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

[pming]

Hiya!

Hello

Now this is not a universal opinion, but some DMs (and I'm one of them) believe that not all encounters should be balanced. Once in a while your party should encounter bandits and crush them, but also once in a while the party should encounter a monster that is just *too much*. The encounter isn't a "fight the monster!" challenge, it's a "hot damn, *three* fire giants? Let's get the hell outta here!" challenge. If the party manages to hide, move quickly, create a distraction etc etc, they can escape.

BUT... what if they don't?

Ahhh....TPK's! My specialty!

It's the GM's job to telegraph that the incoming monster is *particularly* dangerous.

...whoa whoa whoaaaa there buddy! Since when is it my job, as DM, to "tell the Players this is an extra-deadly monster"?

Ok, I think what you mean is "Foreshadowing". It's a term in writing about giving clues to what is to come. "A hallway", no foreshadowing. "A hallway, perfectly clean, not a scrap of debris other than a few small, rounded stones pushed into the corners where wall meets floor. No cobwebs, no dirt, no bones, no indescribable bits and pieces. Clean". That's foreshadowing that should be screaming "Something unnatural came through here...". A DM that uses foreshadowing well uses it primarily as a means of building Tension. Yes, the side effect is giving the players (or readers, if it's a story) a hint about what it could be, probably isn't, and what they should be on the look out for.

But to 'telegraph' that some monster is "extr deadly" with the purpose being to, effectively, protect the Players from having their PC's put in an actually dangerous situation? Popycock! Popycock I say!

It's a bit shabby that the goblin dressed in a burlap sack happens to be a devil-conjuring 20th level wizard. It should be really clear that this monster is exceedingly dangerous, and I think most GMs are up to the task.

Uh, if the PC's are 5th level and in a cave system taking out the goblins who have been harassing farmers and travelers...they this is what would be considered a "dick move" by the DM. It's not "unfair", it's just one of those things that goes against the base principles of an RPG: The folks sitting around the table are there to play a game, socialize, laugh, and have a good time.

Now, with PC's being 18th level doing the same thing because they keep hearing that NOBODY ever escapes the caves...including the Kings Champion and a cadre of other mid-level NPC's...well, the players now know "somethings up with them there goblins...they ain't normal goblins!". But this, again, is a subtle form of foreshadowing.

So, if the PC's are low level and this happens...the "dick factor" is significantly higher than any foreshadowing.

It should also be an "escapable" monster - if the monster has great speed and great perception... not great. But even if these tasks are not bungled, there are still several ways things could go wrong:

1: Metagaming. "there is no way the GM would put a monster too strong for us, that wouldn't be balanced. Let's fight!"

2: Hubris. "We just hit level 7! nothing can stop us. Let's fight!"

3: Spite. "How dare the GM have 3 giants show up? We'll show him!"

4: Cleverness. "I have a cunning plan"

5: Encounter-stopping spell "I'll just cast fear on them!"

6: Incompetence: "let's get out of here! I roll stealth... I have a 3... oh boy... Can you cast fog cloud?" "Nope I'm out of spells"

et cetera

Er...it doesn't have to be "escapable" if the DM provided enough foreshadowing AND the players were smart enough to do some preliminary scouting/investigation/intel-gathering prior to just 'heading off to get whatever is killing the sheep'. This is the "let the chips fall where they may" principle of the 1e AD&D DMG. If the DM has provided some good, creepy, foreshadowing, and knows who would have known something about it in town, and provided logical expectations of whatever the monster "is" (e.g., a dragon probably would have been seen by someone...big things flying in the sky would be noticed by anyone in a several mile radius...or if it's an Unberhulk then there are likely tunnels of large size, with exit 'holes' in the fields where the sheep graze...), then it should all be good.

1. My DM Response: "Hahahahhahhaaa.....ahahahhh....ahhhh....mmmm....sorry. What did you say? I thought you said that you figured I wouldn't 'put a monster that's too tough for you'".

2. My DM Response: "Hahahahhahhaaa.....ahahahhh....ahhhh....mmmm....sorry. What did you say? I thought you said something about being invincible at level 7 or something".

3. My DM Response: "Hahahahhahhaaa.....ahahahhh....ahhhh....mmmm....sorry. You guys are awesome! But you know what they say...there's a fine line between heroic and stupid".

4. My DM Response: "... ... ... That? ... THAT's your plan? ... ... Oooo-kaaayyyy...."

5. My DM Response: "It looks rather angry...not fearful. But it is looking straight at you, Presto the Magician".

6. My DM Response: "...sorry guys. Not a lot you could do with those horrible rolls and being pretty much out of spells. Not to mention the barbarian had only 14 HP left...and everyone else had less. Oh, wait...I guess you guys could have effing turned around and ran! *sigh* Live and learn, right?"

