D&D 5E Egregious TPK retcon in Hoard of the Dragon Queen

[the Jester]

I was running the Starter Box, which has pre-gens, and the Basic rules will only make the same characters. So if the players lose characters, they actually have no way to roll up a 'new' character, or at least one who is different; they can only make the same dude again, but with a different name. That doesn't interest me.

They can mix races, classes and backgrounds to make substantially different characters IMHO. But I take your point.

The Starter Box - and specifically its storyline - don't really suit starting again with a new group. How would the new characters know to go to Cragmaw Castle? What is their involvement?

Oh, I think it's easy enough to get new pcs involved, but I agree that the pregens, with tight links to various bits of the adventure or different mini-quests in the Starter Set, are significantly better for the adventure than any new pcs you might make.

So yeah, I would say that not only is there a case for the group style being different, but also that the game style doesn't lend itself to simply accepting the TPK and moving on. In this specific case, there basically wouldn't have been a way to carry on, except for some really unconvincing "your new characters happened to be walking by and found your diaries" or something, which would have been a much bigger mental issue for me.

This is a point that shouldn't be ignored. A general distake for 'taking stuff back' can and should be trumped by a consideration of the specific circumstances of the game in question.

While I agree with the fact that inserting new pcs could be somewhat problematic, I'll still stand by my "no take-backs" position for my group. But I agree that, for some groups, the balance can swing the other way on this.

 

[Pickles JG]

I am mostly on the dice should fall whare they lie side of things. I have argued (well demonstrated) how sports are more dramatic than plays as the drama in sports in real & unscripted. This does not go down well with Thesps. I think the same applies to games - they are less dramatic if the DM starts fudging things either to keep them interesting or to avoid crushing the players (especially if he veers from one end to the other in the same fight).

Doing that sort of fudging invisibly is a skill I admire but I would rather threats are reasonably appropriate or telegraphed as very dangerous than have DMs need to fudge. TPKs seems an easy out - it is much easier to just kill the players than think up an interesting & meaningful other way for them to be defeated. A TPK in a story with a strong narrative risks giving you the sensation of stopping reading a mystery story half way through. You want to find out what happens but never will.

I played this particular module on Sunday having looked at the monsters in greed for knowledge & read the starter which I will be running. I know how riduculously dangerous dragons are. My maybe does not know this (then again how does he know that at 10th level he can survive dragon breath but at first he cannot?)

The missionman says that he needs to drive off the dragon & the PCs can assist the regular soldiers in doing this. It is obviously suicidal to try this if the dragon is out to get us. The plot protection seemed to be that the dragon stafed NPCs as a priority. It was the most "videogamey" bit of adventure I have played in - specifically recalling the start of Skyrrim & IIRC one of the Witcher games.

Our DM did not play it very well. I think there is scope for splitting the NPCs & PCs into a number of treams & "randomly" seeing which one is attacked each time (but fixing it so only NPCs get hit). It would probably pretty transparent but done with gusto you might swing it. He should also narrate volleys of arrows from the Guards (a ballista as my PC helpfully pointed out would have been a good idea).

On reflection I do not think it is quite such a dreadful scenario as I at first thought but it certainly carries a large danger of being unsatisfying (as it was for us).

 

[Eirikrautha]

This I kind of agree with. Not every loss or setback in a game with random elements provides a valuable lesson. Sometimes bad luck just strikes. There will also be times of extremely good fortune. It is important to let players know when extremely poor judgment was the proximate cause of a disaster. If players are unaware that they are making mistakes there isn't much chance of learning from them.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. In fact, I'm going to make a blanket statement here that might sound controversial, but I think is completely totally true. Bad luck, or randomness, NEVER causes TPKs. TPKs are always a DM's choice.

Think about the actual odds of a TPK by dice. You would have to have every PC suffer enough damage simultaneously to drop them to negative con, which I would argue is an encounter the DM has designed to kill the PCs (see my earlier post about the logic of game results). Or, through combat, each PC would have to be reduced to zero, then fail three death saves before they passed three. The odds on this happening to 4-5 characters is pretty slim. Even in a case where it is logical for all of the PCs to be knocked to zero (surrounded by mobs), everyone failing the death saves is still highly unlikely. Death normally comes in this situation from the DM choosing to have the mobs kill the unconscious PCs.

Now, people can argue about what goblins would do until the cows come home, but the fact that any mook kills a helpless PC is totally based on DM choice. There are as many reasons why a mook wouldn't (even down to pure laziness of not checking each body) as there are conjectures why they would. This is even more true with animals (who are more likely to drag off a kill and eat it, leaving the rest until a later time... or even abandoning them). While a PC or two can certainly die from bad rolls, the only way that a TPK can happen is by a DM choosing to have the mooks behave in a manner that would do so.

