Party headed for a TPK?

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

I give plenty of hints and clues when they are about to embark on such a quest, sometimes going as far as giving dreams of their own death.

really?

So, is it in your view that you gave adequate warning and then the players decided "hey lets go get killed" deliberately? Or do you perhaps consider the possibility exists that your notion of adequate qarning might be mismatched?

But since 3E was released I have played with too many people who will stand there and fight because they believe that I would never put a hazard in their path that they cannot overcome, WRONG

considering i heard the same discussion over 20 years ago, I don't see this as a 3.0 cr thingy. before there was even the hint of CR, there was the discussion of matched and mismatched challenges and whether a Gm should provide them.

If at 1st level you are about to enter a cave and outside are a bunch of stone statues, including one you recognize as a legendary hero you met as a youth.

Perhaps you should be somewhere else.

Why? Don't people make statues of famous heroes in your world? What you describe sounds like an interesting place to look into. Shouldn't adventurers be inclined to look into interesting places?

If you go into the cave and die that is your fault.

Why?

CR is a guide for creating an encounter of a specific challenge, but it is not a rule that I can't place encounters of a given challenge wherever I want.

agreed. you can do whatever you want, as long as you have players willing to abide it.

There are times when running away is the solution because in my campaigns there are things that characters will encounter that they cannot defeat until later.

absolutely, and hopefully there is some IN CHARACTER info that helps them know which they are facing.

Otherwise where do all of the high level challenges live?

Well, speaking for my self, often in places where the peons cannot easily get to them to bother with.

After some time playing in an environment there high level challenges exist players adapt and start to be more cautious about their choice of opponents.

the key being that to effectively make a choice requires useful info. "Statues of famous heroes" doesn't qualify as useful info to me.

And if they run into a garden of stone statues at low level they think about their response before charging into the cave.

and if they think about it and say "this is interesting. lets look around. We are adventurers after all."?

And as far as splitting up, never.....

I so rarely run games where the challenges are so predictable that anything is "never".

There are plenty of good reasons to split up, in the right circumstances or to deal with specific challenges. now, for sure, a "beat up the guy in front of us" challenge is rarely one of those circumstances, but those make up only a moderate percentage of the challenges and demands i provide.

Split up for one group to provide a distraction ror the other, split up to let those with superior mobility get around an obstacle, split up to accomplish two goals needing done quickly, etc...

 

[spectre72]

And our differences of opinion mean nothing more than we like to play differently.

Each is entitled to their own opinion.

My style is different and sounds more like the original poster.

Neither is better, just different.

I will admit though that players from the other side of the fence can be very difficult at first in one of my games.

Scott

edit : hit save too soon

 

[Rackhir]

We broke the game here. But I'm wondering if I'll need to start planning for another campaign after a TPK. I'm also wondering if they'll get the idea that they're not ready for this dungeon yet?

Quasqueton

Ah, how did they wind up in this dungeon in the first place? The default assumption in most cases in my experience is that the "adventure" you are on is what the DM wants you to be on and that it is going to be a reasonable challenge for the characters. It's one thing to place challenges that a party is supposed to avoid, its another thing to do so without making that clear or giving any clue that it is the case.

To me that comes down to one of those "It might not be 100% realistic, but it makes things a lot more fun". If you are going to run the kind of campaign, where they could at any moment run into challenges that will wipe them out, you have an obligation to at least make that clear to the players at the begining. Just simply letting the encounters wipe out the pcs to make that point would cause me to drop out of the campaign as soon as I figured out what was going on.

I've had my fill of killer DMs.

 

[the Jester]

I find that no matter how clear I am about the fact that not all challenges can be overcome (such as stating, on several occasions, "sometimes the way to survive is to RUN"), many players don't pick up on this. Heck, sometimes they do pick up on it and still choose to fight to the death against overwhelming odds.

