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

[Quicken]

I voted for option B before I read the full post. And now I think I should have voted A. The players do not get an outright warning. The GM never says "this guy seems so tough he'd kill you without breaking a sweat". However the GM may go to great lengths to describe obvious magical equipment, use of spellcraft (standing in the rain but bone dry) or best yet slaughter an NPC before the players can blink. Sometimes admittedly the clues are less obvious and one of the players inevitably say some smart arse comment and die horribly. Hopefully the rest of the party feel educated from the mistake of their companion

 

[Romnipotent]

Just last week I had a couple people turn up (not the full group) and as they opened the door to the BBEG I said "Theres no conceivable way I can run this and have you live. You have a CR 13 Druid Treant, a level 6 Bugbear Ranger/Rogue with favoured enemy Human... AKA YOU GUYS! and a CR 9 Hill Giant with strength 30... you dead
the three or so level 8 characters realised it was over when I started mentioning the potions of bulls strength, bark skin, and vigor

 

[Izerath]

Fair warning, but not explicit.....

I always give my players fair warning, though I am never explicit and the warnings never come the same night as the encounters are to occur. I usually drop hints that tactics should be cleaned up, teamwork has to be better, and repeat the mantra, "there is no shame in retreat."

My most telling and recent hint that the campaign was about to get tougher was when I introduced Action points into the campaign. The group is 10th level and quickly approaching 11th. Every player in this large group (8 players) has been wondering what BBEG could they encounter where they'd need action points!

I guess I am just a bastard DM. I revel in my players worrying about their characters untimely demise! Keeping them worried maintains their attention level!

 

[BWP]

I warned my players in advance that if they find themselves in a life or death situation of my design (i.e., not something that they've brought down on their own heads through stupidity), they should expect to be able to defeat it. This is true of any game I run ... except Paranoia.

That's not to say that lives won't be lost, or that winning will be easy. Only that they should be able to win out, if they apply themselves "sensibly" to the task.

Beyond that I don't give warnings and let the chips fall where they may -- unless I can see that the party is about to run headlong into a TPK and I really, really don't want to end the campaign that way, in which case I'll do what I can to drop some hints in a hopefully unobtrusive fashion. Some steamrollers you just can't stop, though ....

I've seen TPKs result from players who could have easily beaten a particular opponent if they hadn't consistently chosen exactly the wrong tactic to use. Heck, I've been one of those players. Hindsight is always easy. :\

 

[lukelightning]

Come to think of it, my DM does occasionally warn us; at one point resorting to "divine inspiration" to warn the cleric when we were about to walk, unprepared and out of spells, into a major encounter. It would have been TPK.

Another time he dropped huge hints, which were justifiable, basically "your character notices that all the orcs were killed and piled up in a very short time...whatever did it was very dangerous and powerful...." Which, of course, we ignored. So we got into a huge combat with an evil cleric and his pet bone devil and some other weird tiger-snake monster and my character died.

I'm for giving warning, if it is justifiable, and if you can do it "realistically" (e.g. "you suddenly remember hearing rumors of a strange cleric of great power who can call up a demonic servitor.") it's even better.

A TPK isn't that much fun if the party had no way of knowing beforehand.