In your campaign, can the PCs "lose"

[hong]

Here I assumed I wasn't invited back to the following sessions because my replacement character for Carcosa wasn't angsty enough!

Hmm? Oh. Nah, the game ended because I ran out of inspiration, it's hard to top a scene like that one, and Mike quit.

After a 1 1/2-year layoff from D&D, I'm back though!

 

[DonTadow]

Not at all universally true. People enjoy the game for any number of reasons and with any number of play styles. Risk of death, defeat, or the like for the PC's is in no way a prerequisite for any given group. I am personally of the opinion that such is helpful in maintaining tension and interest in the game but if you ever play a game where for a long stretch your character or the metaplot is never in any real danger and yet you still are having fun then clearly it's NOT being played just for the risks.

Yes, but at some point it is a game whether it is this session or the next, and players take risks for rewards. I doubt few players would be interested in a campaign where the DM begins by saying there characters won't be in any immediate danger the entire time, there will be no consequences for your actions and none of you guys will be hurt or killed off.

No, when people aren't enjoying the game - THEN you're doing something wrong. Some people are all about the plot. Some are all about just the dicefest combats. Some want a mix. The plot is also NOT a prerequisite on either the part of a given DM or player, for the game to be moving along just fine for all concerned.

I didn't want to say the "r" word but if your PCs are moving from one single plot to the next single plot you set up, you're railroading them at some point. If there's always a happy ending, for 2 years, then you're railroading. When I say you'rre doing something wrong I mean you're doing something wrong from a DM'n point of view. Happy endings and linear plots are signs of railroading which is a bad DM'n habit to pick up.

Some players are just happy role playing. If there's a DM describing a location and spitting out monsters, they are having fun, and if you don't care about how much fun they are having so long as they are having it fine. But if you care about the craft of DM'n you'll try to avoid obvious railroading.



* * *

Oh yeah, regarding the initial question: Losing is a possibility that I try to avoid as it tends to be a dissatisfying result for all concerned unless it's necessary or intended that victory will ultimately be achieved - just not right now. I don't like to dictate results, but I also don't mind trying to keep the PC's at least favored to win. Moving things in a direction I wanted ahead of time to ENFORCE a larger plot starts to make the players FEEL railroaded. A little plot manipulation (and intended PC losing/dying) is okay, but a little goes a LONG way. Too much easily starts to smack of arbitrariness and spite.

Thats where I disagree. The DM's job should be to create the environment. Any plot manipulation should belong to the PC. There's no such thing as a little railroading, you either are or you aren't. You can use your job as envroment designer to place plot points but not to manipulate it. PCs should be in charge of increasing their odds of winning a combat. If the PCs go into a combat unprepared and they die then thats on them.

 

[hong]

But if you care about the craft of DM'n you'll try to avoid obvious railroading.

Screw the "craft of DMing" [sic].

 

[Raven Crowking]

The DM's job should be to create the environment. Any plot manipulation should belong to the PC.

I agree and disagree.

The DM's job includes the creation of NPCs, and those NPCs can and should attempt to manipulate plot points on their own. The robber barons step up their attacks; the king sends guardsmen along the road with the tax money. A notice goes up with a reward for the capture or death of the robber barons. If the PCs take the challenge up, the king expects the tax money to be returned -- failure to do so means the king's next notice is for their capture or death.

Meanwhile, the orcs of the Grumbling Wood have been opening a portal to some fell realm, urged on by human and half-orc cultists. This was an alternate plot thread that the PCs could have followed up on if they hadn't chosen to bring in the robber barons instead. So, in their absence, the Band of the Crimson Swan tries to stop the orcs and fails. The lone escapee returns with whispered tales of eldritch horrors and the sure knowledge that her captured companions will be sacrificed at the full moon -- unleashing a terrible evil into the material plane -- unless someone is willing to return to the Grumbling Wood with her to save them and stop the orcs.

OTOH, there is a caravan to Ortuga that is hiring guards, and the PCs' success with the robber barons has made the caravan master seek them out to either try to hire them, or to consult them on who to hire.

Also, there are rumors of an ancient dwarf hold, long abandoned, having been discovered in the nearby mountains, and the PCs know that other groups will be seeking the place to try their luck.

Everything the PCs choose has consequences....some good, some ill, some both. Plot, IMHO, is the interweave between action and reaction, choice and consequence. Things happen without the PCs. They get better or worse because of what NPCs do or do not do while the PCs are away doing other things. The caravan master they helped outfit with guards sings their praises in far Ortuga. The orcs are thwarted because the PCs see this as a more immediate threat, and the Band of the Crimson Swan tries to recruit them or offer them a landhold. Meanwhile, rumors begin to warn the PCs about what they might find should they go to the dwarfhold, and the gear of the fallen add to the treasures that might be found there.

 

[Midknightsun]

IMO, yes, the PCs can lose. The world is active and ripe with enemies around them seeking to rob the unwary or unable, conquer the kingdom, or even sunder the world. I have multiple threads going on with various factions vying for mastery of the known lands. How they deal with it is up to them, they can get involved in the political aspect of court intrigue, go to the warfront where a dark knight marches his army closer and closer to the Empire, deal with the ancient sorcerer-wyrms who have recently become active again and are trying to kill off the dragons and rot the Empire from the inside out. Meanwhile, one of the character's henchmen was captured by slavers. A couple of the BBEGs have made their appearances already. One torching the PCs home base for interfering with his plans, another killing off important or much loved officials of the Empire, and smiling as the PCs try to stop him, only to find out that they are outclassed. . . .for now.

