How soon do you see warning signs of a TPK?

[Starfox]

Most of them were fine with it...

You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Wolf1066 again.

You are lucky to have such players!

 

[Starfox]

I disagree. The situation I described can be very exciting.

Yes, it can be exiting, but not in the nail-biting, death-at-any-bad-roll way of earlier editions. 4E is slower, more deliberate, even somewhat ponderous in its action scenes IMHO. Overall tactics are just as important, but individual actions are less important. Its a matter of taste what kind of excitement you want.

In other words, I was not trying to bash 4E, merely point out a difference.

 

[Starfox]

So, instead of encountering an EL5 (easy), then an EL5 (easy), and then possibly an EL10 (challenging) fight one at a time, they get the whole gaggle at once (overwhelming), while the party is spread out through a room and down a hallway (terrible tactical disadvantage).

A problem here is that by bypassing encounters (generally a smart thing to do) you open yourself up to being overwhelmed by several combined encounters later on. My players often fight lesser encounters along the way rather than bypass them, playing out a frontal assault rather than a blitzkrieg. I generally prefer the excitement of surgical action, where you try to bypass as much of the opposition as possible, both as a player and gamemaster.

 

[Goonalan]

In my experience, this is a feature of 4E: you often have combats that start out going badly, producing a lot of fear, and then swing to the PCs winning with no casualties. I find that it can be very effective for making combats feel exciting.

I'm not sure why it seems to happen more in 4E than in other game systems. Part of it is that PCs are like yo-yos--they may be knocked unconscious, but a minor action by a leader later and they're back in the fight, whereas the monsters tend to have no healing. A common pattern in my experience is "PCs are bloodied or even unconscious at a point when all of the monsters are up--oh no this looks really bad--heal the PCs up and drop even one monster and suddenly we're 5 on 4 and the fight looks better--drop another monster and we start cleaning up." But that pattern existed in previous editions and other games as well, so it can't be all of it. Part of it might be the "oh no we're doing badly--everyone drop your dailies"? Not sure on the exact causes, but I find it happens all the time when 4E is working well.

Sorry, just catching up with this thread and spotted this, if you check out my sig (if you like) I'm taking a look at this kind of thing. I used to play 4e via maptools and skype, now I've got a game going on around the table with real people- suddenly I have time to kill, and have chosen to spend that time doing a little number crunching- so lots of stats regarding damage output/round PCs vs Bad Guys, Time to play, just lots of stats.

The PCs are in KOTS and in the Irontooth encounter, which if you stick with it will demonstrate the TPK knife edge from a DMs perspective.

Sorry to bother you, back to what you were doing...

Goonalan

 

[Tuft]

A problem here is that by bypassing encounters (generally a smart thing to do) you open yourself up to being overwhelmed by several combined encounters later on. My players often fight lesser encounters along the way rather than bypass them, playing out a frontal assault rather than a blitzkrieg. I generally prefer the excitement of surgical action, where you try to bypass as much of the opposition as possible, both as a player and gamemaster.

@Starfox:: Huh, I thought that we've in Savage Tide have been sneaking as much as we possibly could get away with...

 

[clip]

I ran a 4E Tournament recently, with 3 teams all playing the same 6 encounters simultaneously. As there were prizes at stake, a proper scoring system was introduced (loosely based on NASFRAG). But ultimately, it didn't matter. You see, one party has a TPK, another narrowly avoided one, and the third party barely suffered - all players chose from the same pools of identical characters.

So, this is as close as you can get to test conditions in D&D. What happened? Well, speaking to the DMs, it appeared that the winning party had the best balance, most available healing, and stuck together at all times. The losing party started badly in what should have been a minion duck shoot, and thereafter lurched from disaster to disaster, trying to rescue the situation with far too few healing surges, and not enough capability to use them.

