How Do You Stop TPKs/Killer GM Habits?

[Lanefan]

I have been running standard, pre-published adventures, as they were written. And they frequently end in TPKs after a couple sessions.

Well, while they're ending in TPKs for you I would posit that's not the case for most other DMs running those same modules; and you seem (by many previous posts of yours) to know what you're doing as a DM.

And so I'm going to turn this around and look at the players.

What are they doing that turns normally-winnable encounters into disaster? Further, what are they doing that's turning a simple defeat into a TPK?

--- Do the players/PCs have any sense of strategy and tactics, or do they just wade in face first and hope for the best?
--- Do any of the players ever have their PC(s) bail out and hide or flee when things start seriously going south, such that at least someone survives and the story/party/game can continue?
--- Before leaving town, do the players/PCs make sure they have a well-rounded party and-or do they recruit NPC adventurers to fill gaps in their lineup? (corollary: do you-as-DM allow and maybe even encourage this?)
--- Metagame: do your players just assume that every fight is winnable?

All of these are player-side issues that can only really be solved by player-side fixes.(other, perhaps, than the NPC adventurer piece). My suggestion is to somehow get them looking in the mirror if you can, and figure out where they're going wrong.

 

[Argyle King]

The original post stated that this was happening with "multiple gaming groups with different players" and across many different systems. That does suggest that the GM is the common element, at least when running premade adventures (as was later clarified).

"Placing blame" isn't the right framing here. It's not that this is a bad GM who should feel bad; this is an ongoing problem that seems to be GM-related and that the GM is trying to resolve.

Thank you for pointing that out. Somehow, I missed that.

I'm not sure how to address the OP without more information. If written adventures are being followed for multiple systems, I would expect D&D adventures to typically skew toward being easier.

I don't know enough about the other systems involved to comment.

 

[Retreater]

--- Do the players/PCs have any sense of strategy and tactics, or do they just wade in face first and hope for the best?

Usually face-first, or they go with a standard "this is the tank - he takes the damage" approach to every fight.
Once the tank goes down, they don't really have a Plan B.

--- Do any of the players ever have their PC(s) bail out and hide or flee when things start seriously going south, such that at least someone survives and the story/party/game can continue?

Ok, in the most recent example, one character did try to flee. The player left it up to a random die roll to see if he was going to bolt or fight to the death. He also spent a few of his actions trying to determine what to do and only partly committed to fleeing.
I could have saved him - but his character was also the least involved in the encounter, doing the least, taking the least risk, kind of being dead weight, and didn't particularly like his character to boot. So I thought it would be better to just kill the entire party instead of 75% of it, since it was in keeping with the descriptions of the creatures anyway.

--- Before leaving town, do the players/PCs make sure they have a well-rounded party and-or do they recruit NPC adventurers to fill gaps in their lineup? (corollary: do you-as-DM allow and maybe even encourage this?)

They see "well-rounded" as "if we have a rogue/cleric/fighter/wizard type of party, we have all the bases covered." I don't think that's completely accurate, but it seems like most groups I DM have this mentality.
When I've offered NPCs they're almost universally ignored. Either they're not trusted or the party doesn't want to share the glory/treasure. And the players might think of it as a bigger group slows down gameplay.

--- Metagame: do your players just assume that every fight is winnable?

I think so. They consider that as the hallmark of a well-balanced and well-designed game.

 

[Blue]

Run opponents as smart and as tactical as they are - but no smarter. A beast may go for the closest opponent, or the one that hurt them last, or the same one they were biting. People who have not trained as soldiers might fight smart but not take advantage of focus fire or other sqaud tactics.

Run foes as brave as they are - but no braver. Foes can break and run when appropriate; there's very few were they would fight to the death. An animal defending their young may, but one just looking for a meal would more likely cut and run. Bandits might run or surrender.

Run foes with their own goals. Often their goal isn't to kill. The animal defending their young may have fury, but won't pursue if the party leaves. Guards would more likely knock you out. Some just want to hold you off so they can get away, especially if they see you are more powerful than them.

 

[CleverNickName]

Apparently I'm a Killer GM - regardless of the system - it can be Pathfinder, D&D, Call of Cthulhu, Savage Worlds, etc. And this goes across multiple gaming groups with different players, so the only common factor is me.

Some think TPKs are okay and character deaths are good for the story, but in my case it regularly keeps me from being able to finish adventures and ends the majority of my campaigns prematurely - plus the frequency of these events aren't fun for my players (and me as a result).

Those of you who aren't currently averaging a TPK every 12 hours of gameplay, how do you do it?