Now, as I talked about up-thread, some groups are ok with this line of reasoning. In fact, some players would follow the logic to the point where they would be upset if a DM didn't TPK them. That's perfectly OK. But it's not more "logical," or "hardcore," or "simulationist," or even "game as war" than other logical outcomes (even in most combat situations, soldiers don't finish off wounded enemies; in history those who did often got very unsavory reputations... See Banastre Tarleton)... often it is less so. It is dependent on the social contract shared by the players and the GM as to what the "logical" outcome should be (i.e. what the fair choices are for the DM).

As an aside, this is one reason I am glad that 5e doesn't include an instant-death coup de grace option. Use of this by a DM is almost always a dick move. Now, certain tables may see the process as a logical one, and therefore accept the DM's choice. But that doesn't minimize the fact that, whatever rationale is present, the DM is purposely destroying a PC (an item of great value to the player) where the player has no such reciprocal power over the DM.

To the OPs situation: the PCs were in an encounter they could not survive outside of the conditions set by the adventure (that the dragon would not use its breath weapon against the PCs and it would retreat after a minor amount of damage). The DM ran the encounter without noticing those parameters and the PCs died in one hit. Please show me how the characters died by their own poor choices in this (especially since the encounter was designed for them to fight the dragon!)? In this case, the DM made an error in judgment (not a malicious one, for sure), and he chose to TPK them. The DM then retconned the results because of his mistake. I think this is both honorable and laudable. It takes a tremendous amount of character for a person to admit that he was wrong, especially in a position of absolute authority like a DM. The OP should be praised for doing the right thing here, especially since his group seems to share his opinion of what is "fair."

To your comments: when an event occurs where the logical outcome of the players choices would be for the players to lose, and they do so, I don't think you normally need to tell them, "That was stupid." It's usually pretty obvious. You may need to explain the logic of why you decided the unconscious and stable PCs would be killed. That will tell you what kind of group you are playing in...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. In fact, I'm going to make a blanket statement here that might sound controversial, but I think is completely totally true. Bad luck, or randomness, NEVER causes TPKs. TPKs are always a DM's choice.

I get what you're saying, but you're wildly overstating your case, and ignoring the "death spiral" effect. There are situations where it's on the DM's choice in a very loosest, and false-est sense.

Real example:

One my early TPKs - 2E Party playing well, sticking together, good combat tactics. Encounter some goblins, who are established to be nasty little murderers by the scenario. I roll 4 natural 20s and every other attack they make is a hit. Damage rolls are likewise high. All frontline combatants and the only cleric are on negative HP in round 1 (admittedly at least one was down a few HP from earlier - but not many). Other PCs are injured. They have no reason to expect quarter, and keep fighting, but they go down.

You say the odds of this happening to 4-5 character is "slim", well, Eirik, I've seen it happen, because that was 4 PCs down, 2 significantly injured (in a 7-person party) in 1 round.

It's a factor of being L1. It's extremely unlikely to happen above 3 or so, sure, but let's not pretend it's even that unlikely at L1.

 

[Tormyr]

I have a potential TPK brewing this week. Last week the level 4 party is investigating a maze full of secret passages that allow the enemy kenku's to quickly surround the party. The party had thought about holing up somewhere for a long rest, but they checked the door to the maze. Then they entered. Then they investigated a secret door. Then they were surrounded. Then they fought off the attackers, followed them further in the maze. It was not their finest hour. They ran into the boss who had a necklace of fireballs. Took two hits from that, charged him, took a third hit, and the rogue is down. They have finished over two thirds of the attackers (3 groups of 6), but we finished with the rogue face down and two dire weasels coming in from the side.

If we have a TPK, I think the Kenku take them to their boss who has been doing alchemical experiments. He has a sealed cauldron that as written incapacitates everyone if it is opened. I was planning on convincing one of the characters to open it and mention that the escaping gasses cause magical energies to course over them and have them all collapse. We would end the session there and have this be an excuse for why their characters change from 5B/playtest hybrids to 5e PHB builds. Once character was thinking of switching from a Tiefling Wizard to a Sorcerer for instance. If we have the TPK I will have him open it and expose them to it as part of his experiments. Instead of destroying them, Heironeous appears in a vision (we have cleric and Paladin of Heironeous who had declared they were on a mission from god) and rewrites what is in the cauldron to alter their forms before warning them of the dark times ahead.

It may be a bit cheesy, but I think it will work in a story while serving notice that they need to be more careful.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. In fact, I'm going to make a blanket statement here that might sound controversial, but I think is completely totally true. Bad luck, or randomness, NEVER causes TPKs. TPKs are always a DM's choice.

