Another TPK - Sigh.

[Plane Sailing]

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?

For the story? To keep the adventure arc alive?

As a Dm I hate it when a party member dies and all the RB plans and plot threads around that person dissipate. It is far worse when a whole party dies since realistically it can end that campaign.

But most of all, I like collaborating in the telling of a fun story; I love it when adventures we play turn out like a Conan story or anything else I'd be pleased to read in fiction. It is a different kind of story when everyone collaborates to be sure, but dramatic imperative works just as well here.

Plus it builds the story, it builds fear and loathing for a particular group, it brings (I think) a degree of verisimilitude to the world. There are many reasons why capture is a viable choice for an opponent to take, and it can draw the game on (sometimes in unexpected directions). This in no way means that the DM treats the PCs with kiddy-gloves... sometimes even the opposite in fact. For instance, in my own campaign I will often make these kind of choices when DMing yet *none* of my players would attempt something deliberatly stupid in the expectation that I'd let them off. Far from it!

Also consider this - loss of items is more of a penalty to most characters than death is once they reach mid levels. A simple spell like raise dead will bring them back to life but there is no shortcut to retrieving those precious magic items.





Regarding the separate issue of PCs not taking prisoners - I wonder how many of those have developed the habit because DM's have penalised those that act good? The good guys rescue the princess who turns out to be a rabid vampire queen. Again. Every foe to whom mercy is shown comes back to attack them again later. I've seen it many times, and it leads to a mentality of "we've got to kill them all to be sure, otherwise they'll just come back with their mates".

When DM's allow 'good' actions to be rewarded rather than penalised, that kind of thing happens more often.

(and intra party issues like a party member CDG-ing a prisoner? There should be an in-character resolution to just that kind of issue)

Cheers

 

[Hjorimir]

For the story? To keep the adventure arc alive?

As a Dm I hate it when a party member dies and all the RB plans and plot threads around that person dissipate. It is far worse when a whole party dies since realistically it can end that campaign.

I hate it when a party member dies as well. But I'm willing to allow that to happen if it will encourage them to respect the dangers of being an adventurer.

But most of all, I like collaborating in the telling of a fun story; I love it when adventures we play turn out like a Conan story or anything else I'd be pleased to read in fiction. It is a different kind of story when everyone collaborates to be sure, but dramatic imperative works just as well here.

My opinion has always been the DM doesn't tell the story at all. He only creates plot devices. The players tell the story...it is one of the things that makes DMing interesting...I can’t wait to see how the whole thing unfolds.

Plus it builds the story, it builds fear and loathing for a particular group, it brings (I think) a degree of verisimilitude to the world. There are many reasons why capture is a viable choice for an opponent to take, and it can draw the game on (sometimes in unexpected directions). This in no way means that the DM treats the PCs with kiddy-gloves... sometimes even the opposite in fact. For instance, in my own campaign I will often make these kind of choices when DMing yet *none* of my players would attempt something deliberatly stupid in the expectation that I'd let them off. Far from it!

Yes, there are many reasons why capture might be a viable choice. I don't see one in this scenario, however. To have contrived one would have been, in fact, using the kiddy-gloves. As far as your players not thinking you'd let them off; I'm willing to bet is because they've had to learn a few hard lessons down the line. You've established just exactly what can happen given their actions (a testament to your own talents as a DM). ForceUser should stick to his guns (so to speak) and this will work itself out (or the players will spend a lot of time making new characters).

Also consider this - loss of items is more of a penalty to most characters than death is once they reach mid levels. A simple spell like raise dead will bring them back to life but there is no shortcut to retrieving those precious magic items.

Well, without trying to derail this topic, I also have a problem with the indifference PCs take towards death. It should be the ultimate cost and penalty. The relative ease in which a PC can be returned by what many (including myself) would argue is the most wondrous miracle known to mankind plunges a knife into the heart of drama. Pushing that aside, the player may lose those items anyway (be it because the items were not recovered or perhaps used in payment for said resurrection).