Do you roll in secret and fudge die rolls?
Do you have the enemies waste actions to gloat and give speeches?
Do you frequently employ deus ex machina events such as "the king's guard comes and saves your party?"
Do you use metagame effects such as "if the party all votes to run away, spend a token and you automatically flee."
Do you purposefully nerf the monsters? Cut HP in the middle of the fight? Don't recharge abilities?
Do you have the monsters inexplicably run away - even when they have the upper hand?

Yikes, a TPK every 12 hours?! And I thought my games were lethal!

I agree with @Morrus - it sounds like you aren't using appropriate monsters or encounters.

First, use an online tool to get a suitable number of monsters, based on Challenge Rating. I like this one, but there are many others.

Then double-check the monsters' Armor Class. The average AC of all monsters should be roughly the same as the average attack bonus of the party plus ten. So if everyone is attacking at +5 or +6, the monsters should all have an AC of 15 or 16...the higher their AC, the harder the encounter is going to be.

Finally, check the monsters' damage output. Add up all of the party's hit points; call this number "X." Then add up the average damage of the monsters' attacks (the numbers in parenthesis); call this number "Y." For a normal encounter, X should be about 10-12 times larger than Y. The closer those numbers are together, the faster you'll get a TPK.

There are other things you can check as well, but these three things can be done quickly and easily with practice.

 

[payn]

Thank you for pointing that out. Somehow, I missed that.

I'm not sure how to address the OP without more information. If written adventures are being followed for multiple systems, I would expect D&D adventures to typically skew toward being easier.

I don't know enough about the other systems involved to comment.

Some of this is PF2. The early APs had some pretty bad encounter sets. In PF2 the conventionally tactical RPG player is going to get smoked. You really need to know hit and run and spell selection. Usually the weakest spells with the most inconvenient riders are the way to go. Hit and run against the monsters and paper cut them to death. Hope to god they don't catch you because if they do they have a very high chance of scoring a critical and killing the PC(s).

 

[Retreater]

Yikes, a TPK every 12 hours?! And I thought my games were lethal!

I agree with @Morrus - it sounds like you aren't using appropriate monsters or encounters.

I'm using pre-published, official content.
Mostly this is Paizo's stuff while running PF2e, but I still get a lot of TPKs with D&D 5e content.

 

[payn]

In videogame terms it sounds like you prefer normal/hard mode to easy mode, which might be where your players are at.

 

[Jer]

Apparently I'm a Killer GM - regardless of the system - it can be Pathfinder, D&D, Call of Cthulhu, Savage Worlds, etc. And this goes across multiple gaming groups with different players, so the only common factor is me.

Lots of folks are diving into the most recent TPK that you talked about and published adventures and whatnot, but I'm curious about the broader across games and groups idea that you mention here. With the exception of Call of Cthulhu[*] it seems like the rest of these are games where the tactical wargame element is pronounced.

So I'm going to suggest that the "problem" might be that you might be much better at tactical skirmish wargaming than your player groups are. Which isn't a problem when you're playing a wargame but can be a problem when you're playing a combat heavy RPG where the players are either not interested in getting better at wargaming or not capable of getting better at wargaming no matter what they do. The balance of power in an RPG is heavily tilted towards the GM, so if the GM is also a better tactician than the players and doesn't do something to balance things out, you're going to pummel your players eventually.

Now some folks will suggest fudging dice rolls and wasting actions and what not, but if you are the kind of GM who doesn't normally do these things then they probably will feel off to you and at some point you'll stop doing them and then accidentally crush the players yet again. So I'd suggest instead handicapping yourself by "nerfing" the monsters. Reduce their HP by 10-20% and/or their damage by a similar amount. Give them a -1 to 2 penalty to hit. Lower their AC. Reduce their movement. Remove a particularly powerful special ability entirely. Etc. Basically do some things to make the combat part of the game more challenging for you.

Don't think of it as going easy on the players and "fudging" things though - down that path lies self recrimination and a belief that you're playing the game wrong if you don't go all out on them. Think of it as leveling the playing field to give them the game that the devs tried to build. There isn't a game with tactical combat in it that can handle a mismatch in skill level between the GM and the players when it's the GM that is the tactician in the group. And none of them really even try - I think they assume a general equality around the table (and honestly when things aren't roughly even I'm usually in the opposite camp where one player on the other side can outclass me tactically - which is easier to deal with).

[*] TPKs in Call of Cthulhu are only a problem if they're boring. I usually call a CoC TPK a "good way to end a campaign" if they're suitably dramatic.

EDIT: And @payn basically said what I said except in a single sentence. Good job me...

 

[Retreater]

So I'm going to suggest that the "problem" might be that you might be much better at tactical skirmish wargaming than your player groups are.

I haven't thought of it this way. I usually get schooled in tactical miniature games like 40K. But maybe the experience is different when I'm a DM.