RBDM - How?

[The_Warlock]

Another point to be made as a corollary to making sure that the PCs (and by extension, their players) have successes is that, sometimes, regardless of having success, or the quality of success, some players will get frustrated at the consequences of prior falls to a Xanatos' Gambit, or consequences of their own prior decisions.

Even if those consequences make complete and total sense, and the players, seeing those consequences, agree that it makes sense.

I've found it important in my runs to occasionally have an orc just be an orc. While there might be something unique about the orc and his tribe, it does not create a long and convoluted chain to some other agent, villain, power group or central plot line. They are just raiding caravans, and somebody needs to deal with them.

I've found that the occasional straight forward, uncomplicated adventure or quest not only provides a release for the players from the webs which are wrapped round their PCs, but also indirectly, sets them up to trust their actions and decision-making enough to then be caught in another web of trickery or decision making.

So, while cleansing the region of the orc tribe didn't directly cause any new power group to move in, or trogs to come up from the caves and eat livestock, or push the evil cleric who was instigating the orcs into raiding make a bolder move, it gives the PCs a sense that they can make a positive impact without everything biting them.

And thus sets the groundwork for just such a chain to trigger when they are faced with a similar scenario later on.

Balance in all things, even in RBDMing.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

I don't think TPK'ing my party is something that I would be working towards.

I would say that the trick of an RBDM is to set up a situation where the party ends up pulling a TPK on themselves in a manner that leaves you essentially blameless.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[The_Warlock]

I would say that the trick of an RBDM is to set up a situation where the party ends up pulling a TPK on themselves in a manner that leaves you essentially blameless.

END COMMUNICATION

Or, at the very least feels like it's going to be a TPK once they are in it...even if it isn't really. Perception and all that.

 

[Pbartender]

I would say that the trick of an RBDM is to set up a situation where the party ends up pulling a TPK on themselves in a manner that leaves you essentially blameless.

No. The goal of a RBDM is never to set up a TPK, regardless off the manner it's implemented in. For an RBDM, an TPK is just another potential consequence. If it happens, it happens, but it is never something to specifically aspire to or take pleasure in.

As The_One_Warlock just mentioned, a much more appropriate goal for an RBDM -- and far more difficult proposition to pull off properly -- is to occasionally convince the players that they are in danger of a TPK even when they aren't really.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Apologies for the threadjack, but where does it say that (regarding the changelings and shifters)?

To be honest, I am only remembering something I was told in a short lived Eberron campaign. I am sure that it is not quite as clear cut as my previous statement on the matter implied, but that is what I recall.

I would double check when I get home.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I've found it important in my runs to occasionally have an orc just be an orc. While there might be something unique about the orc and his tribe, it does not create a long and convoluted chain to some other agent, villain, power group or central plot line. They are just raiding caravans, and somebody needs to deal with them.

I agree wholeheartedly. If all your NPC's are tricky and untrustworthy, the players will never let their guard down enough to allow themselves to get immersed in the game - they'll always be wondering when something/someone is going to go bad. I've played in all games where the NPC's were either incredibly competent - in which case they were opposed to us - or incredibly dumb - in which case the PC's had probably asked them to do something incredibly simple, perhaps with a step-by-step instruction booklet.

 

[The_Warlock]

...and far more difficult proposition to pull off properly -- is to occasionally convince the players that they are in danger of a TPK even when they aren't really.

And it is something that I endeavor to do in my run.

I've found, over time, that one of the most effective ways to do this is to create a villain that is well built to challenge one PC, often with a power, ability, or manuever that is revealed early in the battle, but not necessarily against the PC he/she/it is most effective against.

Seeing the possibility for devastation inherent in the "insert power here", the PC who would be most impacted reveals the terrible consequences to his companions. People begin fighting as if they are all kryptonians with a box of glowing green fun coming their way. And yes, the devastating power could horribly mangle the person it's designed for, but unlikely to death - just very, very close to death. Unless the dice are being coy.

Then you slowly cycle through the PCs, giving each of them their day in the sun, as well as their moment in the targeting light of the Orbital Death Array.

And I also don't use it regularly, since that would get old and the "shine" would rub off on the trick, but it can be a great way to make the PCs think they are in much worse danger than they really are.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

For an RBDM, an TPK is just another potential consequence. If it happens, it happens, but it is never something to specifically aspire to or take pleasure in.

I think that depends on the game, but I do agree with the substance of this statement.

In general, I figure a TPK is justified under the following circumstances.

1) The players are given every indication they ought to run away, and the opportunity to do so, and do not.
2) The players do something very stupid and ought to know better ("Lets go challenge that vicious Orog Warlord to an Honorable 4 vs 1 duel").
3) The players find themselves in a level appropriate fight against a non trivial NPC that they know is determined to kill them, and simply lose.

Number 3 is one that does not come up very often. In my games, it has yet to do so. But if the players did run up against certain villains in an evenly matched fight and then just lose due to fluke of the dice, than I will wipe them out. I may contrive a way to keep the story going, but as long as the players know that the villain is truly out for blood, I will have the villain act as best it can to kill every last one of them. This includes chasing down fleeing players and finishing them off if it is appropriate to the NPC.

I have no problem with the concept of having combats where Failure is not a viable option for the players, even when the combat may not be relevant to the overall plot of the present adventure.

Getting back to the thread subject, I honestly believe that one of the more important things about a Rat Bastard DM is that while being utterly fair, the DM must be willing to play his villains just as hard as the players run their characters. The reason for this is that it is very hard to maintain suspension of disbelief with respect to a truly nasty villain, or the dangerousness of a situation, when the characters are never in any real danger of jeopardy. Reserving that level of peril for End of Adventure Climactic Battles is just not good enough in my own opinion.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Pbartender]

I may contrive a way to keep the story going, but as long as the players know that the villain is truly out for blood, I will have the villain act as best it can to kill every last one of them. This includes chasing down fleeing players and finishing them off if it is appropriate to the NPC.

...

I honestly believe that one of the more important things about a Rat Bastard DM is that while being utterly fair, the DM must be willing to play his villains just as hard as the players run their characters. The reason for this is that it is very hard to maintain suspension of disbelief with respect to a truly nasty villain, or the dangerousness of a situation, when the characters are never in any real danger of jeopardy.

Absolutely... I know that it may seem a very fine distinction, but for a RBDM, there is a difference between the DM wanting to kill the PCs, and the NPC villains wanting to kill the PCs.

I, as a DM, don't engineer situations specifically for killing PCs. If, however, I have an enemy NPC whose goal is to kill the PCs, then that enemy will use, within reason, all his available resources according to the threat he believes the PCs present to him.