Another TPK - Sigh.

[Piratecat]

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?

I can't speak for other folks, but I'm not running a simulationist game. My goal is to challenge the players and to make sure they have fun, even as I keep the consequences of screwing up ever-paramount in their minds. Slaughtering them all with an ogre group that (when united) is way too strong for their level in the first place isn't fun for me. What IS fun for me is making their mistake into a cool plot complication that they have to think their way out of or they KNOW they're dead.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with killing a character when needed. If there's an alternative that makes the game even more interesting, though, I'll consider that first.

How often have any of you as DMs honestly seen player characters show the slightest amount of restraint or even (gasp) mercy?

Lordy, yes. All the time. My group reforms assassins (at least, those not irredeemably evil) and grants mercy to many creatures that ask for it. It comes back to bite them once in a while, but likewise it gives them interesting allies and contacts. Not all combat needs to be to the death, and sometimes the best solutions - on both sides - don't involves killing the enemy.

 

[Rel]

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.

This is pretty much what I do. Like Firelance, I also tend to try and play the enemy according to their intelligence and alignment tendencies. Chaotic Evil creatures with low Int tend to just rush in as a horde or stand there unloading their spells at whichever target they hate the most at the moment. My group tends to mop these guys up having faced off against some of my more coordinated sets of foes.

The other mitigating factor is that the PC's are smart and careful enough to pick their battles when they are likely to be "significant" (i.e. the ones where a TPK could be in the offing). This results in them often only having a single fight that day and so they can unleash their spell resources more freely and allow themselves to become more wounded knowing that they can recover safely after the battle. They also tend to plan an "exit strategy" in the event that things turn out poorly and they need to retreat.

I don't always run games this way however. Particularly when running one-shots, I allow for the PC's to simply rush in without much of a plan. You don't want to waste a lot of time when you only have a single session to run the game. Also, I run these kinds of games at Game Days and Cons where I don't know the participants as well or at all.

 

[silentspace]

I don't really see how/why everyone keeps calling this player tactics, when it seems to me to be an error/misunderstanding. For example:

Player: I sneak into the temple while the cultists are chanting and steal the relic.

Good DM: You can't do that, the light globes hanging from the ceiling fill the chamber with very good light. There are no areas of shadowy illumination in which to hide.

Bad DM: As all eyes turn towards you, you realize you made a terrible mistake. Eight cultists grapple you while another eight draw their rapiers and sneak attack you while grappled. You are dead.

 

[Hjorimir]

I can't speak for other folks, but I'm not running a simulationist game. My goal is to challenge the players and to make sure they have fun, even as I keep the consequences of screwing up ever-paramount in their minds. Slaughtering them all with an ogre group that (when united) is way too strong for their level in the first place isn't fun for me. What IS fun for me is making their mistake into a cool plot complication that they have to think their way out of or they KNOW they're dead.

I hear you, PC. But, for me at any rate, fun as a DM starts to break down when I have to do those kinds of things. I'm not hunting for the PCs heads, but if their actions lead to such consequences, so be it. I really want the romantic epic where the player characters evolve into larger than life heroes (and I'm cheering them on). But if they pull that off in my campaign, they will know it was by their own merits. PLEASE don't take that as a snipe at your (or anybody else's) DMing style. It is just a different philosophy that I choose to follow. Bottom line, do what is most fun for you and yours.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with killing a character when needed. If there's an alternative that makes the game even more interesting, though, I'll consider that first.

As would I. I don't think this situation would be more interesting, however. I think it would teach the players that the DM is unwilling to kill them. If they get that in their heads, the campaign will suffer greatly.

Lordy, yes. All the time. My group reforms assassins (at least, those not irredeemably evil) and grants mercy to many creatures that ask for it. It comes back to bite them once in a while, but likewise it gives them interesting allies and contacts. Not all combat needs to be to the death, and sometimes the best solutions - on both sides - don't involves killing the enemy.

Well all I can say to that is AWESOME. My experience is that the second the paladin/cleric turns their backs somebody is slitting the throats of the captured. Heck, not too long ago a monk subdued and knocked out a goblin opponent and as soon as he had his back turned the group's rogue snuck back and CDGed it. We're not talking about some long hated arch nemesis who had a history of meddling with the PCs. Just some namelss goblin who encountered the player characters as they invaded its lair and tried to defend itself. Frankly, I'm tired of that attitude and my players are going to have to really consider the consequences of their actions.

 

[Presto2112]

DMs should blame themselves more often; after all, they are the ones running the campaign. But instead of taking a hard look at themselves, they act like smug deities looking down upon the foolishness of their players.

Sometimes you guys forget that the whole point of this GAME is to have fun.

So all actions, just because it's a game, should be without consequences? There have to be a series of if - then - elses. Character death is the closest you can come in an RPG to 'losing the game', and if in a game a player makes a bad decision or emplys bad strategy, odds are that player will lose. This is no different.

 

[Rel]

I don't really see how/why everyone keeps calling this player tactics, when it seems to me to be an error/misunderstanding. For example:

Player: I sneak into the temple while the cultists are chanting and steal the relic.

I think there's a difference between a player trying subtletly and finesse (i.e. a plan) and getting screwed by a misunderstanding and a situation where the group waltzes in to an enemy camp while it is undermanned, acts with brutality and then camps a short distance away, acting as though it is business as usual. The actions undertaken by the PC's could only have a few reasonable consequences. Leaving aside what actually happened, it seems that the very least they should have expected was for the remaining band of Ogres to come out into the woods and attack them in a full out melee.