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?

I agree with this general statement. If you are in battle and thinking "We should probably run"...it's likely already too late. Best bet I've found is the "Split up and everyone RUN!"...and each PC picks a different direction and start hoofing it. If it's only one monster, it has a choice...giving the other PC's a MUCH greater chance of survival, but pretty much signing the chased PC's death certificate. Also, the heroic sacrifice of one PC to "hold it back as long as possible" is also a tactic...desperate...but gods damned HEROIC if you ask me!

My suggestion is simple: Don't ever get into the situation where the players are "expecting to win". If you can get your players to "expect to die...horribly", then they tend towards caution and paying more attention to all those "little things". Little things like simply asking nearby farmers about 'whatever' is going on, maybe casting a divination type spell or two, or doing a 'scout of the area around' whatever location. It also has the added benefit of giving the players a real sense of success when they are successful (re: don't die).

In my opinion, "adventuring" SHOULD be a 'job' only for the insane. An 'adventurer' deciding to go into a deadly surrounding they are completely unfamiliar with to face off against more or less completely unknowable foes, where a single misstep could spell their instant death...those people are insane. Kinda like someone deciding "Hey, lets fly to some war-torn third country, buy some guns, and go capture Warlords and drug king-pins! We'll be rich!". <-- Insane.

A DM that runs a campaign in an "uncaring and neutral manner", focusing on bringing the world to life, where the 'world' reacts appropriately...regardless of the PC's capabilities... will naturally bring his Players skill level up. It's a side effect, really. If the world 'changes' to suit the PC's capabilities (re: everything is always within the PC's "ECL" or whatever), then the players WILL do pretty much every one of the 6 listed things above.

As the Basic D&D "Red Box" Dungeon Masters Book says on page 2 under "The Most Important Rule": BE FAIR I take this to mean "fair as in don't favour the PC's or the Monsters"...not as in "don't put the PC's up against anything too dangerous". Why? The first interpretation (mine) has a LOT less drawbacks than going with the second interpretation.

Then again, by todays standards, I'm a Killer DM. So...

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[devincutler]

"1: Metagaming. "there is no way the GM would put a monster too strong for us, that wouldn't be balanced. Let's fight!"

Here's a story I tell. Back in 1e days I started a campaign. The PCs were 1st level and assigned to retrieve an item from an ancient wizard's tower. They entered the tower, met appropriate 1st level encounters, and on the second to top level of the tower, they found the item they sought. Now, being adventurers, they decided to see what was on the top level. So, they entered and saw an absolutely ornate sarcophagus, engraved with powerful arcane runes. The party mostly wanted to leave in safety and complete their mission, but a couple wanted to see what was what, so the party stayed. One PC touched the sarcophagus. A floating skull phased through the lid and hovered above it. It has jewels for teeth and eyes. The skull looked at each PC and told them that he was the demi-lich spirit of the ancient wizard and that should the PCs touch or disturb his resting place a second time, he would consume their souls.


That was good enough for all of the PCs but one. The player of that one PC said out loud "There is no way that was a real demilich. We are all 1st level characters and a demilich is the most powerful monster in the game (at that time, it was). Devin would never throw one at us. I am sure it is an illusion."


The rest of the players disagreed and said that she was metagaming. They left. But she had her PC touch the sarcophagus again. The demilich rose up, chuckled and said he had warned her...and sucked out her soul. Dead. No to hit roll. No save. Roll up a new character.


I always prewrite my scenarios, and yes, it was a demilich.


I figure, as a DM, if I give suitable warning to the PCs and they choose to metagame or ignore the warnings, then they get whatever they deserve.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I’m kind of surprised at how often TPKs are being condoned. I am all for encounters where combat is a bad idea for the PCs, and all for maintaining danger for the PCs. But I also realize that when I present them with a challenge that is beyond their ability to defeat in combat, I’ve chosen to do so. Everyone seems to site the players’ choice to resort to combat as justification for a TPK....but no one seems to question the DM’s choice to set things up this way.

That's because a fair few of us find that cases where everything is conveniently defeatable and there aren't really consequences for poor choices - where all those Liches, giants, mature dragons, archdevils, cthulhuesque monstrosities, and other high-powered nasties exist only in the background - to be boring, verisimilitude-breaking, and ultimately disempowering. Both as DMs and players.

