How soon do you see warning signs of a TPK?

[Bullgrit]

How did you change it from the original design, then? All I see in your account is that it remained as you had made it.

This is what I meant by having a look at whence those suppositions are coming.

The problem is less that you supposed wrong than that you gave the players no chance to suppose right.

I have no idea what you're saying or trying to get at. I don't understand a single one of the above sentences in the context of this discussion.

Bullgrit

 

[Ariosto]

I have no idea what you're saying or trying to get at. I don't understand a single one of the above sentences in the context of this discussion.

(1) Did you or did you not create "originally" the possibility that adventurers could face all three of those groups of monsters simultaneously? If not, then at what "unoriginal" point did you change it?

(2) If you did not change it, then it was what it was regardless of how accurately you assessed it. If you did change it, then it was what it was regardless of how accurately you assessed it. What actually changed between then and now is your supposition as to what would happen (or what you now know could, and did, happen).

(3) If the players' choices have a role in determining what happens, then opportunity to inform those choices is critical. Depriving those several other minds of a chance to do better places a greater burden on the accuracy or error in the DM's analysis. (It also raises the question of where the game the players can play, except in the sense that buying a lottery ticket might be called playing a game, is to be found.)

In short, the game in play is not about how soon the designer is able to see the consequences of the designer's choices. It is about the players' opportunity to see -- and to affect -- the consequences of their own choices.

 

[MrMyth]

How did you change it from the original design, then? All I see in your account is that it remained as you had made it.

This is what I meant by having a look at whence those suppositions are coming.

The problem is less that you supposed wrong than that you gave the players no chance to suppose right.

I think you may need to reread his post.

There are three different encounters that were possible in the dungeon the PCs were in.

1) A wandering patrol of constructs that the PCs had the opportunity to engage earlier, but instead avoided and left free to roam the dungeon.

2) Several constructs within the room that would activate when a second door was touched - something canny adventurers might anticipate, but which there was no absolute way to determine on their own.

3) An escort sent after them when they enter the room and triggered the illusion, which they knew would be heading their way.

You seem to believe that the players had no agency here - that all possibilities led to having to fight all three encounters at once. That clearly isn't true. Even if you aren't saying Bullgrit intended for the fights to converge, but left it too open to random variables the PCs had no control over - that, too, is wrong.

The PCs could have engaged the patrol on its own, for example. They made the decision to leave it to wander.

The PCs were also aware an 'escort' was incoming. They could have tried to finish the patrol when it reached them, rather than made the attempt to flee (and thus activated the statues and run into the 'escort'.)

Yes, the original scenario allowed for the potential for easy fights to 'merge' into a TPK. But it also allowed for many other outcomes - this wasn't a foreordained result. It was the result of both the PCs' decisions and bad luck.

Could the players have predicted how everything would come together? Not necessarily. But full knowledge of the entire mechanics of the dungeon complex would likely have removed a good deal of the fun of the game. They still did have decisions they were able to make, with the potential to foresee possible outcomes. In the end, sometimes the odds do end up stacked against you - in this case, not deliberately, but through unfortunate choices and happenstance.

That doesn't seem a fault to lay at the DM's feet, unless one believes part of the DMs responsibility is to ensure the PCs never are in any sort of danger at all - which might suit some games, but certainly not all.

 

[Bullgrit]

Did you or did you not create "originally" the possibility that adventurers could face all three of those groups of monsters simultaneously?

Well, all three of the encounters were in the same dungeon (one was a wandering monster), so technically, I guess the possibility of the party mashing them all up together was there. Though the idea never crossed my mind.

Just like it's possible to rile up several tribes in the Caves of Chaos all at the same time, but I doubt Gygax expected that to happen when he populated the dungeon.

If not, then at what "unoriginal" point did you change it?

(2) If you did not change it, then it was what it was regardless of how accurately you assessed it. If you did change it, then it was what it was regardless of how accurately you assessed it. What actually changed between then and now is your supposition as to what would happen (or what you now know could, and did, happen).

I don't understand what you're referring to as having been changed by me.

(3) If the players' choices have a role in determining what happens, then opportunity to inform those choices is critical. Depriving those several other minds of a chance to do better places a greater burden on the accuracy or error in the DM's analysis. (It also raises the question of where the game the players can play, except in the sense that buying a lottery ticket might be called playing a game, is to be found.)

One or both of us is either very tired or drunk. This paragraph makes no sense to me in the context of this discussion.

