"Run away! Run away!" ... what if they don't?

[Satyrn]

What started me down this avenue of the comversation is that so many were advising @Ancalagon in response to his OP to go with a TPK. To me, that seems a bit extreme. Especially since he ends his post asking for ways to avoid drastic measures to save the party.

I think we were advising him not to hold back on a TPK if that's where the dice actually lead. I was anyway.

The scenario he provided in the OP read to me to be of the sort where (by player and DM decisions, good and bad) all previous decisions have led up to the moment where the dragon's breath weapon is charged and the players are huddled together, clutching their last hp, and [MENTION=23]Ancalagon[/MENTION]'s asking "should the dragon breathe on them?"

"It probably should - unless it's a forgiving dragon" is what I'm saying. At this point, a TPK is a reasonable ending, and pulling the trigger is a fine choice. Indeed, not pulling it might prove quite unsatisfying for the players, especially if it comes across as the DM saving the party.

 

[iserith]

Yeah, I realize that this is relevant to my style, and that there are other games that would work this way and everyone would have fun.

But tying it back to the OP.....he asked for ways to mitigate the situation when the PCs got in over their heads. He gave an example of the Fire Giants only having 14 HP each as an example of a bad way to handle it, and asked for better ways.

To me, a TPK isn't much to offer as a solution.

I would say that the TPK isn't the solution to the problem in and of itself - setting up your game and group expectations such that a TPK as an outcome isn't that big a deal is. This way, you don't have to fudge the giant's hit points or whatever to save the PCs. You won't be inclined to save them in the first place.

And even in games where PCs are replaceable and the likelihood that a TPK can happen is high.....many players will still not be happy about it. I think that the concept of a group that's okay with a TPK is really small. Yes, they exist under the right circumstances....but I think in even a casual game, generally speaking, players will be annoyed when their characters die, and very annoyed with a TPK.

Those players by definition have failed to achieve the rules-defined goals of play and perhaps need to rethink their outlook given what the goals of play are. The party's success or survival is not required to achieve the goals of play. Alternatively, there may be other factors in play with the quality of the game experience that need to be reviewed.

 

[Oofta]

Interesting thread.

More than a few DMs here have said how there would be a TPK or something equally dire if there was no retreat. Makes sense.

I have some questions, though:

1) Is this borne out through play, or is this theoretically what would happen. I.e. how many TPKs have you presided over?

I've only had a couple of TPKs, I've been DMing for a long, long time. I've had far, far more close calls. Like the mage is the only one left that ducks under a table for cover and another PC rolls a 20 on their death save to help finish off the last bugbear.

To me it's more dramatic to have the "Oh **** we could all die!" and have a series of events happen that means they pull through in the end.

2) If the former, what are the reactions of your players? Do they love it? Hate it? Shrug and just grab some d6s to roll up a new toon?

One of the TPKs was a group of all mages in 3.5. They just kind of accepted that it was a dumb idea and moved on.

3) How invested are your players with their characters? Do they have a background and a couple of catch-phrases and are good to go? Detailed backstories to see fruition over a long campaign? Are they invested in leveling them up?

I can't speak for every player, but most are quite invested in their character. On an interesting side note, a significant percentage of PC deaths in my campaign came at the request of the player. They had a story arc in mind that included them dying heroically.

4) Do you ever have campaign plots that hinge on a PC, even in a minor way?

Yes and no. I set up organizations and NPCs that have motivations along with events that are in play. I may know that Bob the Necromancer has plans for Sue the Barbarian that may never happen if Sue dies before Bob has a chance to implement his nefarious plot.

So those mysterious hooded figures that showed up now and then to harass the party? They were Bob's minions and may no longer show up or have any influence on the story.

Thanks! I am running a game now, and feel that if there was a TPK I might not have a group the following week, even if it was their own fault. Happened before, with a different group, when they taunted an Efreet out in the open sky.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think we were advising him not to hold back on a TPK if that's where the dice actually lead. I was anyway.

