Supposed to Lose Fight

[prabe]

I will also point out the book and actual play series from Beadle & Grimm, "Faster Purple Worm, Kill! Kill!"

These are a series of TPK one-shots where players walk in knowing they are all going to die before the session is over! Not everyone's cuppa tea . . . but OMG, the actual play is super fun to watch! I want to run this with my home group, but . . . they don't seem excited about the idea.

"No-win" scenarios are NOT "bad DMing" . . . they are different DMing. Storytelling styles that will work for some groups, and not for others. The important thing is to know your players to make sure there isn't a mismatch!

No-win scenarios are almost always bad GMing. A one-shot that's intended as a TPK doesn't sound good to me, but I'm clearly not the intended audience.

 

[Laurefindel]

I was listening to a long play D&D podcast recently and it felt like the party was tossed into a "suppose to lose fight". The monster was clearly over powering and the fight seemed pretty hopeless from the start. And while it made a good story to listen to, I couldn't help but think that if I was a player at the table, I would be annoyed.

Do you have any experiences with this situation? How did it go?

Presentation is key, and expectation of the genre dictates how it must be presented.

In my early D&D days, we would not suffer defeat as players. Ever. We'd murder the whole town's guard contingent rather than spending the night in jail, and would whine if we faced an "unfair" opponent. Putting aside the immaturity, the feeling of being led, misled, or denied the ability to choose is not a fun one, and because RPG is an outlet (among other things), its easier to rebel there whereas in real life we often can't.

But now I do appreciate a situation that arises from defeat, or else a first introduction to a recurring villain. As a player, I prefer to be invited to "play along", and that requires some sort of complicity between players and DM, which can take several forms. One of my gamemasters is pretty good at telegraphing when the heroes need to fall before they can rise again.

 

[Basic Expert]

If specific end condition is supposed to happen, it's a cut scene and not a combat. Playing through it is just an attempt to obscure that fact, but it's just the GM pulling narrative strings--probably in an effort to evoke a specific emotional response in the players or set up an overly elaborate story element.

GM: "You have all fallen to the BBEG. But he doesn't kill you for reasons and he laughs at your feeble level of power. You must return to face him when you have gained another ten levels to wipe the sting of defeat away!"

GM: "You have fallen to the BBEG. But he doesn't kill you for reasons and traps you inside his evil soul gem dungeon. You must fight your way free and discover its secret to beat him!"

Or the worst:

GM: "You have fallen to the BBEG, but before he can kill you, my favorite DMPC comes in and saves you like the very cool, heroic person he is! Isn't he cool and heroic?!?"

If your campaign depends on an encounter going a certain way, you don't have a game--you the outline of a fantasy novel.

 

[Whisper-Kitten]

I was listening to a long play D&D podcast recently and it felt like the party was tossed into a "suppose to lose fight". The monster was clearly over powering and the fight seemed pretty hopeless from the start. And while it made a good story to listen to, I couldn't help but think that if I was a player at the table, I would be annoyed.

Do you have any experiences with this situation? How did it go?

Yes, I have run fights where the PC's are going to lose the fight as part of the plotline. My players mostly know that the fight is impossible for a reason as I don't typically try to kill them. I always give them outs in fights so that they can regroup. If I don't then there is a reason for it. It won't stop them from trying of course and in one instance they somehow did survive. Which threw my session for the night off the loop a little bit. However, all groups are different, and you as a GM might need to tell your players before the campaign begins that there might be fights they are simply not going to win, and not to worry about it because it's part of the storyline. You can also fall back on the ever popular "Are you sure you want to do that" When your 6th lvl characters want to attack a 15th lvl vampire. <---- That did happen once.

 

[500 Toads]

As a campaign intro -- not that I'm remotely fond of that trope, but if I were running such anyway -- I'd prefer to move the fight into background information (part of the campaign hook) and start the play after the foreordained conclusion. Just apply whatever constraints or other unusual conditions are established on the party and what their situation will be, and move on.

