Lots of useful responses here. Thank you. I should say at this point that, as Hjorimir mentioned, I have a tendency to make encounters that are meaningful to the plot more difficult than necessary, and when I forget to be mindful of this tendency players can suffer from overly difficult foes. This tendency is a habit I've developed over the years to compensate for the brilliant tactical maneuvers and excellent teamwork my old school friends commit on a regular basis; with them I tend to tune up the CR and/or EL of encounters, because they are often not sufficiently challenged by level-appropriate foes. My new group, of course, is the complete opposite, and those who have suggested that I ramp down the CRs and ELs of encounters are absolutely right, and going forward I intend to adopt this strategy until they become more comfortable with the rules. Thanks for that tip.
Let me reply to a few folks.
Nellisir said:
I don't know the situation of the TPK in question, and I doubt you do either. That said, I have no problem with running a tough game (and I think my players would agree that I don't do them any favors), but a TPK is not the inevitable result in a challenging game.
A TPK is not a "random death". A TPK means the party, either through DM oversight or player misjudgement, was grossly outmatched, and the DM figured killing the entire party was suitable.
Indeed. I allowed my completely new group to be led astray by a veteran player who happened to be roleplaying his character appropriately. He was playing a fighter with an 8 Wisdom and suggested a frontal assault on an orc lair that they knew to be inhabited by a whole clan of orcs. The three newbies assumed that the experienced player wouldn't lead them astray, and with some trepidation on their parts they unhappily marched off to their deaths. In retrospect, I absolutely should have suggested to the player of the wisest character that the plan seemed foolhardy, and I regret not playing with kid gloves in that instance. Since then, I have taken to a variety of methods of guiding the newer players along--I drop helpful hints through NPCs, I give them Int or Wis checks regarding some courses of action, and in combat I flat-out explain to them what would be the best tactical solutions for a given situation, and why. While doing so, however, I still have a tendency to throw an occasional messy fight at them, or allow them to walk into one. For the most part, however, they destroy their opponents even as they fearfully shrink from them.
Cyberzombie said:
Not taking pot shots at you (as your style obviously works for your other group) but lots of people (including me, and I think your current group) consider a TPK to be a sign of a bad and un-fun game. I want to play a HERO, be the star of the show, and win in the end. Granted, really dumb moves should end messily, and sometimes characters should die, especially if they're actively sacrificing themselves, but I consider random character death to be bad.
So, while your style works fine for your other group, you're going to have to change some for your new group. Not entirely, but you're going to need to meet them halfway. At least if you want to keep the group
I agree. Do you think that what I have outlined above is meeting them halfway, or should I do more?
For the record, I want the players to become true heroes. I want this badly--for me, heroism is the bread and butter of fantasy RPGs. I just don't want it to be easy; I want the journey to be fraught with danger. I want the path of the hero to be a challenging one, both physically and morally. I want them to choose the heroic path even though it is the harder road to take. I don't want them to abandon self-preservation, but neither do I want them to assume that they will never take significant risks to achieve their goals. Heroes make
personal sacrifices for the greater good--the FDNY firefighters who unhesitantly rushed into the WTC knowing full well it could collapse at any moment are true heroes; Conan the Barbarian, cleaver of a thousand enemies, is not. To me heroism is a state of mind, a choice to do the right thing even though it is unpopular or dangerous; heroism has nothing to do with having the ability to lay down an arse-whupping. Those fights will (and do) happen in my campaign, but it is the character who bravely stands up to the powerful necromancer and says "No, your evil stops here"--even though that foe could
end him--that is the true hero. Those are the type of heroes that I want to see, and they are what I have tried (and failed, through my mistakes) to encourage.
Regarding TPKs, first let me say that allowing TPKs is a gaming style choice that I embrace. I will not save a party from their own stupidity, and nobody has script immunity in my games. Sometimes ignoble deaths occur, thems the breaks, and I won't lose any sleep over it. The PCs are inhabitants of a world, and that world has rules that it operates on, and sometimes fate, or karma, or bad die rolls, or whatever, will end a character. That said, I am not above flubbing die rolls when I've obviously messed up an EL, and I even un-TPKed the party once when it became obvious that I had made a crucial mistake that would have made a difference to the outcome.
Yeah, I make lots of mistakes, both mechanical and judgmental. I accept this about myself and work to not allow hubris to get in the way of equity when it's pointed out to me that I have erred.
Finally, I agree that the PC-killing jokes ended up being counter-productive, and I no longer say them. Instead, I try to be encouraging without giving away the farm. I think I will take up the suggestion to lower CRs on the whole for a while, to help them build up some confidence. I will also include fewer do-or die scenarios.
Very useful commentary. Thanks again.
