the princess has been disintegrated and her ashes used to fuel her vampire clone, there might still be a way to save her -- and if there is, we better find it!" If it's totally unreasonable for them to complete their original objective, well, they're going to have to settle for a smaller victory... and in my experience, players pursue those smaller victories much more vigorously than the larger ones. Failure sucks, but redemption is fun, so if it's done right, the whole process is generally worth it.
That said, I'd also like to echo the earlier sentiment that, whether or not you're a RBDM, it sounds like your game's a fun one to play in.
ForceUser said:
Probably the same thing you did, although I'd need a bit more information to be sure... If the battle was really one-sided, then I might have taken the capture-and-humiliate route... Only if it makes perfect sense within the context of the story (they can be ransomed off, or whatever), and even then, a few PCs would probably die -- so long as the PCs posed a real threat, I would never have an enemy deal subdual damage, unless they had a very real interest in keeping said PCs alive.
It's not a matter of "punishing" the players for stupid decisions -- most of my enjoyment as a DM comes from the creative satisfaction of being, in some way, an effective entertainer, and I think that's the same in most cases. Sure, we may enjoy the tedious mapping/planning/plotting/etc on its own terms, to some degree, but for the most part even that enjoyment comes from anticipating the reaction it gets from your players. TPKs are a downer. It's hard to take pleasure in the anticipation of a downer.
Yet still, there are (to abuse the term) fates worth than death to be considered. Which kills the fun more? A TPK, or deus ex machina? The TPK may be worse today, at the end of this session, but how much more exciting and tense are future battles going to be, when the players know I won't pull any punches? Alternatively, how dry are these battles going to be, with the players knowing -- however much they try to ignore it -- that there's an invisible safety net waiting for them when they hit bottom? If there's no chance for failure (and admittedly, a TPK is not the only means of failure -- more on that in a second), then how do the successes mean anything? If there are always second chances, why not just take 20 on the whole campaign?
I may or may not be a rat bastard DM -- I have had TPKs, for a variety of reasons. Usually it's a matter of players making mistakes that just can't be avoided without compromising the game's integrity... On occasion, it's just because I've made really really difficult encounters/situations for the PCs, ones where the odds were stacked against them, and they got wiped out. I don't mind doing this (I don't make a regular habit of doing this, either), because of all the other times when the PCs have won encounters like these. "We survived an encounter that threatened one-sixth of our resources!" is one helluva lot less exciting than "We survived an encounter which, by all odds and logic, should have wiped us out entirely." I've seen it happen plenty -- it always involves the players reaching into the farthest depths of their resourcefulness (which, as a player, I find the most satisfying part of the game), making clever, risky plays, and having a lot of damn good luck to boot. There's agony and ecstacy in the possible TPK. The only downside is that, by necessity, it opens up the possibility of a TPK.
Back to your specific problem, though: Three TPKs in two months (or whatever it was, I'm too lazy to browse back and check) is a lot... As much as I love the insanely dangerous encounter, they have to be used sparingly; like anything, they lose their thrill after a while, especially when the players realize that, at this rate, they're bound to have the bad luck to get killed off before their long-term objectives can be completed. It's hard to pick a frequency for this sort of encounter, but as a rough rule of thumb, I'd say once every six or seven levels -- so, if you look at a 20-level-spanning campaign as a three-act epic, these are the climactic, defining battles of each part (it sounds formulaic, but it works well with peoples' narrative sensibilities, so why not?)...
How do you keep things spicy in between? Well, moderately tough encounters are a little spicy, but if you really like challenging the PCs, I suggest getting a bit more creative with the definitions of success and failure. What are their goals in the campaign? Surely there are things other than death which can prevent these things from happening -- the magic item they need gets destroyed by some good clerics, who the party failed to convince of said magic item's necessity. The dark ritual which shall usher in a new age of doom is performed, and now there is a new age of doom. You didn't get the beef jerky when you had the chance, and now the cook and his brother will never be reunited. Et cetera.
Really, these are better than TPKs, because they seem just as urgent, but there's still an out -- at least, a better way out than rolling up new characters. If you play it off right, the players will be crushed and demoralized every bit as much as if their characters had died ("well damn, there goes the campaign... who wants pizza?")... but give them some time, and any player worthy of the name will hunker down and say "Okay, even though the princess has been disintegrated and her ashes used to fuel her vampire clone, there might still be a way to save her -- and if there is, we better find it!" If it's totally unreasonable for them to complete their original objective, well, they're going to have to settle for a smaller victory... and in my experience, players pursue those smaller victories much more vigorously than the larger ones. Failure sucks, but redemption is fun, so if it's done right, the whole process is generally worth it.
That said, I'd also like to echo the earlier sentiment that, whether or not you're a RBDM, it sounds like your game's a fun one to play in.