Speaking from personal experience, I have been involved (as a victim) in a number of TPKs, that, after I looked back at the decisions our group made that led up to them with a bit of hindsight, could only be the work of a party bent on suicide. So I cannot agree with this as a blanket statement.

Think about the actual odds of a TPK by dice. You would have to have every PC suffer enough damage simultaneously to drop them to negative con, which I would argue is an encounter the DM has designed to kill the PCs (see my earlier post about the logic of game results). Or, through combat, each PC would have to be reduced to zero, then fail three death saves before they passed three. The odds on this happening to 4-5 characters is pretty slim. Even in a case where it is logical for all of the PCs to be knocked to zero (surrounded by mobs), everyone failing the death saves is still highly unlikely. Death normally comes in this situation from the DM choosing to have the mobs kill the unconscious PCs.

Now, people can argue about what goblins would do until the cows come home, but the fact that any mook kills a helpless PC is totally based on DM choice. There are as many reasons why a mook wouldn't (even down to pure laziness of not checking each body) as there are conjectures why they would. This is even more true with animals (who are more likely to drag off a kill and eat it, leaving the rest until a later time... or even abandoning them). While a PC or two can certainly die from bad rolls, the only way that a TPK can happen is by a DM choosing to have the mooks behave in a manner that would do so.

Now, as I talked about up-thread, some groups are ok with this line of reasoning. In fact, some players would follow the logic to the point where they would be upset if a DM didn't TPK them. That's perfectly OK. But it's not more "logical," or "hardcore," or "simulationist," or even "game as war" than other logical outcomes (even in most combat situations, soldiers don't finish off wounded enemies; in history those who did often got very unsavory reputations... See Banastre Tarleton)... often it is less so. It is dependent on the social contract shared by the players and the GM as to what the "logical" outcome should be (i.e. what the fair choices are for the DM).

Logical outcomes are situation dependent. Sometimes the PCs may be knocked out, looted and left, sometimes captured, and sometimes killed. Every situation is different. One thing to look at is how the PCs themselves behave. Do they usually leave defeated opponents alive, capture them and so forth or do they make sure every downed foe never gets up and makes sure to search the corpse thoroughly? Do players get unsavory reputations for such behavior, and if so how does it actually affect them?

As an aside, this is one reason I am glad that 5e doesn't include an instant-death coup de grace option. Use of this by a DM is almost always a dick move. Now, certain tables may see the process as a logical one, and therefore accept the DM's choice. But that doesn't minimize the fact that, whatever rationale is present, the DM is purposely destroying a PC (an item of great value to the player) where the player has no such reciprocal power over the DM.

No such power? Players can make the same decisions about NPCs including important ones. Can we rationalize that an important villain that is slain outright by the PC's is a dick move?
No because PCs are special and can finish off whomever they wish with extreme prejudice because they are the heroes.


Homey don't play that. ALWAYS give a monster an even break.

To the OPs situation: the PCs were in an encounter they could not survive outside of the conditions set by the adventure (that the dragon would not use its breath weapon against the PCs and it would retreat after a minor amount of damage). The DM ran the encounter without noticing those parameters and the PCs died in one hit. Please show me how the characters died by their own poor choices in this (especially since the encounter was designed for them to fight the dragon!)? In this case, the DM made an error in judgment (not a malicious one, for sure), and he chose to TPK them. The DM then retconned the results because of his mistake. I think this is both honorable and laudable. It takes a tremendous amount of character for a person to admit that he was wrong, especially in a position of absolute authority like a DM. The OP should be praised for doing the right thing here, especially since his group seems to share his opinion of what is "fair."

I would call an adventure that "required" the players to engage in stupid suicidal behavior relying on the DM shield them from the natural consequences of such actions as a steaming pile of dung best avoided.

 

[Eirikrautha]

I get what you're saying, but you're wildly overstating your case, and ignoring the "death spiral" effect. There are situations where it's on the DM's choice in a very loosest, and false-est sense.

Real example:

One my early TPKs - 2E Party playing well, sticking together, good combat tactics. Encounter some goblins, who are established to be nasty little murderers by the scenario. I roll 4 natural 20s and every other attack they make is a hit. Damage rolls are likewise high. All frontline combatants and the only cleric are on negative HP in round 1 (admittedly at least one was down a few HP from earlier - but not many). Other PCs are injured. They have no reason to expect quarter, and keep fighting, but they go down.

You say the odds of this happening to 4-5 character is "slim", well, Eirik, I've seen it happen, because that was 4 PCs down, 2 significantly injured (in a 7-person party) in 1 round.