If that constituted their "plan" then it was a fairly poor one. If you're going to take on the entire enemy force at once (less the one guy you slaughtered, beheaded and disgraced), then you should at least do it at a time when the entire party has their armor on, has a chance to cast any preparatory spells and are not disadvantaged by a lack of daylight. Doing otherwise indicates on some level that the players don't really respect the abilities of the enemy or view them as a serious threat. Otherwise they would have taken some precaution against what was, in my opinion, a predictable attack by the enemy whom they had insulted and picked a fight with.

There are two reasons that come to my mind immediately for why the players did not treat this encounter with respect (there may well be others): They think that their PC's should enjoy some sort of "immunity" from consequences since they are the focal point of the story OR they have a fundamental lack of understanding of basic tactical considerations as they apply to the rules set. If it is the first reason, then these players are simply a bit stupid. Not because "plot immunity" is a bad gaming concept (though it is not one that I enjoy) but because it is clearly NOT THE CASE. This is the third TPK after all. They should have learned by now that the GM is not going to save them just because they are PC's.

My guess is that it is the second reason. With a good understanding of the rules of the game, basic tactical considerations become evident. Things like:

*The enemy could find us with Track or possibly just Wilderness Lore if we don't attempt to conceal our tracks and if they don't wait too long.
*Our Listen checks to hear them coming will be penalized over distance so we won't have any reasonable chance to hear them until they get within 300 feet.
*The Ogres could cover that distance in about 5 rounds (if they don't run) and that gives us very little time to wake everyone, grab weapons and cast spells. Donning armor is out of the question.
*If the Ogres are the least bit stealthy and if the person on watch isn't VERY good at Listen then our margin for error gets far smaller.

At this point, assuming that this has something to do with it, I think I'd sit down with the players and show them in the rules just how easy it would be for them to be in a very bad situation based on the best-case-scenario (the Ogres attack as a group and don't try to be quiet) and how everything after that just makes it worse. Reiterate that you are NOT "out to get them" or trying to catch any little mistake they make. But also remind them that the sort of game you wish to run is one where the enemy will respond to the best of his ability (mental, martial and magical) and so the party should be prepared for this kind of thing if they provoke them. Then ask them if that is the kind of game they want to be playing in and listen closely to their answers.

Good luck.

 

[jmucchiello]

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.

We actually run with a similar rule. No attack or damaging spell effect (except actual death spells) can drop a character below -9 hp in one shot. We mostly did this for the low hit point problem. A character with 100 hp gets dropped to 2 hp and the next hit kills him outright. If he'd just taken 3 more points of damage he drops but probably survives the fight. Of course, at -9 hp he's close to death if not aided quickly (though we use -CON as death not 10). Even with this rule we've had our share of actual deaths. The -9 holding threshold comes up at least once a combat though.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

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.

Did all seven or so ogres roll high and, yes they had posted a watch, overcome the awake guy's roll?

if a party of seven adventurering PCs all clad in plate armor with dex 8s tried to sneak up on an awake ogre or bugbear, how likely (if they all had hide/silent checks of -8 to the roll) to succeed so you think this Gm would have made it?

Point is this... if the GM cared one wit about not having tpk's, int 6 ogre mobs and -8 hide/silent checks give him ample opportunities to not have it work out to be a flawlessly staged ogre ambush with no warning without breaking his "narrative truth" one bit. if the party had heard one ogre before things went terrible and gotten up, then this might have turned into just the sort of "lesson" everyone wants them taught... an incredibly tough fight they might be able to get away from.

Remember, dead PCs learn no lessons, get no better.
Live PCs who may be alive by running away and are now suffering from loss of gear and what not, learn a lesson and pay a price.

Unless of course, you just assume their next PCs retain the knowledg of the old dead ones, in which case tpks can be teaching tools.

2) DM'ing for 22 years myself, I rather like tough opponents. The party should not consider themselves invincible.

did anyone say this is not how it should be? didn't think so.
I just dont think three tpks in a few months is necessary to avoid invincible thinking.

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" -

Did anyone say anything that disagrees with this? Didn't think so.
I just think there is plenty of room between this and three tpks.

In the case of the Ogres, did the party think they wouldnt retaliate? And if so... why not?

They moved away and posted a watch. maybe they figures they would hear a angry mob of ogres approaching thru the woods, if there were woods.

Maybe the head on a spike was to enrage the ogres, so they would come after them in "angry mob of ogres" style instead of "spetznaz ogre" style?

I, for one, would not expect a sentry to be surprised by seven ogres barring some really weird terrain issue. No real mention has been made of terrain so not much to go on there.

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.

or get anrgy and rush out for revenge, maybe forgetting their commando spetznaz training for a moment.

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

I usually prefer for people to enjoy the game, and frankly, before i would consider telling a GM "great job" that would be one necessary criteria.

but thats just me.

 

[Hjorimir]

The GM has to enjoy himself (herself) too. If the GM is constantly having to handle the PCs with kiddy-gloves, how fun is it going to be? Why even make challenging encounters? Where does it stop? Should those same PCs be able to try and kill a king only to be capture yet strangely not executed? What about stomping on the lair of an ancient dragon?

No, it is better to remain consistent in the application of all choices have consequences (be them good or bad) and adhere to a system of logical outcome. This will establish a normalcy within the campaign and a foundation for the players to consider when making said choices.

One should also remember that choosing to do nothing is a choice in and of itself.

 

[Hjorimir]

Rel-

I won't quote your post, but when you move to San Diego and need players, let me know...you're my kind of DM.