 

[devincutler]

In my opinion, "adventuring" SHOULD be a 'job' only for the insane. An 'adventurer' deciding to go into a deadly surrounding they are completely unfamiliar with to face off against more or less completely unknowable foes, where a single misstep could spell their instant death...those people are insane. Kinda like someone deciding "Hey, lets fly to some war-torn third country, buy some guns, and go capture Warlords and drug king-pins! We'll be rich!". <-- Insane.

More than that. Let's not forget that claw slashes across your chest and bites to your shoulder HURT. A LOT!! D&D sort of glosses over the pain factor (and it should). But let's not forget that these adventurers, even if they do not die, are suffering horrendous amounts of pain. Mind numbing, soul crushing amounts of it.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

1. whaaaa. You hate us icky nasty dm. I rolling up a new pc.
2. OH MY GAWD. The DM is railroading us again.
3. Hey guys, this just like episode 5,7,9. Boss Hogg is going to put moonshine in our trunk again.
4.whaaaa. You hate us icky nasty dm. I rolling up a new pc. I was attached to Bob two legs. He had a dance background.
5.whaaaa. You hate us icky nasty dm. I rolling up a new pc.
6. Hey guys it the old escape episode. Like Macgiver episode 4,6, 8.
7.whaaaa. You hate us icky nasty dm. I rolling up a new pc. I can't roll play my beauty queen as ugly.

Oh the poor dears. Roleplaying is such nasty business, what with all those bruised egos, strained fingers, and paper cuts. Of course, individuals retiring from adventuring life after some hideous or humiliating personal tragedy is hardly inappropriate or story-breaking. Makes for some decent NPCs.

 

[Les Moore]

As for this specific piece...

"player, in the future you will handle your PCs more deftly, enabling them to easily surpass their predecessors. Remember"

Player - "but, well, no, that character was a paranoid thief with a background of betrayal and trickery, this new guy is a wizard excited to be experiencing these new glories - not nearly so jaded or cautious."

Cuz, you know, role-playing not wargaming or video gaming.

Just saying, its not anything like a built in thing that the next character will have somehow learned from the previous for any given game.

Not built in, for the PC, but the PLAYER has the experience of losing the character, and will be more cautious, with whatever new
character he plays. It's not meta-gaming when the player gets more skilled at playing PCs. Granted, if a player inserts a new
character into a campaign where the last character just bought the farm,then new character won't have the last character's
memories or experiences.

 

[5ekyu]

Not built in, for the PC, but the PLAYER has the experience of losing the character, and will be more cautious, with whatever new
character he plays. It's not meta-gaming when the player gets more skilled at playing PCs. Granted, if a player inserts a new
character into a campaign where the last character just bought the farm,then new character won't have the last character's
memories or experiences.

Sorry but again, its not logical to assume the next character will be played more cautiously as a matter of course after another character dies.

Its only even remotely logical on the case where the first death was due to PLAYER INEXPERIENCE (pi) on behalf of that character's player **and** where roleplaying is not strongly valued.

If the death was in a case where pcs were cautious and things still went very south, not at all likely the next one is more more cautious. Let that run a few times and whats the next pc- hypochondriac huddled in momma's basement?

If death was "in character and fun or heroic" like say holding back enemy while team and others escape - not likely next character is the Dr Smith type.

Or if death was the fault of another pc who screwed up but survived anyway, not so sure the guy is gonns bring in someone who is what, suspicious of that guy? Worried he might screw up again?

How about a radical approach to learning or smartenin' folks up a bit - they lose and suffer bad stuff cuz of it but survive... That way the character who fails actually honest to gosh learns up some from makin' mistakes without needing some post-death mind meld shenanigans!!!

 

[Les Moore]

We must have radically different play paradigms, generally, I learn something, as a player, when I lose a PC. Granted, sometimes it's unavoidable,
bad rolls or luck. IME, it's usually a combination.

 

[iserith]

We must have radically different play paradigms, generally, I learn something, as a player, when I lose a PC. Granted, sometimes it's unavoidable,
bad rolls or luck. IME, it's usually a combination.

Some folks have a real hangup about player skill. The truth is - as I suspect you know already - you can both be a skillful player and portray an unskillful character (or any kind of character). One is not somehow less of a roleplayer by implementing hard-won player skill during play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's because a fair few of us find that cases where everything is conveniently defeatable and there aren't really consequences for poor choices - where all those Liches, giants, mature dragons, archdevils, cthulhuesque monstrosities, and other high-powered nasties exist only in the background - to be boring, verisimilitude-breaking, and ultimately disempowering. Both as DMs and players.

Yeah....I think you missed my point. Hopefully my additional posts make ot clearer for you.