It's a factor of being L1. It's extremely unlikely to happen above 3 or so, sure, but let's not pretend it's even that unlikely at L1.

You've missed my point. You are describing a party that has been incapacitated. All are at zero hp. That is NOT a TPK. The party is not TPKed until you, the DM, declare that the monsters have killed them. Your choice. In 5e, the likelihood that none of the seven will stabilize is infinitesimal. They're not dead until YOU choose to kill them all. And that's an expectation (or not) created by each table. It is not a function of the dice or the mechanics for all of the players to die (because statistically it is so rare). It's your choice.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

In 5E 3rd level comes in about 4 hours of play and is also the expected starting level for players not dead new to the game.

This is not true at all. It took nearly 8 hours for my PCs to get to level 2 using the Starter Set. It took another 8 to get to level 3.

 

[Eirikrautha]

Speaking from personal experience, I have been involved (as a victim) in a number of TPKs, that, after I looked back at the decisions our group made that led up to them with a bit of hindsight, could only be the work of a party bent on suicide. So I cannot agree with this as a blanket statement.

I, too, have suffered many party defeats due to stupidity on our part. Likewise, we have had TPKs because our table agreed it would be the correct outcome of a particular defeat that left us helpless. But the mechanics (randomness) used in the game have never TPKed us, becuase it can't (outside of a one-in-a-million chance). If you look at my first post in this thread, I am addressing a particular idea: that random rolls in 5e D&D should lead to occasional or even frequent TPKs. That is false. The mechanics of this game make it almost impossible to TPK. It is occasionally likely that a party could find itself incapacitated or dropped to zero hp just by poor rolls against a foe that outmatches them. Smart tables have reached some kind of consensus as to what they expect to happen in those cases. But the decision to TPK them is always a DM decision.

Logical outcomes are situation dependent. Sometimes the PCs may be knocked out, looted and left, sometimes captured, and sometimes killed. Every situation is different. One thing to look at is how the PCs themselves behave. Do they usually leave defeated opponents alive, capture them and so forth or do they make sure every downed foe never gets up and makes sure to search the corpse thoroughly? Do players get unsavory reputations for such behavior, and if so how does it actually affect them?

That might be one social contract that you make at your table. Player behavior might determine monster actions. But it's not the "right" way or the only way. It should be determined by the expectations of the table. It is perfectly legitimate to have players that slaughter every enemy in sight, yet get dumped by the road after getting knocked out. It's a feature of playstyle, NOT mechanics.

No such power? Players can make the same decisions about NPCs including important ones. Can we rationalize that an important villain that is slain outright by the PC's is a dick move?
No because PCs are special and can finish off whomever they wish with extreme prejudice because they are the heroes.

Homey don't play that. ALWAYS give a monster an even break.

Equating a PC with an NPC is a bit petty, actually. As DM, you can replace any NPC you want, at any power level or capacity, instantly. A Player must level their character, and has only one. It's a bit like a billionare who wrecks his Ford Escort into your Ford Escort and says, "No big deal; We both lost a car." You have a heck of a lot more invested in your car than he does.

Now, I would agree that a PC who (without the table understanding that this type of game will be played) attacks your quest-giver NPC, tries to loot the townsfolk, and works against your established style IS being a dick. No question. That's why the table's social contract is so important. But PCs and the DM are different. They have different roles in the game. If your are unable to have fun in the role that your players expect you to function (especially at a table that is not looking for a DM in competition against them), then it's time to pass the DMing chores to another person. If your players are on-board with your style and logic, then have fun! The game's mechanics determine neither.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Equating a PC with an NPC is a bit petty, actually. As DM, you can replace any NPC you want, at any power level or capacity, instantly. A Player must level their character, and has only one. It's a bit like a billionare who wrecks his Ford Escort into your Ford Escort and says, "No big deal; We both lost a car." You have a heck of a lot more invested in your car than he does.

Now, I would agree that a PC who (without the table understanding that this type of game will be played) attacks your quest-giver NPC, tries to loot the townsfolk, and works against your established style IS being a dick. No question. That's why the table's social contract is so important. But PCs and the DM are different. They have different roles in the game. If your are unable to have fun in the role that your players expect you to function (especially at a table that is not looking for a DM in competition against them), then it's time to pass the DMing chores to another person. If your players are on-board with your style and logic, then have fun! The game's mechanics determine neither.

Perhaps it wasn't worded properly. My intent was that PC is a metagame concept. Entities in the game world react to such persons as they would anyone else. A particular NPC will not treat a character differently due to metagame status.

IN GAME status is another matter. If the PCs are well known for their heroic deeds then NPCs who are aware of this will react to that fact for better or worse.