The scenario he provided in the OP read to me to be of the sort where (by player and DM decisions, good and bad) all previous decisions have led up to the moment where the dragon's breath weapon is charged and the players are huddled together, clutching their last hp, and [MENTION=23]Ancalagon[/MENTION]'s asking "should the dragon breathe on them?"

"It probably should - unless it's a forgiving dragon" is what I'm saying. At this point, a TPK is a reasonable ending, and pulling the trigger is a fine choice. Indeed, not pulling it might prove quite unsatisfying for the players, especially if it comes across as the DM saving the party.

That's fair, thanks for clarifying. I didn't mean to take as harsh a stance as it likely seems that I have. I was just surprised at how often a TPK was being mentioned.

I think it's because I was more focused on this part of the OP:

The best time to run away from a fight is before it starts, not when half the PCs are in the negatives. So... what to do if this happens? I think that "oh, look at that, those Fire Giants all had 14 hit points each, lucky you!" isn't a great solution for the GM. Anything else that isn't lame?

So I was looking at it as a way to help mitigate the danger when the PCs get in over their head, and in a way that doesn't ruin immersion or isn't totally lame, like having the giants all suddenly drop very quickly.

 

[iserith]

I think we were advising him not to hold back on a TPK if that's where the dice actually lead. I was anyway.

The scenario he provided in the OP read to me to be of the sort where (by player and DM decisions, good and bad) all previous decisions have led up to the moment where the dragon's breath weapon is charged and the players are huddled together, clutching their last hp, and [MENTION=23]Ancalagon[/MENTION]'s asking "should the dragon breathe on them?"

"It probably should - unless it's a forgiving dragon" is what I'm saying. At this point, a TPK is a reasonable ending, and pulling the trigger is a fine choice. Indeed, not pulling it might prove quite unsatisfying for the players, especially if it comes across as the DM saving the party.

I'm one of the players that find it dissatisfying, provided I can point at least in part to my own decisions as bringing us to that point. The DM saving us from ourselves is denying our agency and I'm not for that.

 

[Oofta]

There's a difference between the critical hit example and wandering monster rolls - there is at least something one can reasonably to do mitigate the threat of random encounters or wandering monsters in a well-constructed game in my view.

But there are certain DMs based on previous postings where the following scenario is "out of their hands",

• The PCs have a tough fight and are low on resources and badly wounded.
• They need to recover so they retreat and do their best to find a safe location.
• The DM rolls for a random encounter and happens to roll a really tough encounter.
• TPK because "the dice said that was the encounter they should get".

This or the "the entire party is climbing down a rope and the kobold cuts the rope" scenarios are what I see being along the same lines as a 1/6 chance of a PC dying if the enemy scores a critical hit. If the group is going through dangerous territory and know that they are knowingly putting themselves at risk then I let the dice fall where they may. But if they are taking every reasonable precaution, I'll give them a break now and then.

How? Well some ideas if that random encounter comes up as a fire giant patrol

• One of the PCs has the option of distracting the patrol.
• A chase scene for the entire group.
• Unexpected mysterious allies. Allies that may expect repayment in the future.
• Divine (or infernal) intervention, possibly setting up a warlock class for one of the PCs.
• The giants simply don't see the group because I'm the DM and it's more interesting for the group to have a holy **** moment than to kill them.

In other words just about anything other than a straight-up-fight that they're effectively guaranteed to lose because it was dictated by the dice.

I simply don't think it's fun to roll a die or look at my notes and tell the group they're dead. It's not dramatic, it's not telling an epic story of heroes overcoming adversity. It may not even be realistic and I don't care.

My style will probably not work for everyone. PC death is rare, many campaigns may not see even a single death much less a TPK.