Like I said, the teams all played identical encounters, but their approaches and positioning at the beginning of the combats seemed to be the second most important factor (after party balance). The very first encounter featured a deserted village, where diseased villagers jumped out Resident Evil style at the party. Most of those were minions, and it should have been a warm-up act. However, some players insisted on a me-me-me approach, telling the DMs "I do this, I do that, I explore the inn, I stick my head down the well", and spreading out all over the place. When the minions attacked, the tactical situation was untenable.

In other encounters that fared badly, the party was ill-suited to the situation - invokers aren't really AoE kings, and when swarms and minions attack together, that can spell trouble.

Finally, the DMs reported that when TPK did (or nearly) occurred, it was after abandoning combat plans. Things were going badly, but not catastrophically, but the party would give up on focussing on a particular monster, and all act individually for a round. This then turned the battle decisively away from the PCs.

Away from the tournament, and in my own experience, 4E TPKs tend to occur when a battle is not going well, and someone decides to "role-play" - normally a euphemism for doing something dumb. Maybe the ranger breaks ranks to rush and rescue a fallen friend (when the paladin would do a much better job next turn) or a fighter homes in on a "hated" foe. This tends to break party cohesion, and the rest rally to try and rescue the situation, but are hopelessly positioned to do so.

In regular campaigns, I've seen 3 TPKs, all of which went down the same way (as above). To use a sporting analogy, the regular 4E combat team could be described like a Football Offense. The defenders are the defensive linemen, the leaders/controllers are the quarterback, and the strikers are the offensive backs.

Now, in a regular play, things can go bad but can normally be rescued. But what would happen if after the snap, the centre just decided to quit and attack one of the mascots or cheerleaders? There would be a big hole and the quarterback will get his butt kicked. Same in D&D - things aren't going too well, but instead of sticking to the plan - characters act chaotically.

 

[Ariosto]

I think it better, in a tournament, to give all teams precisely the same characters (and other initial resources and conditions).

Initial choices can weigh far too heavily, in my opinion, even if they reflect lucky guesses more than skillful evaluations. I would rather spend that time actually going through the scenario.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I can generally see the warning signs of a TPK fairly early, and I sometimes let the players know that things are looking grim, and that they may want to review the situation.

If they don't do some rethinking then I allow the TPK to happen. Once a group realizes that I will allow a TPK they tend to be a tad less cavalier about disregarding the warning signs. (Pulling out my miniature of Charon is one of those warnings....)

Very few groups will have more than one TPK - knowing that I will let them happen is half the battle.

The Auld Grump, I am also a 'Let the Dice Roll' GM, but I am generous with Action Dice.

 

[Dausuul]

This tends to break party cohesion, and the rest rally to try and rescue the situation, but are hopelessly positioned to do so.

In my experience, this is what really leads to disaster. One Leeroy Jenkins-style player can lead an entire party to catastrophe. The Leeroy does something suicidally stupid and the other PCs feel obligated to pull his fat out of the fire instead of letting him reap the consequences.

So, effectively, not only has Leeroy thrown his chunk of the battle plan out the window, he's thrown the whole danged thing; and instead of Leeroy getting whacked and the rest of the party taking some hits but surviving, you get a TPK.

 

[Wolf1066]

In my experience, this is what really leads to disaster. One Leeroy Jenkins-style player can lead an entire party to catastrophe. The Leeroy does something suicidally stupid and the other PCs feel obligated to pull his fat out of the fire instead of letting him reap the consequences.

So, effectively, not only has Leeroy thrown his chunk of the battle plan out the window, he's thrown the whole danged thing; and instead of Leeroy getting whacked and the rest of the party taking some hits but surviving, you get a TPK.

I'd go as far as to say that under certain circumstances, the rest of the party failing to do something* about a player who does something suicidally stupid can be a precursor to a TPK.

* like killing the moron on the spot to signify to any and all witnesses that they do not support his/her actions or, at the very least, subduing him/her and leaving him/her bound and awaiting his/her fate while they all walk away (or "runneth like %*>@").

Sometimes disavowing all connection with a PC could be the thing that saves their lives.

There are worse things for a party/team out there than "Leeroy Jenkins" (at least his opponents were hostile before he decided to act).

And at least he had chicken...