Case in point: recently a 2nd and 3rd level group fought a CR 6 monster in my game. They were suffering damage on the level of 3d10 (mind thrust) each round, yet they fought to the end. If I didn't use something kinda like fate points (Wyrd) they would have prolly been tpk'ed. Yet the monster was immobile, and they had plenty of warning as to the danger level when several of them were confused in one round, while at the same time it was hittin' em with the mental damage.

This is in a game where I've given the explicit 'run away sometimes' warning on at least three occasions so far during the game.

Now, they all survived- thanks to the Wyrd system- and they had a great time with it, and so did I; so I don't feel that that was a particular problem in this instance. But it is a good example of the 'take everything on!' mentality.

 

[swrushing]

Now, they all survived- thanks to the Wyrd system- and they had a great time with it, and so did I; so I don't feel that that was a particular problem in this instance. But it is a good example of the 'take everything on!' mentality.

Actually, if it is a case where their estimate, taking into account your rules, was ACCURATE and they could stay and fight and win... isn't it a particularly BAD example?

I mean, in this case, they would be running from a winnable fight, leaving behind confused teammates, right? How is that preferable as a decision to just staying and killing the thing?

Should they run because the players know the CR is "too high" or should they stay because their characters think (correctly, it turns out) they can win the fight?



BTW, IMX, once party members are "incapacitated" like a confusion or hold or unconsciousness will tend to do, I find players are even more reluctant to run away. leaving people behind to clearly die is something more gamers are reluctant to do and i don't find that an unacceptable trait in a heroic adventure character.

 

[William_2]

I always find that campaigns that lack any real threat of death for my character also lack the capacity to make me feel like I am being daring and/or smart in my choices. Which is actually what I play for. If my character can turn in any direction and meet only challenges that can be overcome by them, then neither the character nor I need to ever be brave or smart. You just have to be there, basically, and bumble around into every dangerous spot you hear of, as they always turn out not to be dangerous for you, even if a few weeks ago they would have been deadly. I don’t dispute that that style is lots of fun for lots of players; I just thought I would point out that there are some people who prefer more verisimilitude in their game. Sure, the DM should be clear about that possibility, but only because the standard has become the somewhat odd one of facing many levels of powerful foes, but never until you are slightly more powerful (CR not withstanding).

It does sound like that party is about to meet a grisly end. I just think that every time that happens, the game gets a bit more interesting. Tales of heroic deaths are one of my favorite parts of the game. Ill-considered deaths, too.

I do agree, though, that it is nice to mostly offer PCs adventures where they might survive. Hard to have a campaign otherwise, really. But having areas or opponents that are explicitly too powerful is good all-around for a campaign. PCs wandering into them too soon is not all good, but not all bad either.

 

[molonel]

The fighter/rogue goes in, alone, to check the eastern door for traps. He finds nothing (vs.DC 35). (I am holding back a laugh at this point.) He tries the door.

I don't know exactly why you're laughing.

A 5th level elven rogue with maxed-out ranks in Search, Skill Focus: Search, an intelligence of 18 and Goggles of Minute Seeing would have only detected that particular trap on a 13 or higher. Any 5th level rogue with "only" maxed-out ranks in Search and intelligence of 18 couldn't have detected the trap at all. Remember that Nat 20's do NOT count as an automatic success on skill checks.

I understand the philosophy of placing traps, locations and creatures in the world that the PCs cannot defeat. I mean, duh. The world doesn't suddenly populate itself with more powerful creatures just because the PCs increase in level.

But the point is, you said, "I'm also wondering if they'll get the idea that they're not ready for this dungeon yet?"

I guess my question, for those of you who enjoy the "Me Heap Big DM - ph34r my l33t sk1llz!" style of gaming, is this:

What is the POINT of bringing characters into an adventure they can't handle at 5th level? Is killing the entire party really the ONLY way this could have been communicated? The combat encounter, as described, is probably something which the whole party, fully buffed and prepared, couldn't have taken.