So when have I killed off characters? Well, sometimes it's just really, really bad luck. Other times it was because someone was playing an idiot character. Like the guy playing the rogue who set off a shrieker alarm in a heavily guarded camp and then refused to run away and hide. Instead they tried to drag the treasure chest away since it was far too heavy to lift. While it was still shrieking. In that case I made an exception to my general rule and just told the character their PC was dead since there was no realistic chance of escape.

In any case, IMHO the DM always has the final say whether or not a PC dies.

 

[Satyrn]

So I was looking at it as a way to help mitigate the danger when the PCs get in over their head, and in a way that doesn't ruin immersion or isn't totally lame, like having the giants all suddenly drop very quickly.

. . . They Might Be Forgiving Giants

 

[5ekyu]

Interesting thread.

More than a few DMs here have said how there would be a TPK or something equally dire if there was no retreat. Makes sense.

I have some questions, though:

1) Is this borne out through play, or is this theoretically what would happen. I.e. how many TPKs have you presided over?

2) If the former, what are the reactions of your players? Do they love it? Hate it? Shrug and just grab some d6s to roll up a new toon?

3) How invested are your players with their characters? Do they have a background and a couple of catch-phrases and are good to go? Detailed backstories to see fruition over a long campaign? Are they invested in leveling them up?

4) Do you ever have campaign plots that hinge on a PC, even in a minor way?

Thanks! I am running a game now, and feel that if there was a TPK I might not have a group the following week, even if it was their own fault. Happened before, with a different group, when they taunted an Efreet out in the open sky.

1 i have gm thru tpks and played thru tpks. Not in a long, long while tho.

2 reactions varied but none good. Some were very unhappy, some angry some just did not care. Do not recall anyone being more interested in their next character than the dead one. Generally it deflated interest, not added, on thecwhole.

3 see 2 as it links. Generally most players in,my games get interested in their charscters and backstory. Some are interested but more frontgrounded as in "my story is ahead" but they want to see that developing story play out.

4 i always have plots/hooks that tie directly to pcs. I always have plots/hooks that tie loosely to pcs. I always have plots/hooks that ties to npcs, not pcs. Then we see which get picked up and ran with by the pcs after the initial surges.

 

[5ekyu]

I don't think that any single one of them is bad, really, but I generally do see a TPK as a bad thing. Sure, there may be examples that folks can provide where a TPK was fun and rewarding, and perhaps even furthered the story. This is why I'm not saying that a TPK should absolutely never happen. I question it as advice given to a DM who asks how to handle a situation where his players have foolishly gone up against an encounter that is too tough for them.




Who made the list that you rolled from? Who placed the area that list pertains to?

Setting aside the whole "neutral DM" aspect of the discussion, the DM has still made several choices in regards to this. So even if ultimately, a die is used to randomize the encounter....the die is randomizing from details chosen by the DM.

Even if it's a list in a published game book, the DM has chosen that list. And this is fine....I am not saying this is a bad thing, or a bad way to handle it....but the DM has made choices about these things. He is not absolved of responsibility for them.



This is not about keeping the PCs safe. It's about letting them know that the danger may be too great. For example, naming the hills the Giant Hills and having the PCs hear of giant attacks, and maybe speaking to a veteran NPC missing an arm who tells them if they ever see a giant, they should run. Those are the kinds of things I am talking about. Now, those seem to be reasonable warning signs. However, since this is a game, the players may actually see things like that as a dare. This is why I say that the DM is responsible to make sure things are clear....because different players may pick up on different cues, and what's an "obvious warning" to one player is seen differently by another.

So I have to disagree that this is not your job. The DM has to try and portray the world to the players so that they can make informed decisions. It's not about keeping them safe....it's about letting them make as informed a decision as possible.



Glad we agree here!



