Level Up (A5E) Removing Pointless Death (+)

[dave2008]

One struggle I've had as a GM is the pressure of building thrilling, challenging encounters that aren't too over-tuned that they risk TPKs at every turn. Invariably, it happens, and my campaign comes to a screeching halt. This isn't just "the occasional TPK" or "they made bad decisions." This is literally every campaign I've run since around the year 2000. Even my first Level Up campaign stumbled before the characters could reach 3rd level.

I don't fudge dice rolls and I roll in the open so it's hard to keep characters alive in standard d20 games without having every enemy take prisoners; making suboptimal tactical decisions to favor the players; running easy and boring fights.

Running and playing games like Daggerheart and Fabula Ultima - which put the decision of character death in the hands of the players - has removed a load of stress from me. I'd like to add something similar to my next Level Up campaign.

Blaze of Glory
Drop to 0 HP, immediately have an epic final stand (work with the GM on details). Die at the end of the action.

Permanent Injury
Drop to 0 HP. You'll automatically stabilize and survive the battle. Pick one of your 6 ability scores. You'll have permanent disadvantage on skill checks with that ability. You'll be required to retire the character after obtaining injuries in every ability score.

Call on Fate
Roll a d20. 1-9, you die. 10+, you regain HP as if you spent all your Hit Dice.

How do these look?

@Retreater , reading through this thread it seems the TPKs usually happen because a PC falls quickly than there the rest fall like dominoes. This mostly occurs at low levels. Is that accurate?

If so, here are two simple fixes (you can use one or both):

1. Start with more HP.
2. Active death saves: when you are dying and making death saves you can remain active (take actions) by taking one level of exhaustion.

 

[Selganor]

Are you sure exhaustion would be useful?
Every level exhaustion lowers almost any d20 roll (including death saves) by 2, which would lower their chances to do things further.

Luckily this question was in the A5E part, so exhaustion doesn't exist in that ruleset

 

[lichmaster]

We call TPK when no one's available to save the unconscious and they're all surrounded by enemies set on killing them. Sometimes we call TPK when 3/4ths of the party is dead and one character escaped, alone in hostile territory.
Death saves don't matter when you don't have healing and you're surrounded by flesh eating monsters, right?

There are many narrative ways to overcome this.

In my oldest campaign I had the party encounter a demon that was much stronger than them, and was the BBEG. He DID TPK, but that didn't mean the game was over, as I planned for that in advance and was actually part of the story (the party was no match against it at that point). In the follow up they woke up in a sort of limbo, dead, but weren't following the procession towards the afterlife like all others. Instead, as they were both inadvertently involved in freeing said demon and trying to oppose to it, they got the interest of other supernatural beings, who proposed them to become their agents with the mandate to stop it. It definitely wasn't a free pass, though, as part of their soul wasn't there anymore, and it had some effects, both socially and gameplay wise.

More mundane "deaths" may also be handled differently. For instance, robbers may think the PCs are dead and just steal all their belongings, but that also doesn't mean game over. Most beasts never fight to the death unless their offspring is at danger, so an unconscious party is a neutralized threat but doesn't warrant additional attacks "to make sure it's dead", unless the want to feed on them (doesn't have to be the rule even for carnivores, as they may not like the taste of humanoids and particularly dislike clothing or armor). That's similar for undeads, except they're surely less picky regarding food.

Also consider that even in case of NPCs actually wanting to kill them, you may have someone save them just after the fight is lost: a helpful farmer who they tried to defend, another group of adventurers, etc. They may be even be raised by someone else and forced to do it's bidding, until they find a way to free themselves.

Really, there are plenty of narrative possibilities to overcome this issue, and many make the game more interesting.

 

[Anonymous3]

@Retreater
Have you considered scenarios where the players know upfront that it is very likely that they will die but the aim is simply to try to beat the game/dungeon/monster-of-the day? Similar to old school dnd which is argued as the genesis of the typical "adversarial" DM/player relationship that is present in your games. Upside is that if they fail they get to try again until the beat it.

Esper the Bard has a new series called Gauntlet Runner. Have a look, it might be a easier fit than trying to re-condition your table to new ways of communicating.

 

[Retreater]

@Retreater
Have you considered scenarios where the players know upfront that it is very likely that they will die but the aim is simply to try to beat the game/dungeon/monster-of-the day? Similar to old school dnd which is argued as the genesis of the typical "adversarial" DM/player relationship that is present in your games. Upside is that if they fail they get to try again until the beat it.

Esper the Bard has a new series called Gauntlet Runner. Have a look, it might be a easier fit than trying to re-condition your table to new ways of communicating.

My players don't seem to be interested in that level of challenge. And - honestly - I'm bad about predicting the outcomes.

 

[Selganor]

Can you give a few other examples of surprising TPKs?

The wererat example you gave didn't really have a surprising outcome and the "tactics" (if you could call it that) of the group didn't help their position. Maybe that was an outlier, but it's hard to judge without taking a look at more data.

 

[TwoSix]

Can you give a few other examples of surprising TPKs?

The wererat example you gave didn't really have a surprising outcome and the "tactics" (if you could call it that) of the group didn't help their position. Maybe that was an outlier, but it's hard to judge without taking a look at more data.

To be fair to @Retreater, if that's the normal level of tactical acumen the party shows, it's not a big surprise that they're also TPKing all the time.

The rogue is the big offender here; if you won initiative on them, why not just use a ranged sneak attack and move away? Rogue should never be in melee without a partner, unless they're using some weird tank build.

And the "I'll just kill this regular dude" idea is crazy. If you're in a dungeon, why would you assume anyone is regular? And if you're not, why are you trying to sneak attack a "regular guy" surrounded by his friends?

 

[Micah Sweet]

To be fair to @Retreater, if that's the normal level of tactical acumen the party shows, it's not a big surprise that they're also TPKing all the time.

The rogue is the big offender here; if you won initiative on them, why not just use a ranged sneak attack and move away? Rogue should never be in melee without a partner, unless they're using some weird tank build.

And the "I'll just kill this regular dude" idea is crazy. If you're in a dungeon, why would you assume anyone is regular? And if you're not, why are you trying to sneak attack a "regular guy" surrounded by his friends?

Yeah, I really don't understand the context under which the wererat event occurred. What was the reasoning for making the strike at all, let alone how it was done? Seems to me the rogue put themselves into a very disadvantaged position, and then the party followed suit.