How does the GM handle tough NPCs and how does your party react?

[xnosipjpqmhd]

There have been a couple threads lately on game balance, and a thread recently on whether to TPK a party or try to save them...

I'm curious to know what kind of experiences other GMs have had with groups facing adversaries that outmatch them. Does the GM in your group usually:

(a) Give players lots of clues that (you hope) show that direct confrontation with a particular adversary is ill-advised, meanwhile providing clues to other ways to defeat said adversary rather than direct confrontation (or info on the adversary's weakness, allowing direct confrontation to be more balanced).

If (a), do the players in your group usually (1) recognize the clues and avoid direct confrontation, (2) fail to see the clues and end up in a world of hurt, (3) recognize the clues but face off against the adversary anyway, or (4) some other reaction not listed.​

(b) Trust players to recognize the threat posed by a particular adversary when push comes to shove (and trust that they will be smart/willing/able to run away).

If (B), do the players in your group usually (1) recognize quickly that they are outmatched and take alternate action, e.g. run away, look for weakness, whatever, (2) fail to notice the imbalance in the combat until its too late to take alternate action, (3) recognize quickly that they are outmatched but keep fighting anyway, or (4) some other reaction not listed.​

(c) Never have adversaries that outmatch the PCs.

(d) Handle things in some way other than those described above, or do some combination of the above choices. (Please explain.)

ironregime

 

[ThirdWizard]

B is pretty close. I trust them to figure it out, but they can use in game resources to determine the lethality of their enemies. Bardic Lore, Knowlege (local), Gather Information, and other skills along those lines are good ideas before outright attacking an NPC. There are also spells like augury to determine if something is a good idea or not.

If for some reason they don't prepare ahead of time, and it has happened, then things will play out how they will play out. In one game, they attacked a drow wizard without any prep. Round one: the samurai became a statue for the drow. Round two: PCs surrender. Good times. They pretty much do everything you listed, though, depending on the situation.

EDIT: For some reason I said C instead of B at the top. Oops.

 

[genshou]

There have been a couple threads lately on game balance, and a thread recently on whether to TPK a party or try to save them...

I'm curious to know what kind of experiences other GMs have had with groups facing adversaries that outmatch them. Does the GM in your group usually:

(a) Give players lots of clues that (you hope) show that direct confrontation with a particular adversary is ill-advised, meanwhile providing clues to other ways to defeat said adversary rather than direct confrontation (or info on the adversary's weakness, allowing direct confrontation to be more balanced).

If (a), do the players in your group usually (1) recognize the clues and avoid direct confrontation, (2) fail to see the clues and end up in a world of hurt, (3) recognize the clues but face off against the adversary anyway, or (4) some other reaction not listed.​

(b) Trust players to recognize the threat posed by a particular adversary when push comes to shove (and trust that they will be smart/willing/able to run away).

If (B), do the players in your group usually (1) recognize quickly that they are outmatched and take alternate action, e.g. run away, look for weakness, whatever, (2) fail to notice the imbalance in the combat until its too late to take alternate action, (3) recognize quickly that they are outmatched but keep fighting anyway, or (4) some other reaction not listed.​

(c) Never have adversaries that outmatch the PCs.

(d) Handle things in some way other than those described above, or do some combination of the above choices. (Please explain.)

ironregime

Pledge of Tyranny relies heavily on NPC villains of (sometimes much) higher level than the PC. Generally my player can tell the difference using his detect evil paladin ability, because all the BBEG's in the campaign have a template that makes them detect as twice as powerful as they really are. So when he senses that the foe is so overwhelmingly beyond him that it's time to pull a greataxe on the DM, he knows it's actually one of the Ritual-Bonded and is better able to gauge whether or not he needs to run away. Usually, though, I provide alternatives to fighting or fleeing (either of which he's not likely to survive), including capture or some sort of exchange in order to keep himself alive. Of course, then the question of whether or not he can make an exchange with a Banite that doesn't violate his paladin code makes for some interesting rp wrenches...

So, in short, (a, 1) is the best way to describe this situation in my game.

 

[the Jester]

I'd have to answer B- trust them to recognize when they are outmatched.

Usually what they do, is fight on anyway and overcome my beautiful villains in an incredibly heroic and/or lucky way.

 

[genshou]

I'd have to answer B- trust them to recognize when they are outmatched.

Usually what they do, is fight on anyway and overcome my beautiful villains in an incredibly heroic and/or lucky way.

Aww, don't you hate it when they do that? And yet... you just love watching them accomplish it somewhere deep inside.

 

[shilsen]

Usually B. I run two Eberron games and have an action pt option (3 action pts) to prevent death, so my PCs have their asses covered in case they don't recognize the threat level early enough. That's only technically the case, however, since often enough the PCs have a fatality or two from balanced encounters.

 

[DragonLancer]

I voted for the first option, and give them a few hints in game perhaps as warnings from other NPC's or clues that suggest the powers he has at his disposal. Doesn't always work and then they have to think on their toes (which is always good ).

 

[Jeff Wilder]

In my experience as both player and DM, players usually catch on that they're in for a genuinely tough fight fairly quickly. It has unfortunately also been my experience that players just do not want to run away, not even from an overmatch, and certainly not from a "fair fight." I'm including myself here ... not only have I contributed to the stupidity of "fight to the death" as a player, I've actually been the cause of at least one TPK because of stubborness.

(In D&D, consistently engaging in "tough" or "fair" fights is a recipe for TPKs. If every fight is a genuinely even match-up, say a CR of 2 or 3 higher than the average party level, the odds of winning even two fights in a row 3-to-1 against. And that's of winning both fights ... the odds of every PC surviving both fights is depressingly lower.)

 

[Mystery Man]

Something not listed above: Provide an example of how tough an NPC is and let the players come to their own conclusions. Example: Rumor has it that the NPC was so tough he slew an ancient white dragon by himself and moved into his lair.

 

[just__al]

For the most part our current DM has the NPCs who are tougher than us show up, do their special nifty trick we will never be able to duplicate and then just sort of leave. We have only ran up against one uber powerful NPC that was an adversary. We are still after him but all the rest of the higher-than-us NPCs are practically set dressing.