In short, the game in play is not about how soon the designer is able to see the consequences of the designer's choices. It is about how soon the players are able to see -- and react to -- the consequences of their own choices.

I think I agree with this, but I'm not seeing the relevance to this discussion.

(I'm not drunk, but I am tired.)

Bullgrit

 

[Ariosto]

Yes, the original scenario allowed for the potential for easy fights to 'merge' into a TPK. But it also allowed for many other outcomes - this wasn't a foreordained result. It was the result of both the PCs' decisions and bad luck.

I have suggested nothing but this.

 

[Ariosto]

I think I agree with this, but I'm not seeing the relevance to this discussion.

Then I am not seeing the relevance to the discussion of that example. What, please, is the relevance that one ought to see?

My understanding was that the immediate subject of discussion -- as it was the subject of the quote to which your post was offered as a response -- was TPK suddenly resulting from transformation of something "supposed to be a cake walk", due to inaccurate suppositions. I took the anecdote to be offered as an example of such.

The suppositions to which you specifically drew attention were

I'm thinking, this is going to be interesting. When they open one of the room doors, they will have to fight the room guardians (EL5). Then if they aren't on the ball to move on, they'll have to fight or flee the returning patrol (EL5). Then, depending on which door they open and exit through, they have a one in three chance of meeting the incoming "escort" (EL10). [They have a two in three chance of going away from the "escort.]

The understanding of the situation to which you drew attention was

I realized something very bad was happening when they opened that door to escape the returning patrol.

 

[rogueattorney]

The main thing I've generally seen as a precursor is, "You wanna go back to the surface, or should we try one more room?" Always a bad idea.

Another issue I've seen is leaving bullets in the chamber... Y'know, saving that Sleep spell for the "big fight" when failure to use it now may mean that you won't live to see the "big fight."

Forgetting that running away and bargaining are options is another bad one. All monsters aren't necessarily there to be killed.

Losing track of the main goal of the expedition and getting sidetracked by something else is another good way to die... If you're there to get the ruby eyes from the idol on the third level, trying to wipe out all the trogs on the 2nd level may not be the way to go. Disengage and move on.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Maybe "cake walk" is overstating the situation, but. . .

Party of 5 adventurers around 7th level. They've invaded a dungeon.

They spot a patrol of 4 Medium-size constructs (EL~5 -- cake walk challenge). They avoid the patrol, noting that it seems to be following a set route.

They move on further into the dungeon. They enter a room with four doors (including the one they entered by), and four statues. A programmed illusion appears in the center of the room to tell them to wait where they are for an escort to come pick them up. (They are invaders, and know they don't really want an "escort.") Unknown to them, the statues will animate if any of the other three doors are touched (EL~5 -- cake walk challenge, and a standard dungeon trope).

They spend some time examining the "fluff" of the room, and I mentally calculate how long it will take the "escort" (EL~10 -- tough challenge) to arrive, and how long it will take the patrol they avoided to get back to this room.

I'm thinking, this is going to be interesting. When they open one of the room doors, they will have to fight the room guardians (EL5). Then if they aren't on the ball to move on, they'll have to fight or flee the returning patrol (EL5). Then, depending on which door they open and exit through, they have a one in three chance of meeting the incoming "escort" (EL10). [They have a two in three chance of going away from the "escort.]

So what happens? They fiddle-fart around the room without touching anything, for a long time. So the patrol shows up, opening the door the party came in through.

A couple of the party tries to hold off the patrol while the rest of the party opens one of the other doors to move on deeper into the dungeon. The room guardians activate.

And to make it worse, which door did they open, and start fleeing through? The one in three chance to head toward the "escort."

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).

I realized something very bad was happening when they opened that door to escape the returning patrol. But actions were happening fast at that time, and I just let them happen as they were going.

Bullgrit

What see here happening is a party of primarily neutral confused characters (with chaotic stupid tendencies) wandering freely around an area filled with hazardous obstacles and not paying attention to their surroundings. I don't see anything wrong here with this setup. Confucius say: an unwise party does not need a difficult dungeon in order to die.

I would say that this qualifies as one of those-the deaths will continue until play improves - type of situations. It is the kind of thing that I would have a hard time holding back the giggles if I saw it coming.

 

[Fifth Element]

4E is designed for this, at the cost of exitement

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

 

[Wolf1066]

What see here happening is a party of primarily neutral confused characters (with chaotic stupid tendencies) wandering freely around an area filled with hazardous obstacles and not paying attention to their surroundings.

That's as good an "advanced warning" of a TPK as I've ever seen...