However, they've succeeded in stopping a planar invasion from the Far Realm, freeing a town from evil cultisits, pushing back several initial offenses by the dark knight BBEG, saving a child who is gifted with extrordinary powers, ticking off a demigoddess (and getting away with it), fighting off multiple assassination attempts, killing or capturing several LBEGs . . .

At least from what I've seen, the tension keeps them involved. When I hear my players talk about how badly they want so-and-so's head on a platter for what they've done so far, it makes me smile, because it means they are invested. And, of course, eventually I'll give them the chance to try.

But no victory should be garunteed, or it just isn't as thrilling. My players seem to agree, and often check with them to see what they think about the game so far. Frankly, if they really wanted to try something different, I'd drop it all. But everytime I ask, they say they are having fun.

Sure, sometimes they get frustrated when the BG wins a battle, but it motivates them. And they learn that, despite being pretty potent themselves, they can't be everywhere at once. So they're learning that even heroes need allies . . .

When this campaign reaches the end, I intend to make a climactic battle where the PCs are definitely challenged. They could lose or win, and I'll let them know before hand that some or all of them may die and then let the dice fall where they may.

I don't see it as competing with them, because obviously I could win if I wanted to. But the counter to that is that if I don't try, or purposely fudge in their favor, I'm just giving them the win. Frankly, me and my players find this idea pretty unsatisfying.

And yet I haven't killed one of them yet . . . though a few came pretty close. They have "lost" some of the battles, however.

 

[Ghendar]

If there's no possibility that the players can lose, then in what sense are you playing a game?

-- Honest question, not trying to be smart here.

Agreed.

 

[Mort]

PC's "losing" is a great basis for a campaign. In my last campaign, the 5th level PC's let the BBEG get away and as a result opened a rift to an undead dimension smack dab in the middle of the campaign world. They spent levels 5-12 (and many campaign years) cleaning up the mess and saving the world.

Funny thing, by the end of the story arc, they had somehow managed to erase any evidence that they were the ones that caused the mess, but held all the credit for fixing it!

 

[DonTadow]

I agree and disagree.

The DM's job includes the creation of NPCs, and those NPCs can and should attempt to manipulate plot points on their own. The robber barons step up their attacks; the king sends guardsmen along the road with the tax money. A notice goes up with a reward for the capture or death of the robber barons. If the PCs take the challenge up, the king expects the tax money to be returned -- failure to do so means the king's next notice is for their capture or death.

Meanwhile, the orcs of the Grumbling Wood have been opening a portal to some fell realm, urged on by human and half-orc cultists. This was an alternate plot thread that the PCs could have followed up on if they hadn't chosen to bring in the robber barons instead. So, in their absence, the Band of the Crimson Swan tries to stop the orcs and fails. The lone escapee returns with whispered tales of eldritch horrors and the sure knowledge that her captured companions will be sacrificed at the full moon -- unleashing a terrible evil into the material plane -- unless someone is willing to return to the Grumbling Wood with her to save them and stop the orcs.

OTOH, there is a caravan to Ortuga that is hiring guards, and the PCs' success with the robber barons has made the caravan master seek them out to either try to hire them, or to consult them on who to hire.

Also, there are rumors of an ancient dwarf hold, long abandoned, having been discovered in the nearby mountains, and the PCs know that other groups will be seeking the place to try their luck.

Everything the PCs choose has consequences....some good, some ill, some both. Plot, IMHO, is the interweave between action and reaction, choice and consequence. Things happen without the PCs. They get better or worse because of what NPCs do or do not do while the PCs are away doing other things. The caravan master they helped outfit with guards sings their praises in far Ortuga. The orcs are thwarted because the PCs see this as a more immediate threat, and the Band of the Crimson Swan tries to recruit them or offer them a landhold. Meanwhile, rumors begin to warn the PCs about what they might find should they go to the dwarfhold, and the gear of the fallen add to the treasures that might be found there.

Agree with you completely. When i said DM's shouldnt manipulate, I mean going against the motives of an NPC to keep the PCs alive or produce a reaction that that NPC didn't originally set.

If an NPC does what he is designed to do, or changes in reaction to the PCs that is natural for that NPC, I don't consider that manipulating the plot on the DMs part. However, if an NPC inexplicably comes to the rescue of the PCs for some contrived reason that is manipulation. Unless that contrived reason was developed before the PCs moved the plot in that direction.
for instance.

PCs are about to get killed by the orc tribe. The NPC in town who wouldn't give them any help comes to their rescue.
1. If he came to the rescue because the DM needed to save the PCs from a TPK and didn't want to ruin his storyline, that is railroading and plot manipulation.
2. If he came to rescue the PCs because he was following them the entire time and was using them to gain entry, that is a natural part of the plot and not manipulating
3. If the npc was not initially going to help the PCs, but was convinced by one of the pcs to do so (good diplomacy roll) then thats not plot manipulation either. Even better if the pc rolls really high and manages to get the NPC to bring some friends.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Agree with you completely. When i said DM's shouldnt manipulate, I mean going against the motives of an NPC to keep the PCs alive or produce a reaction that that NPC didn't originally set.

From previous discussions, thought you might have meant something along those lines. I agree with your examples as well.

 

[Anthraxus]

Losing every once in awhile? Makes things interesting!

Losing a lot- doesn't sound like a lot of fun for the players.