In this case, I mean more about the decisions of monsters/enemy NPCs. When the tide of the combat seems to turn against the PCs, the DM is able to ease off a bit....there's no reason that he has to continue to run the bad guys as perfectly efficient killing machines who will not take a moment to gloat, or waste an action in some other way. There can be plenty of story related reasons for this. Yes, a lot of this depends on the reason for the combat and the creatures involved, but my point is that this is another decision point where the DM has the ability to influence the likelihood of a TPK.



What about when PCs flee? That's what I was taking about. Again, I think it depends on the context of the fight, and the enemy motivation for the combat, but in most instances it would be pretty easy to justify letting PCs run away. Or if it's not, then the pursuit can be resolved with skills rather than continuing the combat, or the chase mechanics in teh DMG (weak as they may be) can be used to mitigate the results.



"Far too many factors" is what I am talking about. Any of those factors may allow the DM an opportunity to mitigate the deadliness of the encounter. The Bullette drags off the downed PC to eat rather than chase the other fleeing PCs, etc.

Even once all PCs are down....unless they've all failed 3 death saves, I don't see this as a TPK. Once the last goes down, I'd stop combat and then narrate what happens. They could be taken prisoner or wake up with their gear stolen or any other option we can come up with.



People also like stories where there is definitely no chance that the main character will die. And such stories are not inherently weaker.

(Also, Robb Stark was clearly an NPC, so no the RW was not a TPK )

Having said that, I agree, I prefer that my game has the risk of PC death. There have been two from our current group. Stuff happens and sometimes there are bad results. But I don't think that's the same as going for a full on TPK. They don't happen by accident, despite the examples provided. A TPK has to have DM approval.

And that's fine if that's the game you're playing and that your players expect.....but as general advice? I think it's probably not a good idea.

Adding in my 2p...

As a gm i know that i am responsible for what is added to my game. I am not neutral. I am not absolved by throwing in a die roll after making dozens of choices. That would be like choosing a dozen face cards out of decks and then drawing from them... I chose face cards so duh.

I also find very robust and resilient setting, characters and setups so that.at any time a wide variety of events are plausible.

"Its not my job" to produce a flat, monochrome one-sided, one-way situation or resolution especially in a game where at its core "failure" can be more "progress with setback" than loss.

Thats my view... Fwiw.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would say that the TPK isn't the solution to the problem in and of itself - setting up your game and group expectations such that a TPK as an outcome isn't that big a deal is. This way, you don't have to fudge the giant's hit points or whatever to save the PCs. You won't be inclined to save them in the first place.

Yeah, I think clear communication about game expectations solves much of this problem. Depending on that conversation, the game can then proceed accordingly.

Those players by definition have failed to achieve the rules-defined goals of play and perhaps need to rethink their outlook given what the goals of play are. The party's success or survival is not required to achieve the goals of play. Alternatively, there may be other factors in play with the quality of the game experience that need to be reviewed.

This really depends on the goals of play. For my group, there is a scenario that exists, and their PCs have come into the scenario and have been interacting with it long enough that it's pretty much "their" scenario.

So for my group, the resolution of that scenario is the goal of play. Denying any sense of resolution by having a TPK would ruin that goal of play.

Again, this is particular to my style, yes.

I suppose for me, no one has given a compelling reason where a TPK is the favored result. Meaning that the TPK as a result offers something not offered by any other option. So far, it seems to me that two reasons have been sited in support of the TPK:

- maintaining a sense of realism or verisimilitude relating to the level of danger established in the game world
- reinforcing to the players that there are consequences for their choices

Maybe there are more, but those two seem to be what people have said so far. To me, neither one seems exclusive to the TPK.

Is there any other factor a TPK offers? And if so, is it not achievable through a less extreme method?

I'm one of the players that find it dissatisfying, provided I can point at least in part to my own decisions as bringing us to that point. The DM saving us from ourselves is denying our agency and I'm not for that.

Now I'd say I disagree with this. I don't see this as denying agency. Bad things can still happen because of your decisions. Not resorting to a TPK isn't the same as having there be no repercussions. Far from it.