Regarding the separate issue of PCs not taking prisoners - I wonder how many of those have developed the habit because DM's have penalised those that act good? The good guys rescue the princess who turns out to be a rabid vampire queen. Again. Every foe to whom mercy is shown comes back to attack them again later. I've seen it many times, and it leads to a mentality of "we've got to kill them all to be sure, otherwise they'll just come back with their mates".

When DM's allow 'good' actions to be rewarded rather than penalised, that kind of thing happens more often.

Yeah, it isn't easy being the good guy. If it was easy, we'd have a lot more heroes in the world. But easy is how you make a cake, not how your forge heroes.

(and intra party issues like a party member CDG-ing a prisoner? There should be an in-character resolution to just that kind of issue)

Cheers

Well I certainly didn't take any action against the rogue character, not do I advocate doing as such. I was simply using it as an example of how unrealistic it is to expect mercy from the bad guys when even the "good" guys don't grant quarter. One of the funniest running jokes of the Austin Powers movies is how Scott Evil wanted to just kill Austin with a gun while Dr. Evil was unwilling to do it. It pokes at such a preposterous thing.

 

[The Grackle]

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?
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.
...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.

Excellent points. I think this may be the problem here.

...and I often get the feeling that my players aren't quite totally aware of the consequences of their actions.

I think you have a very vivid picture of what things are like in your game and how they will unfold, and the players don't. You're either going to have do more explaining or give them a little leeway. Or keep TPKing them.

I don't think the question here should be "was I right to TPK the party?" but instead should be "how can I stop this from happening in the future?"



By the way, how did the two other TPKs happen? Maybe there's a pattern.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

The GM has to enjoy himself (herself) too.

Did that happen here? Did this Gm enjoy his tpk of the party? if so, that might well point to a source of a problem.

If not, if the Gm did not enjoy his tpk, that makes this Gm enjoyment a bit off topic.

Me, i enjoy the games i run without tpks.

If the GM is constantly having to handle the PCs with kiddy-gloves, how fun is it going to be?

Who said anything about having to handle them with kiddy gloves or even about having to do this constantly?

It may be odd to some but there is a wide range of possibilities between tpks and kid safe adventures a Gm can use.

To emphasize, dead characters don't learn lessons. Surviving characters do.

Why even make challenging encounters?

because, unlike tpks and kiddy safe adventures, they are enjoyable for most everyone at the table.

Again to reiterate, there are plenty of things and a wide range between kiddy safe and tpks for a Gm to choose to use.

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?

and the oddyssey would have been a much better or much worse story had cyclops just killed them all when they were his prisoner?
and star wars would have been a much better or much worse story had jabba just had solo killed instead of encased in corbumite?
and star trek (any) would have been a much better series had kirk been killed whenever "bad guys" had him prisoner?

As for your "examples", unable to answer that depending on the nature of the PCs, the story to that point and so forth.

But if you point is supposed to be that any give on the Gms part to avoid a tpk leads to riduculously reckless PCs, all i can say is "nope".

There is a lot of room between puff and tpk, and many Gms play in just that range every day.

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.

and, hey, its easy to stay within the "narrative truth" so to speak and consistency and not drive to tpks. In this instance its not unreasonable to have moronic behemoths stumbe or falter slightly in their spetznaz style commando raid. Its not outside the bounds of reasonableness to have the on watch sentry hear or see the incredibly stealth challenged mob. is a fire easy to see? Sure. But so is a mob of ogres.

 

[silentspace]

...

 

[silentspace]

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.

This is my point exactly. If the 'plan' is so stupid as to be nonsensical, is it really a plan? Or could there be a fundamental misunderstanding somewhere?

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. *snip*

Are these the only two reasons? Both reasons assume that you (the DM) is a genius nonpareil and your players are either snotty smart-alecks or lack basic common sense (in either case, they clearly deserve a come-uppance/lesson). Maybe you're right. But its possible there's another reason, isn't it?

