Recent TPK... would you have?

[MarkB]

If you don't want them to do something, the best way is not to let them do it. Rather than saying "you get to the point of no return, do you want to continue?" go with, "the tunnel ahead branches in two, narrowing as it does so. Neither passage is wide enough for a <smallest PC's race> to navigate."

That said, I'm posting with 20/20 hindsight. I might well not have thought of it if I'd been in your situation.

 

[Admiral Caine]

Well,

You came up with a solution that works for you, and that's good..

I view this situation as being on the edge of a storytelling versus simulationism question. I'm not saying that you fall into either catagory, but the players seemingly 'over-thought' the situation from your perspective. That may not be strictly your fault, or theirs for that matter. Players do odd things sometimes, because of the way they've been conditioned.

For example, they might have looked at this situation and thought "the moment we turn back, this will be the time that we miss out on some cool treasure or a secret chamber."

Perhaps they've heard a GM pull this on them one too many times:

Because some GMs (and I'm not saying you, I'm speaking in generalities), pull the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" too often, and players cease to trust their instincts or even a gentle hint. 'Cause, everything is a fake out. Inexperienced GMs (again, not you) can scar players by following that adverserial GMing style.

I don't think you did anything wrong, your players either didn't notice the hint or they second guessed themselves.

I'd ask them, now that you have a resolution, if they sort of heard the hint and decided to try it anyway. Because if they did, that's a trust issue. They're trained by some experience that DMs are "tricksy".

If they reply that they didn't hear the hint in your words, then maybe they weren't paying attention.. or you might have been just a little subtle for their level of play.


The only thing I might have done is ask yourself, 'is it going to affect my game, and my own fun, if they just drown?' The answer to that question might mitigate how much of a stronger hint you want to give next time.

 

[Vanuslux]

I tend to use situations like that as opportunities for sub-adventures...some of the most fun I've had as a GM has been turning PC folly into an off-the-cuff side-trek

 

[the Jester]

This brings to mind when I killed one of the pcs imc in a similar way, except they were talked into going through the long underwater tunnel by a faux faerie. The tunnel was submerged for miles (similar to yours). The pcs turned back except for one, who ended up dying.

Let it stand. They had their chance. If you back off any time hazardous areas kill pcs, why use them at all?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I would've let the drowning stand. They got fair warning of the point of no return. They seemed to have made the assumption that you simply wouldn't kill their PCs (especially such an "ignoble death"), and acted on that basis. They were reckless in their exploration.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Just curious how other DM's would have handled this...

You did the right thing. Just keep reminding the players about it.

 

[Thanee]

I tend to use situations like that as opportunities for sub-adventures...

"sub-adventure" is quite a fitting term, given the specifics of the situation.

All those underwater rules and sea monsters aren't there for nothing!

Bye
Thanee

 

[jdrakeh]

Just curious how other DM's would have handled this...

It depends. In a sandbox game with no continuity, I would have handled it just like you did (a TPK in such a game does not diminish the possibility of continued play). In a game with a strong focus on plot or adventure continuity, however, I probably would have had the NPC fish their bodies out of the drink and take them someplace to be resurrected, as a TPK in this kind of game will pretty much end it.

 

[Delta]

They did concede that I had given them two vague hints that they shouldn't swim down this tunnel, but also made a good point that it was such an ignoble and lackluster way to die.

IMO that is not a good point. That shouldn't have any effect on how the rules get adjudicated.

Is it just me, or does it seem like the amount of time it takes a player to create a new character is inversely proportional to how put-out that player feels if said character bites it?

I have said precisely that in the past. It's one of the reasons I'm in favor of a lighter PC-creation than by-the-book 3E; so there's an understanding that PCs may be lost as soon as the game starts. (Also, no short-story character background essay for this and other reasons.)

 

[Delta]

Follow-up anecdote: Early in my D&D playing years (5th grade, probably -- Basic set), I'm introducing my friends one-by-one to the game. One of my better but loopier friends, John, rolls up a fighter and goes into some caves. At some point he encounters an overwhelming number of goblins. I make it really clear he's significantly outnumbered. He charges into combat anyway; he dies.

John: "But good always wins!"

Me: "No, they don't."

Hmmm. So John never played that way again, and the parameters for how I run the game were well-established. Only took about a half-hour, so not an enormous loss. But if you "save the PCs" once, now they have extra reason to metagame the fact that you won't really allow them to die, so you can look forward to more of the same decisions in the future.