My First TPK

[Wik]

In my experience, those artifical re-boots do a lot to kill any interest that players have in the campaign. Doing X again, possibly multiple times, until the group 'gets it right' can be a real fun-killing drag. I think that he's probably better off running a different campaign.

Yes and no.

I mean, those re-boots can suck, but if you're a GM who had spent a lot of time prepping a campaign (or running one!), you want to keep the game going, even if there *was* just a TPK. So, you throw in the priest who revives the group a day later, so they can carry on their quest (after taking a bit of a hit in con damage or something stupid).

Today, I had a group of 5 tenth level PCs who were almost killed by a group of

Spoiler

four vrocks

(STAP spoilers). When they begin

Spoiler

their dance of ruin

, I thought it was going to be an easy fight. As time passed, I realized I might just have a TPK on my hands -

Spoiler

After all, they were all hurt, and those three dancers were gonna finish their dance - and the fourth was doing a great job holding them off!

I began to think - what would happen if there was a TPK?

Would I drop the game, go on to my next one? Or would I find a way to keep the PCs in the game?

If I had killed off every PC, I could have had the day end in a draw, as there were a lot of friendly NPCs around who could have *sort of* finished things off. And then the PCs would be raised, and there would be a lot of penalties. While it wouldn't be "realistic", I think my players would have appreciated it - a TPK is a terrible way for a campaign to end (unless it's Call of Cthulu!).

If you are gonna go the "raise" route, or the "Come in with a new group two seconds later" approach, there has to be a penalty though... you don't wanna be a wuss DM.

 

[jdrakeh]

Yes and no.

I mean, those re-boots can suck, but if you're a GM who had spent a lot of time prepping a campaign (or running one!), you want to keep the game going, even if there *was* just a TPK. So, you throw in the priest who revives the group a day later, so they can carry on their quest (after taking a bit of a hit in con damage or something stupid).

For a lot of folks, this kind of wholesale bail out is worse than die fudging, as it totally shatters suspension of disbelief. There are many players who find it very hard to get excited about their second trip through a campaign, either as another group or as a resurrected group of previously slaughtered PCs. Tacking an additional penalty on to that usually fares even worse. That initial enthusiasm just doesn't reappear and, shortly, the campaign fizzles out due to lack of interest. YMMV, of course, though this is true of most groups that I've played with in the last ten ten years (I can think of two exceptions and, fact is, they didn't care because that didn't have much interest in D&D past killing things and taking stuff).

 

[green slime]

I don't understand why a second level party experiences a TPK against an intelligent foe. If they were fighting some unintelligent beast, but even then...

Why is combat "to the death!" ?

Why do players never consider the option to surrender?
Why do players seldomly consider fleeing, and when they do, they have usually left it far too late?
Why do adversaries (DM-controlled NPCs) never consider the surrender option?
Why do adversaries seldom flee?

Why is it assumed that the surviving "bloodthirsty" combatants leave the wounded & unconscious opponents to die?

 

[Darklone]

Enraged/Enlarged barbarian?

That's why I like my groups to be versatile. In this case our melee brutes would have pulled their archery specialisation out of the bag of tricks.

 

[Quartz]

Second level PCs are still very fragile, and I'm guessing that there was an unfortunate critical hit or two. A raging first level barbarian with a greataxe who makes a critical hit and a high damage roll can kill even high level characters. d12 damage +5 Str x3 crit means that the barbarian could do 51 HP damage.

 

[wedgeski]

For a lot of folks, this kind of wholesale bail out is worse than die fudging, as it totally shatters suspension of disbelief. There are many players who find it very hard to get excited about their second trip through a campaign, either as another group or as a resurrected group of previously slaughtered PCs. Tacking an additional penalty on to that usually fares even worse. That initial enthusiasm just doesn't reappear and, shortly, the campaign fizzles out due to lack of interest. YMMV, of course, though this is true of most groups that I've played with in the last ten ten years (I can think of two exceptions and, fact is, they didn't care because that didn't have much interest in D&D past killing things and taking stuff).

Perhaps true at mid to high levels... certainly, after the 3rd TPK in Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, we'd had enough. But I find it very hard to believe that any of this would be true about a campaign that had only reached 2nd level. Surely it's barely got off the ground.

 

[green slime]

Second level PCs are still very fragile, and I'm guessing that there was an unfortunate critical hit or two. A raging first level barbarian with a greataxe who makes a critical hit and a high damage roll can kill even high level characters. d12 damage +5 Str x3 crit means that the barbarian could do 51 HP damage.

Yes but once half the party is lying on the floor, bleeding or dead, it becomes imperative to ask the question "Can we really win this fight? What are the alternatives? Flee, surrender, negotiation or death?"

 

[Jhaelen]

Does a TPK make me a bad GM? They all wanted in on my next campaign, but I feel as if i have let them down by not going easier on them.

Pretty much all of my campaigns so far started with a tpk. It's not something I plan, it just happens. The next generation of characters is always strictly better at surviving.

I think you would have let them down, had you been more lenient!

 

[Mark]

Does a TPK make me a bad GM?

Nope. Not unless you planned it in advance and even then, there might be exceptions.

 

[Cabled]

Yes but once half the party is lying on the floor, bleeding or dead, it becomes imperative to ask the question "Can we really win this fight? What are the alternatives? Flee, surrender, negotiation or death?"

Perhaps a nitpick, but you likely cannot surrender to a raging barbarian. You can certainly try, but the outcome is much like not surrendering, only faster. Maybe can't outrun one either.