 

[just__al]

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.

RC

You know it's funny. We play on thursday nights and to save time and money, I cook for everybody and we all pitch in (works out to about 3 bucks each for a good meal). I have at my table a picky eater, someone on Atkins, the human vacuum cleaner, a person who'll eat anything but a sweet potato, and 3 people on southbeach. While everybody eats what I put on the table, I make sure everybody can eat what I'm cooking.

Much like the following went out to the group after our 3rd session

1. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being best), how much fun are you having in
general? ___
2. When you just thought "the game is fun except for 'this'", what was
the "this" that sprung to mind?
3. Using a total of ten points, please give me your ideal proportion of
role-playing vs. combat vs. puzzle/problem solving.
__ role playing
__ combat
__ puzzle solving

4. Is the general pace of each session too fast, about right, or too
slow? If too slow, what do you suggest I do to pick up the pace without
pushing or railroading?
5. Are you getting bored with the current plot arc? If so, what in
particular is getting tedious?
6. Are you getting enough role-playing encounters? More specifically,
are you getting the kind of role-playing encounters you prefer? (I refer
to personalities of NPCs, roles of NPCs, etc.) Outside of wearing silly
little outfits - well, sillier - what can I do to improve role-playing
encounters?
7. Should I award XP more often? Is your rate of level gain about right?
Do you have any other concerns/questions about XP
8. Do you want more handouts and the like? More maps?
9. Are you getting enough attention paid to your character plot-wise? It
would be great if you could suggest some additional plot hooks for your PC.
10. Are you getting enough attention paid to YOU when we game? It's a
relatively big group, and I try to spread my attention equally. If I'm
not doing so, please make sure you tell me.
11. Is the general pace of combat too slow? If so, what can I do to
speed it up?
12. Is the variety of combat encounters okay? What kind of beasties
would you like to run in to?
13. Is the danger level of combat encounters okay? Would you like to see
more hard, moderate or easy combats?
14. What do you like the least about the campaign? what one thing would
you change if you could? What one thing can I change to make myself a
better DM?
15. What do you like the most about the campaign?
16. Do you feel your character is on an equitable power level with the
rest of the party? Do you feel effective? If not, what in particular
needs beefing up?
17. Is there anything you want to change about your character, either
personality-wise or role-in-the-group-wise?
18. What do you think about the magic item level for both you and the
group as a whole - too low, about right, or too many? Any particular
magic items/effects you're drooling to get?
19. Do you like logic puzzles, such as riddles and sneaky traps? How
about prophecies that you have to figure out? How about figuring out
what your enemies are up to? What other "puzzle/problem" things would
you like to see in the game?
20. Do we play often enough? About right? Too often?
21. What question should I have asked that I didn't?

 

[Hjorimir]

Did that happen here? Did this Gm enjoy his tpk of the party? if so, that might well point to a source of a problem.

If not, if the Gm did not enjoy his tpk, that makes this Gm enjoyment a bit off topic.

Me, i enjoy the games i run without tpks.

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.

Who said anything about having to handle them with kiddy gloves or even about having to do this constantly?

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

It may be odd to some but there is a wide range of possibilities between tpks and kid safe adventures a Gm can use.

To emphasize, dead characters don't learn lessons. Surviving characters do.

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

because, unlike tpks and kiddy safe adventures, they are enjoyable for most everyone at the table.

Again to reiterate, there are plenty of things and a wide range between kiddy safe and tpks for a Gm to choose to use.

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.

and the oddyssey would have been a much better or much worse story had cyclops just killed them all when they were his prisoner?
and star wars would have been a much better or much worse story had jabba just had solo killed instead of encased in corbumite?
and star trek (any) would have been a much better series had kirk been killed whenever "bad guys" had him prisoner?