As a DM, I can kill my players any time I want. That's a given. I told them at the very beginning: there are beings in this universe more powerful than you. If you challenge the mightiest wizard in the realm to a duel, I will end the session, because I won't have every being in my world statted out, and we will begin the next session with combat against a 35th level epic wizard.

I have no problem killing characters. The choice is not between two extremes: rolling characters through a bloody meatgrinder against challenges they cannot defeat, or handing them silk pillows and bon-bons in between the fights they always win.

 

[the Jester]

Actually, if it is a case where their estimate, taking into account your rules, was ACCURATE and they could stay and fight and win... isn't it a particularly BAD example?

I mean, in this case, they would be running from a winnable fight, leaving behind confused teammates, right? How is that preferable as a decision to just staying and killing the thing?

Should they run because the players know the CR is "too high" or should they stay because their characters think (correctly, it turns out) they can win the fight?

A couple of things- the confusion was from the psionic power id insinuation, which lasts concentration + 1 round, so by the time the party was goin' down the confused guys were no longer confused- but it was clear (I think) that it could happen again at any moment.

The players had no idea what the CR on the monster was, but they had figured out it had DR (and they had no special weapons to hit it with), it could use psychic powers 2/round (zoinks!) and they couldn't tell how badly hurt it was.

As I said, the fact that they stayed to fight after having serious firepower demonstrated to them was a good example of the 'take everything on, even if it's tough enough that you should run away' mentality. The example doesn't have to end up with them all dead- it just has to show that they stuck around to fight something pretty demonstrably out of their league. As to running away, the creature was immobile. It had no physical attacks; once the two id insinuated pcs shook off the confusion, the whole party could have been out of range of the creature in prolly two rounds. One of the pcs actually did back off (gathering her unconscious companion) and encourage everyone to run, but one pc in particular was getting some seriously good combat rolls. He still ended up burning a Wyrd, but even with that, if I hadn't flubbed three Concentration checks in two rounds, he prolly wouldn't have made it.

I'm happy with how the fight turned out, as are the pcs, but I'm just giving it as an example of the 'always fight' mentality that can easily lead to death. And even though it didn't, two pcs burnt Wyrd, which makes for 2 less Wyrd to burn another time.

 

[spectre72]

What is the POINT of bringing characters into an adventure they can't handle at 5th level? Is killing the entire party really the ONLY way this could have been communicated? The combat encounter, as described, is probably something which the whole party, fully buffed and prepared, couldn't have taken.

Some of us don't bring Characters into an adventure.

We place plot hooks and let the players take them.

Sometimes the plot hooks are meant to be taken now and some are meant for later.

In one of my recent campaigns I placed a map as treasure to a place called Rappan Athuk which had notes telling of great tressure.

The party was about 2nd level.

They investigated a little bit and found out a few more legends, rumors, ...etc. and descided to hold onto the map and maybe investigate later because of the reputation of the place.

Not only did I provide a plot hook that will last throught the entire campaign, but they did some role playing to determine if it was someplace they should investigate now or later.

If they had of ignored the information and gone anyways they would have died there like many others before them.

In this manner I like to try and allow the players and their characters a choice of their paths.

And to be fair I do give plenty of warnings when they head down this type of path.

And I am also proud to say that after many years of DMing I have only had about 3 TPK (not including the Tomb of Horrors at a local convention because that was supposed to be a TPK), and two of those happened at conventions when players did things that were suicidal.

Character deaths many, characters running for their lives often, people having fun always.

And before you ask how I know people are having fun I will answer for you.

Every campaign I have run in years I have had to turn people away.

I am currently running 2 campaigns with 8 people in each, Worlds Largest Dungeon in Blackmoor and League of Extrordinary Gentlemen in Eberron.

So even though my technique is different than others the ultimate goal of having fun is still maintained.

 

[the Jester]

Some of us don't bring Characters into an adventure.

We place plot hooks and let the players take them.

Sometimes the plot hooks are meant to be taken now and some are meant for later.

Quoted for truth.