Now, if players want to go take on something that they can't realistically accomplish -- well, I'll let them know if I think that their characters would be aware that this is likely a bad idea, or if I think that they're under a mistaken impression of some other sort; but consequences will follow as seems appropriate based on the situation, not based on maximizing drama leading to a guaranteed miraculous escape. The freedom to try does not mean a right to success, or even survival.

 

[timbannock]

"You can't runaway" is maybe sometimes kinda okay if "you can surrender" is acceptable. "You must fight to the death and there is no other option" is like the antithesis of why I play or run these types of games. If I want that, I'll play a video game or a board game.

Of course, I have had these experiences. I was the perpetrator back in my railroading DM days, and luckily I learned and moved away from that. Took me way too long, but my players still play my games, so I'm glad I got over it and was good enough not to lose them along the way

As a player, I've experienced it only a few times. Each time it was very heavy-handed and I made it clear that I wasn't a fan of not having choices. One DM got a bit better, but still really liked his "boss fight" sessions regularly enough...it rankled me, but it was fine for what it was. I no longer play with him for separate reasons. The other DM not only didn't get better about it, but doubled down and flatly told us it's do or die in his campaign. I never went back.

 

[MarkB]

I will also point out the book and actual play series from Beadle & Grimm, "Faster Purple Worm, Kill! Kill!"

These are a series of TPK one-shots where players walk in knowing they are all going to die before the session is over! Not everyone's cuppa tea . . . but OMG, the actual play is super fun to watch! I want to run this with my home group, but . . . they don't seem excited about the idea.

"No-win" scenarios are NOT "bad DMing" . . . they are different DMing. Storytelling styles that will work for some groups, and not for others. The important thing is to know your players to make sure there isn't a mismatch!

I've listened to a couple of Actual Plays of those scenarios, and they were not no-win. While a TPK was basically certain, there were win conditions other than survival, i.e. preventing a larger disaster. That isn't the same as a no-win battle.

 

[aramis erak]

"No-win" scenarios are NOT "bad DMing" . . . they are different DMing. Storytelling styles that will work for some groups, and not for others. The important thing is to know your players to make sure there isn't a mismatch!

See also Cinematic mode for ALIEN...

And my favorite Doc Martin Quote:
young patient: "Am I going to die?"
Doc Martin: "Everybody dies. But not today."

 

[Koloth]

As part of the wrap up to a long running 1-20 PF1 campaign, the GM did a TPK to declare that he was done running that particular game. Don't really blame him. It had started as a 5 person game then as a result of merging two groups, it turned into a 10 player game. Learned to really dislike high level combat.

In a different game, avoided a designed 'charm one of the party members' encounter when my bard was separate from the rest of the party and encountered 3 higher level succubi. GM asked for 3 saves vs charm. I rolled 3 d20 at the same time. Got a 20, 20, 19. After which my bard had a nice friendly but uncharmed chat with the 3 succubi. Campaign went into unplanned territory for a bit.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Players with a more gamist approach might feel frustrated in a combat with no options, no hope of winning, no ability to retreat . . . .

However, players with a more story-focused approach might be just fine . . . if the scene results in a good story and leads into further adventure!

Not sure which podcast you were listening to, but . . . the new "Dungeon Masters" podcast hosted by WotC, this happens in the first episode. Players are in a battle with an overwhelming opponent, they lose . . . and they are whisked away to Ravenloft. The players seem fine with how things are going, as was I watching it unfold! If a DM did this to me . . . I'd be cool, if it was handled well.

I would be okay with it in a furst session or end of a story arc into another as a "let us play our the cool scene that leads to the next thing we have already agreed is the point of the next thing.

I dislike it otherwise.

However i will sometimes start a session with, "You are at breakfast in Sharn, on your good friend Brenn's tab, and he is asking what the hell happened XYZ!? You look at eachother and the still visible signs of getting your asses kicked.

So, what did happen?

We move to a scene a week ago, riding your airship headung back to Sharn from Rosehall (the Paladin's Karrnathi noble estate which is covered in ancient rose briars), roll perception. Hiro, your bugbear ears twitch (high check), what do you hear that sets your teeth on edge and raises your hackles?"

This example is from fight they had with a Silver dragon and some air pirates on wyverns.