Another TPK - Sigh.

[FireLance]

ogres run intelligently, using good tactics and well coordinated commando style engagements, not hindered by their lack of stealth, able to reach melee range easily and en masse and timed well... those are MUCH higher than CR2.

Nitpick: 3.5e ogres are CR3.

That said...

I'm curious do you take your natural tactical ability into account with setting the encounter levels of your set encounters? Seems like you and Force User should user slightly weaker than average foes (by average I mean making the leader a lower level than the average DM would otherwise) and make up for the slightly less power with your tactical ability. Of course this would make TPKs even more disheartening.

I'm pretty much a tactician myself, but I try to play monsters to their intelligence. Unintelligent creatures use simple, predictable tactics that the PCs can exploit. Creatures with animal intelligence may have one or two tactics that they use instinctively. A wolf pack will attempt to flank, for example, but will not bull rush. The more intelligent an opponent is, the larger the "menu" of tactics I give him. An ogre, for example, might have the following list of tactics: Attack apparent spellcasters first, charge when possible, throw javelins if unable to make a melee attack after completing move.

 

[FireLance]

Actually, I'd disagree with that. My personal take (and this is all that it is) is that Intelligence is what lets somebody come up with a good tactical plan. Wisdom is what lets them react to the circumstances as the plan unfolds. That's the way I play my monsters. A high-Int, low-Wis character constructs a brilliant plan and then goes to pieces as soon as the PCs throw a wrench into the gears. A low-Int, high-Wis person is good at reacting to situations, not taking the initiative and formulating strategy. There's a reason that Knowledge(tactics) is still and Int-based skill in d20 Modern.

Actually, I have a different view. Intelligence allows a person to come up with a good plan, and to react to changing circumstances. Wisdom allows a person to spot the second, third, and higher-order effects of that plan. A high-Intelligence person can deduce that the creature he is fighting is vulnerable to fire. However, a high-Wisdom peron can tell him that casting a fireball in a wooden building is a bad idea.

 

[silentspace]

My take...

I don't think it was bad tactics. Rather, I suspect you have a communication problem. Is it possible the picture you had in your mind was different than the picture the players had in their minds?

For instance, perhaps a player thought it was a half mile of thick, hilly, forested terrain. Not too easy to spot a fire, or even smoke, through the dense tree cover. But in your mind it was a flat, featureless plain.

I think this because the way you present your story, the players are abysmally stupid. Too stupid. To the point where I have to think that you're communicating the situation poorly (or possibly they didn't hear properly...)

Also, you might have to repeat yourself. You're describing something with words. Little details you mention five minutes ago "the area around the ogre lair is a flat featureless plain" could be forgotten. (This can't happen in real life - you would see that it is a flat featureless plain). Or, you might have given mixed messages. Player - "I chop a branch off of a nearby tree and sharpen it, then stake the ogre's head on it." DM - "Got it". Suddenly, there are trees!

No one's perfect, not DMs, not players. If a PC does something that they would never do in real life, there's a communication breakdown somewhere, and you need to explain/clarify/repeat/whatever.

Forget about the Int 6 on the ogres for a minute. Even if they were Int 3 ogres, they would never make the same mistake the PCs made, because the image in their minds is exactly the same image thats in the DM's mind. They understand the situation completely. The players don't. For the players to understand, the DM has to explain it to them.

 

[Darklone]

Well... three years ago I started with a group of newbies. They had absolutely no idea about tactical wargames (which I played since decades).

Even basic tactical things like putting the well armored guys in front of the unarmored ones was too complicated for them.

Still, like Rel and ForceUser, I like to use tactics with my monsters. So I put the whole campaign together as a series of demonstrations about tactics. Every combat featured some NPCs who used a different trick. I was careful though... and didn't use superstrong monsters. Having 9 players often helped, even without tactical instincts their sheer number survived.

In these three years I killed 4 -6 PCs. Mostly due to bad luck with dice or heroic sacrifices, two died because of poor tactical decisions by others (one of them after that player left the campaign and his buddies didn't really care what the char did).

I guess I gave the players often hints like "Sooo, you want to do it THAT way?". They got these hints though.

More than once, they charged through the frontdoor and got beaten badly. Yet, most of the times they were able to burn all expendable resources (wands, scrolls, potions) and make it back out in one piece.

Reading how ForceUser describes the battle, I think the players would have survived with a bit more luck (these scorching rays for example). My players always had a lot of luck (critical hits, critical fumbles at saving throws of uberNPCs). Knowing how inexperienced the players were, I had some minor deus ex machina dudes around, yet none of them really had to interfere yet. Perhaps it's a good idea to think about an emergency aid.

