Recent TPK... would you have?

[Vyvyan Basterd]

It sounds to me like your approach may have caused them to decide the way they did. Were you "paraphrasing" the situation above? Or did you literally cut to the chase and tell them they hit a "point of no return?"

I understand trying to cut out unnecessary rules when you know the situation as DM. I do it all the time. But sometimes the players just don't get it and see it as a "gotcha" moment as mentioned above. They only see the two choices presented, one to go back and ensure their survival, or two to plunge ahead and take a risk to find the hidden DM "easter egg."

If instead you whipped out the "holding your breath" rules and went through the motions of the number of rounds, saving throws, Endurance checks, etc. maybe they would have seen more clearly that you were following the RAW and they were putting their characters at risk.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

FWIW, I think that discovering things like "DM Easter Eggs" is fun, and best done through thoughtful play. For example, if the PCs suspect (for whatever reason) that there is a cache of treasure or undiscovered cave down a long underwater passage, they have various options for testing that theory, rather than swimming blindly down the passage until they drown. Magic opens up many possibilities: divination and auguries, wizard eye, breathing and movement spells, speaking with animals, charming (or merely befriending) an aquatic or amphibious ally, et cetera. Without magic, one might use air bladders of some sort, possibly in combination with lengths of rope. Even in the case of a drowning, a rope would at least allow the recovery of the body for resuscitation. Obviously, some of these things might not be immediately at hand, in which case the best course is to wait until you have a better chance.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If I felt I had made the situation as clear as I could without saying "my map says there is nothing down there but your deaths by drowning," I'd probably let it stand.

Not, however, like I haven't used DM fiat to rescue PCs from their Players' bad decisions, but I only do so before my Players have learned that actions have consequences.

IOW, early on, you might catch a break or two, but if the campaign has been ongoing for some time and you still can't take a hint?

PCs: Requiscat in Pace

 

[Admiral Caine]

I just wanted to rephrase what I said earlier. I don't want to come across as advocating "metagaming" to save players from using common sense and sparing them the consequences of poor judgment. (..and thus creating a precedent of happening over and over again, as one poster predicted)

No, no, no.

I guess a better way to say it is, make sure you're not playing Let's Make A Deal in how you present the situation.

If you smile and say, "What's going to be, press on and see if you get to another area..? Or- are you going to settle for what you got, go back to relative safety with your NPC? What's gonna be fellas, Door Number One or Door Number Two?"

Because, when presented with that sort of choice they almost always pick Door Number One, to press on.

Now, that is not what the Original Poster described. Only he knows how he might have come across.. but his players reported back to him that they found the clues to be vague. The Original Poster has to do self-reflection and decide for himself how much he may or may not have 'dangled a carrot' by how straight faced and neutral he presented the choice. I don't presume to judge the OP, I'm just pointing out that it's easy to send mixed unspoken signals, or to withold them.

The situation is not unlike the famous Sphere of Annilihation in the Devil's Mouth in the Tomb of Horrors. You step through the Devil's Mouth? Okay, you're dead. Going to swim down the passage? Sorry, nothing up ahead and you're too far extended to get back- you've drowned. Its all in how the actual choice was presented.

<shrug> Now some people love the Tomb of Horrors. Some people love it, but only in a particular context, like a one-off challenge. Some people wouldn't consider it a good module for their ongoing campaign. Your mileage may vary.

Final note: I would caution the Original Poster against thinking that he needs to "teach people a lesson". That's an invitation to adverserial GMing as opposed to seeing it as the GM's responsibility to present a fair challenge with consequences.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Final note: I would caution the Original Poster against thinking that he needs to "teach people a lesson".

On the other hand, lessons are learned, regardless of whether the DM is trying to teach one or not. What lesson is imparted when, despite warnings and chances to change their minds, the PCs choose to swim down a flooded tunnel so far that they drown, but the DM allows them to survive in order to avoid an ignoble or lackluster death? Is that a lesson that suits your game? (I'm not saying that it isn't, but I know it doesn't suit mine.)

 

[jdrakeh]

On the other hand, lessons are learned, regardless of whether the DM is trying to teach one or not. What lesson is imparted when, despite warnings and chances to change their minds, the PCs choose to swim down a flooded tunnel so far that they drown, but the DM allows them to survive in order to avoid an ignoble or lackluster death? Is that a lesson that suits your game? (I'm not saying that it isn't, but I know it doesn't suit mine.)

OTOH, having the NPC use a resurrection spell doesn't negate that particular lesson. The PCs still die an ignoble and lacklster death but, per the RAW, they simply don't stay dead.

Suggesting that death or injury in D&D is supposed to be (or is) permanent does overlook some rather prominent aspects of the D&D rules and written (notably the common occurances of magical heaing and resurrection).

I would suggest that if you're altering the default rule assumptions to 'teach your players a lesson', then you're not really playing D&D by the rules as written or in the spirit of those same rules

 

[haakon1]

If instead you whipped out the "holding your breath" rules and went through the motions of the number of rounds, saving throws, Endurance checks, etc. maybe they would have seen more clearly that you were following the RAW and they were putting their characters at risk.

Good point, but they might have seen it as "we just need to hold our breathes a certain number of rounds, then we'll get to the easter egg".

A simple alternative would be to say OOC: "There's nothing here. If you continue, you'll die." I've seen that done, and I've done it myself on occasion.

Or, a slightly different variant, have an "Obi-Wan" type voice in their head remind them of the dangers of drowning, or tell them to turn back. By "Obi-Wan", I mean a deceased former party member, their mentor, or even a supernatural guardian of some sort. Think of it like the Valkyrie that saves Conan from a death-dealing blow in "Conan The Barbarian", the gods giving their hero one last chance. Obviously, this sort of thing should happen about once a campaign, tops . . .

 

[haakon1]

Without magic, one might use air bladders of some sort, possibly in combination with lengths of rope. Even in the case of a drowning, a rope would at least allow the recovery of the body for resuscitation. Obviously, some of these things might not be immediately at hand, in which case the best course is to wait until you have a better chance.

Nod, I was wondering why they didn't use the old rope around the waist idea, and the air bladder idea, from the AD&D adventure where the PC's need to swim out before a volcano blows up (A4, I believe). But the question wasn't about PC tactics, and perhaps one needs to be old school to think like that . . .

 

[roguerouge]

This would be why you attach ropes to people who swim out of sight. They give a tug and can be pulled back to aid them in their return... or at least their bodies are not lost forever.

They weren't under a time crunch. Why not come back and see if they could get a bottle of air or something?

I understand a reboot, but the players should feel a little silly here.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

OTOH, having the NPC use a resurrection spell doesn't negate that particular lesson...Suggesting that death or injury in D&D is supposed to be (or is) permanent does overlook some rather prominent aspects of the D&D rules and written...I would suggest that if you're altering the default rule assumptions to 'teach your players a lesson', then you're not really playing D&D by the rules as written or in the spirit of those same rules.

Okay. Did something I said suggest otherwise?