What of Boromir? What of Uther? What of Arthur? 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.

As for your "examples", unable to answer that depending on the nature of the PCs, the story to that point and so forth.

But if you point is supposed to be that any give on the Gms part to avoid a tpk leads to riduculously reckless PCs, all i can say is "nope".

There is a lot of room between puff and tpk, and many Gms play in just that range every day.

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, hey, its easy to stay within the "narrative truth" so to speak and consistency and not drive to tpks. In this instance its not unreasonable to have moronic behemoths stumbe or falter slightly in their spetznaz style commando raid. Its not outside the bounds of reasonableness to have the on watch sentry hear or see the incredibly stealth challenged mob. is a fire easy to see? Sure. But so is a mob of ogres.

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.

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.

 

[RuminDange]

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.



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.

Same in my experience over the years.
I've got players that will grant mercy and take prisoners. One character, has over 100 people that has rescued from evil humaniod tribes or what ever in her grove as she is helping to get them back on thier feet and reform those that have evil alignments or bad attitudes. This includes the likes of hobgoblins, goblins, etc but not orcs.
The group a long time ago captured two assassins sent to kill them and a gnome they were escorting home and since the two assassins have been reformed and are major allies against the BBEG (groups) that the party faces, including thier old boss, (which they just helped take out recently) who was a major thorn in the PC's side since the beginning.
It has gotten to the point, if I include any creature that is not an aberration, undead or corrupted in some way (special to my campaign) I better figure out it's reaction and back story cause if they don't kill it, it will be reformed. In some cases, undead may not be safe if they convince them to return to life after destroying them.

But then again, I've players interested in the stories of the world and not the fighting all the time, most of the time they think about thier actions or least a couple do when they are involved. Although one loves the fighting, he is learning that fighting is not always the answer. And I have one that needs to think about things a little more before doing them, he keeps making the same mistakes.
And I've killed several characters repeatly and few permanently for mistakes they make like running away from overwhelming forces when they should have just teleported. Most of the time it boils down to the players making a plan and then not adjusting when the plan meets the enemy.

In all of my years of experience, I've had only 1 TPK, but I've count the number of character death's permanent or otherwise.

RD

 

[Chimera]

I don't think the question here should be "was I right to TPK the party?" but instead should be "how can I stop this from happening in the future?"

It occured to me, just after posting earlier (page 3-ish) that I would do the same thing (tpk the party)....that I probably wouldn't.

I'd give the party a couple of warnings first.

Starting with "Hmmm.... You invade the Ogre lair, kill one of them and take their stuff. Then you move a half-mile away, light a campfire which can be seen for miles and go to bed. Is there anyone else besides me who sees this as a Collosally Bad Idea(tm)?"

If they decided to argue with me or insist that I wouldn't do anything to them about it, I would then give them four options;
1> We play out the expected TPK. Heck, maybe they'll get lucky.
2> We just say it happened and go straight to rolling up new characters.
3> They decide that maybe I'm HELPING them and that it's never a good idea to dare the GM to TPK your party, so maybe they should do something else. or;
4> We just bag the entire game and everyone goes home.

I don't like Duex Ex Machina "saves". The idea that the PCs should be captured instead of killed doesn't feel right either, dealing with Ogres. Nor should freaking Ogres be trying to "negotiate" the return of their stuff as one or two people suggested. But hey, that's just me. I prefer to play with consequences.

But yes....the GM should make every effort to warn the players when they're doing something incredibly stupid without apparently realizing it.

God knows I've been in enough situations where an Evil GM has sprung some ludicrous situation in my face that, given the description of things, I had no way of knowing could happen. Then I'm screaming "Hey, you never told me about such-and-such" while they're laughing and saying "you didn't ask!". I simply won't play with GMs like that anymore.

So again, give the players the benefit of the doubt, give them a warning or note that they might want to reconsider or are overlooking something.

And if they still want to do it.... TPK the lot of them.