Psion said:Howabout running a party a level or two over the target level of the adventure (since my players tend to combat optimize less than the norm, I often do that anyways, regardless of publisher)
Ogrork the Mighty said:A root cause of a lot of TPKs is a bunch of players trying to plow headlong through the dungeon. 1E/NG modules require a lot of "incursion" style adventuring where you attack, fall back and rest/heal, then attack again. An expectation has built up over the years that encounters will be "balanced" which, in effect, means the P should win. In 1E/NG modules, you've gotta know when to cut and run. If you find yourself against a bunch of baddies in a prepared, entrenched position, it's time to fall back and either find another way forward or prepare accordingly. If you just plow on in, thinking that the encounter will be "balanced", then a TPK is justly deserved IMO.
Davelozzi said:[Gary Coleman voice]Whatchyou talking 'bout, Treebore?[/Gary Coleman voice]
The party did as well as they could. It came down to a critical few rolls that did not go their way. My point is that it seemed all the encounters were like that. As for the party makeup, each player had 2 PCS with a total of 8 levels between them and the decision was made by the players. It was tense and exciting-but, ultimately, a little unsatisfying.MEG Hal said:Well what you say makes sense, but as a PC in that adventure, we were told our other party members from TPK #1 were being held prisoner and being tortured and we should get in there, plus we were a month away from civilization and used all our magic, just had spells by the time the last search party went in...we did not have a cut and run option by the time it got real ugly...
was a TPK deserved, that would be the DM's opinion, since he knew what got us there and what we had to fall back on. I think we played as smart as we could, we have made bad decisons before, but in this turn of events we did all we could IMHO.
Morpheus?