On Choice, Consequence and the Right to Fail

[Jer]

Here's what struck me: what if one of those encounters resulted in a TPK? Would the campaign be over? SHOULD the campaign be over?

I want to turn this back around because I'm feeling like I don't understand the dilemma that you're facing:

What would happen if they instead followed the story path where it was leading them and then there was a TPK there? Would the campaign be over? Should it be over? Would you feel the same way about this issue?

I guess for my table - the published scenario for us is a framework that we're hanging our own gameplay on. If the players go off on a red herring path that I'm improvising and die it's no different than if they follow the tracks that the folks who wrote the adventure laid down and die. Either way they're dead and the story that we're playing will dictate whether or not they roll up new characters and we start the scenario again with the bad guys having advanced their plot in a meaningful way, roll up new characters and hit the reset button to start it again, or decide that the scenario was a waste of money because it couldn't keep our attention in the first place and it instead goes into the pile of "books to mine for stuff instead of use as written" and we move onto something else (that latter one has happened a few times - most recently not with a TPK but with Hoard of the Dragon Queen where I ended it early because the main story just wasn't keeping the players' attention - it was the wrong group to run it with. But the book still has useful maps that I've used in scenarios since then, so it's not a total waste.)

 

[Umbran]

Here's what struck me: what if one of those encounters resulted in a TPK? Would the campaign be over? SHOULD the campaign be over?

Define "campaign".

If everyone dies, and no power happens to be invested in that group of characters enough to scrape them off the pavement... then, that group of characters is dead. If a campaign is, "group of characters doing stuff" then yeah, that campaign is over.

If a campaign is more in the early sense of "the GM running stuff in this world" then the players make more PCs, they get engaged with the content in some way, and the campaign continues.

In general, "is the campaign over?" is not a meaningful question for me. The campaign is not a unit I am concerned about. My friends and I are going to play something - the question is what.

 

[Stoutstien]

I prefer running and playing with games with a meaningful chance of failure including but limited to death.

With younger players I walked it back a little bit but I never remove failure completely. they may not be able to fail the overall Arc but they could still fail individual tasks.

 

[Blue]

I find that a TPK both exceedingly rare and is almost always because of player choices both in engaging and again in not retreating. (Or is at low level and the dice gods are laughing.)

You mention that without mentioning character death, so I assume that they have ways to deal with that at their current level. So we're only looking at an actual TPK.

I find it rare enough that I wouldn't care to protect against it. If the characters are intentionally treasure hunting that is their choice and I won't undermine it and remove their agency.

At the same time I would hope the players will recognize that there are times to run, but that's because as a DM I've trained them already that not all fights are beatable. If the adventure (and book adventures might be like this) have instead trained them that all fights are winnable that's a really worry.

EDIT: What I didn't address was the sunk costs of the book, both physical and digital. Resources put into a campaign, be it effort and time, or money, are things we are willing to invest for the fun. I don't see subverting the play of any campaign to protect those resources. If the characters can't "lose", it leaches the meaning and turns it into a participation trophy. (Note: characters losing/winning is not players winning - that's about having fun.)

 

[jsaving]

I might even be inclined to not allow that failure to occur, which itself grates against my every fiber as a GM in that players have agency and their actions determine the flow of the game and the "story" as it were.

These are the kinds of situations that test whether we mean what we say, when we say players have agency and their actions should determine the flow of the game. Holding to that principle when it is hard is much tougher than professing it when it is easy, for any number of reasons.

 

[Reynard]

I want to turn this back around because I'm feeling like I don't understand the dilemma that you're facing:

What would happen if they instead followed the story path where it was leading them and then there was a TPK there? Would the campaign be over? Should it be over? Would you feel the same way about this issue?

I didn't mean to imply that only the going off script might cause a TPK, or that only an off script TPK would be an issue. What I meant to convey was that in the style of game that is a contained campaign (to maybe explain a little for @Umbran ) it seems like the consequences of failure ramp up and I personally feel some pressure to mitigate those failures -- which I wouldn't in a different style of game -- which means that player agency is impacted.

It isn't likely that 5th level D&D characters will suffer a TPK from a random encounter while looting Elturel for spare potions, but it is a possibility. Normally, I would be fine with that possibility, because, as Umbran suggests, a "campaign" is usually about something bigger than the specific PC group out on an adventure. But in the case of a pre-designed story starring the PCs (which adventure paths like Avernus are) the party on the adventure IS the campaign.

I am likely overthinking it just because it's an unusual style of play for me. Frankly, I would have jumped the rails already except that the players all signed up for Avernus. I can (and am!) changing elements of the adventure as we play, but the throughline is what everyone bought into, so I feel some pressure.

 

[Big Bucky]

Obviously you bring them back as slaves to a devil in Avernus lol

but really when you all agree to use a purchased adventure there is implicit consensus that they will follow that adventure path. Otherwise you just wasted a good amount of money. They have to trade some player agency for an interesting plot line.

 

[Arilyn]

Obviously you bring them back as slaves to a devil in Avernus lol

but really when you all agree to use a purchased adventure there is implicit consensus that they will follow that adventure path. Otherwise you just wasted a good amount of money. They have to trade some player agency for an interesting plot line.

Yes, this is how I feel, and there can still be plenty of tension and setbacks. And if TPKs are normally on the table, but are taken off for one arc, because of practical considerations, I think the players are still going to have a lot of fun and meaningful challenges.

Kill em' all next time around!

 

[S'mon]

I allow the TPK, then typically continue the campaign later (anything from next week to years later) with a different PC group. Which may have the same or different players.

It's more common in my non-AP campaigns, but I had a TPK at the end of book 1 of Rise of the Runelords. I had Sandpoint burned to the ground then continued with new PCs, players and rules system a couple years later. In the example I'd impose a negative consequence & likely have the same players roll up new PCs to continue.

 

[Reynard]

I don't want it to sound like I think a TPK is the only definition of failure based on choices. What I am really talking about is how choice and consequence interact with any failure that creates undo problems with the coherence of the game.

To use a very basic example: the PCs walk into town in search of a clue to the next stage of the adventure. There is one NPC in town that has that information. Because they are a bunch of murder hobos, they kill that NPC and steal his boots before they realize he is the one with the important information.

There are a few basic ways to deal with that choice. First and most obvious is to let the consequences stand. The PCs have gated off the rest of the adventure, and maybe after doing some investigation they learn their mistake. Now they have to figure out how to go forward, maybe going so far as to getting the murder victim raised so they can get the clue. This is, broadly speaking, the way I would normally handle such a situation. The players created this mess, so they can deal with it. Unfortunately, as much as it might lead to interesting play (where are we going to find a cleric that can raise this guy?) it might just as easily end the adventure right there, which is a drag.

Another solution I see as a common suggestion is to just transfer the information to a different NPC. After all, the murder hobos did not know what their victim knew, so they'll never be the wiser. While this maintains the forward momentum of the adventure, it gets very close to railroading for me. If the adventure goes forward no matter what the players choose, what they choose doesn't matter. Plus, it seems to absolve them of consequences for their behavior. I am generally disinclined toward a solution like this.