About the ogres tactics: Low Int means for me developing one tactic and following that one while improving it slowly. High Int means to me to notice that a tactic does not work and improvise. Which the ogres didn't have to do here. Granted, in case the PCs would have ambushed the ogres with a fake camp and campfire and waited in the bushes around... the ogres wouldn't have stand a chance, right?

 

[Plane Sailing]

One tangential thing I'd like to mention - TPKs are astonishingly easy to get in 3e because so much more damage is being handed around than in earlier editions (except by wizards, funnily enough).

The situation in my campaign was so bad that we introduced a houserule that gave PCs a heroic save against death when they reached -10hp (level check, DC = total amount of -ve hp). That has saved about a dozen PC deaths. In two campaigns I play in the death threshold has been extended to -(CON + Level) with the same kind of effect.

Cheers

 

[Numion]

Many have pointed out that the Ogre warband was too high EL for the group in question. However, isn't that the PCs fault? Even in a normal dungeon where 'wise' MO might be to tackle the monsters one at a time, stupid PCs might be able run through the place, attracting multiple critters at once, which would put the EL through the roof. Even though many adventures are planned to be tackled piecemeal.

Here the PCs did have the option of taking the Ogres in smaller groups (maybe), or with ambush themselves, bringing the EL down.

Just saying, maybe it wasn't the DMs fault.

 

[Creamsteak]

There's nothing wrong with having to explain to the players that "a fire can be seen from x feet away." You have to explain how a bunch of rules work, and it's really not so different to have to provide information that your using to make a working assumption.

 

[Piratecat]

I would have had the ogres take the group captive by being knocked unconscious. Something as rude as putting their friend's head on a pike... well, that deserves especially slow and painful death. This way when the group wakes up naked and bruised, hanging upside down from ceiling-mounted ropes where the ogres were planning a pinata-party, they could engineer a clever escape.

This falls into the old rat bastard maxim of turning problems into advantages; if the PCs screw up their tactics horribly, show them it's a problem and make the situation worse but different, so that they can still be heroes.

 

[Hjorimir]

A couple of points:

1) If the characters are supposed to be the good guys and the monsters are supposed to be the bad guys, how is it that any of you can really suggest that the monsters should have taken the party alive when player characters almost never try and take monsters alive? How often have any of you as DMs honestly seen player characters show the slightest amount of restraint or even (gasp) mercy? I see nothing that would suggest that the ogres should have tried to take prisoners. In fact, due to their brutal nature and violent outlook on life (not to mention their low Int), taking prisoners back to the cave to enact some form of sophisticated torture seems beyond them. They are rather simple and the simple solution is to kill the player characters.

2) Don’t let the low Int fool you guys on how crafty a pack of hunters can be. I watched a special on Animal Discovery showing a pack of chimpanzees hunting some treetop monkeys that had three teams. One team drove the monkeys through the trees; one team herded the monkeys on a predetermined path; one team sat in ambush so when the monkeys had to break from the trees momentarily (due to the lack of trees for a short stretch) so they could grab them and kill them. It was eerie watching the whole thing unfold (overhead helicopter with an infrared camera). What is the intelligence of a chimpanzee? Look at the hunting tactics of many animals. All with abysmally low Intelligence. But one has to consider their Wisdom.

3) I think it would be a mistake to handle the player characters with child gloves on. Once you start down that road they can very easily come to expect it. These lessons of all choices having consequences are best done up front. It establishes what the players can reasonably expect within the game. Yes, it may sting some. But in the end they will be a stronger group having gone through it.

 

[Sunderstone]

on commando Ogres.

1) even animals (with animal intelligence) stalk their prey and sneak up on them. So why cant an Ogre with INT of 6 do the same, and even follow simple orders. The "Ogre Commando" thing is a bit stretched, swrushing. Even with a -8 to hide, they may roll high and the party sentry if there was one could roll low.

2) DM'ing for 22 years myself, I rather like tough opponents. The party should not consider themselves invincible. If there are tough encounters my players usually retreat (though not always ). If they are hunting a band of Orcs in a mountain range with a rumored Blue Dragon, they prepare for it. They already make plans to run if it shows up, and they take precautions while camping like finding an alcove, no campfire etc.

DMs should NOT think along the lines of...... " hmm... my players are 4th level and are heading into the High Forest, I'm going to make sure that no creatures over an EL of 4 live there" - This would only take away from the mystery and danger of the High Forest. This would also make a dungeon kind of boring.


In the case of the Ogres, did the party think they wouldnt retaliate? And if so... why not? They took a chance and probably thought that by mounting a head on a pike they would get scared enough not to retaliate or even flee their cavern home from the evil humans.

They did leave most of the band untouched. They should have expected that the Ogres might retaliate and taken better precautions especially while camping.

Heavy-handedness aside, I think ForceUser did a great job. Hopefully the players learned a little from this.