TPK Dillema

[Blackbrrd]

A TPK in a climactic, meaningful battle is okay. A TPK in a random encounter (or other non-climactic battle) is not okay, but also extremely unlikely because a DM shouldn't allow such a difficult encounter in such a circumstance. (Caveat emptor is when you have a true sandbox and the party is just stupid, but then in a true sandbox you wouldn't be asking this question.)

However, a TPK doesn't have to be the end result, does it? How about killing a couple of PCs and taking the others prisoner? How about the PCs instead flee, maybe after 1 or 2 deaths? How about the PCs surrender?

My bolding...

What the??? If you don't allow your players to make stupid decisions or make it possible to make stupid mistakes, where is the tension in the game?

For instance, if you portray a NPC as extremely powerful and the players decide they are going to go to a direct physical confrontation what would you do? Stop them directly by saying they can't attack that NPC because it's too powerful?

For me it would be the perfect opportunity to show the players that the campaign isn't made for them, but that the characters are in the world.

I had some players that had the idea to bargain with a Lich about the return of it's phylactery and at one point I felt the players got waaaay out of line (don't remember if they attacked or just talked). The Lich attacked and had two thirds of the party mired in acid fog and calling down flame strikes. One of the players understood the situation (TPK in 6-12 seconds) and actually managed to get the situation under control through some good diplomacy. It was a big encounter, but nowhere near the climax of the campaign.

In another campaign, I had an encounter much like it, but even though the NPC was less powerful than the Lich above it was clear that it certainly could get some characters killed. They played it smart and avoided confrontation at that time and just talked.

 

[Akaiku]

What the??? If you don't allow your players to make stupid decisions or make it possible to make stupid mistakes, where is the tension in the game?

Stupid to how much of the table? Generally, gms are outnumbered. Plus, if it's really stupid, the character with high int or wis would likely realise that IC, or is thinking entirely on the heads of the players?

Also, there are people who don't play for the ever-present impending doom and failure of all their character's works.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Plus, if it's really stupid, the character with high int or wis would likely realise that IC, or is thinking entirely on the heads of the players?

In those cases, I ask the player very carefully if that is REALLY what they want to do. If the answer is "Yes." (as in, "I intend my PC to do this stupid thing"), I make them roll against their better mental stat, Int or Wis. If they fail, I let them go forward. If they succeed, I tell them they had a moment of hesitation in which they reconsidered...and then ask them if they'd still like to act as they said.

If that is also a "Yes.", then I let the dice roll...

 

[Akaiku]

In those cases, I ask the player very carefully if that is REALLY what they want to do. If the answer is "Yes." (as in, "I intend my PC to do this stupid thing"), I make them roll against their better mental stat, Int or Wis. If they fail, I let them go forward. If they succeed, I tell them they had a moment of hesitation in which they reconsidered...and then ask them if they'd still like to act as they said.

If that is also a "Yes.", then I let the dice roll...

If they give up on the "Are you sure you want to do this statistically unlikely and dangerious option" then they also gave up on any heroic plot immunity. Feel free to kill them then.

 

[KarinsDad]

In those cases, I ask the player very carefully if that is REALLY what they want to do. If the answer is "Yes." (as in, "I intend my PC to do this stupid thing"), I make them roll against their better mental stat, Int or Wis. If they fail, I let them go forward. If they succeed, I tell them they had a moment of hesitation in which they reconsidered...and then ask them if they'd still like to act as they said.

If that is also a "Yes.", then I let the dice roll...

You do what???

I'm seriously glad that you are not my DM. Talk about spoon feeding your players. A small hint here or there? Sure. But even the phrase "do you REALLY want to do that?" emphasizing "really" seems to be a bit overboard, but the rest of your "I must try to save the PC at all costs" style of DMing seems way over the top.

Yes, if you are trying to teach 10 year olds how to play the game, a strong level of PC protection is in order to maintain the fun, but for adults? The DM has dropped the original hint that this is an NPC to not mess with, the DM then asked the player "really?" and the player keeps going, you then give him an Int roll to ask "do you really really want to do that?"?

REALLY?

I personally don't think that the DM should ever drop more than a single hint. After that, it's the player's responsibility to roleplay his PC, not the DM's. In fact as a player, I would be a bit insulted in the DM decided to keep asking me if I really wanted to do something. Maybe I have a plan that the DM knows nothing about.

It's like what happens in our game in combat. Over and over again, the players start discussing tactics cross table. Sooner or later, I say "Ok, enough of the big tactical discussion. Let Fred make his own decisions.". Let each player make his or her own decisions for his or her own PC. The DM should stay out of that and the other players should stay out of that as well. It's not their PC. Mentioning something once in a while, fine. But discussing every PC's actions nearly every round, no (and that sometimes happens in our game, so eventually I put a halt to it).

Are you playing Monopoly, or an RPG? In an RPG, the player should decide for his PC without being coerced by other players or the DM. For all you know, there might be cases where the "stupid action" turns out in the long run to be absolutely brilliant, either tactically or for long term campaign reasons.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm talking about the kind of stupidity that is truly epic: I've only done what I described in a handful of situations in 30+ years of game mastering.

Examples: walking up to the huge ancient red dragon (alignment: CE), and challenging it to a duel for its hoard; attempting to swim across a bay in full plate armor with all of the PC's gear (the PC was of average Str & Con).

I asked each player- once- if that was what they wanted to do. "Yes."

I gave their PCs a chance to be played with the genius and Solomonic wisdom their sheets said they had- the game is about PC's abilities, not players', after all- and in both cases the dice favored the PCs having a rethink.

Yet the players reiterated their desire to act in the above mentioned ways...and you know how those stories ended.

Besides, like I said upthread, I don't really use "plot protection"- basically, die-roll results stand. The one real exception is when player stupidity makes more work for me.

 

[Infiniti2000]

What the??? If you don't allow your players to make stupid decisions or make it possible to make stupid mistakes, where is the tension in the game?

As usual in this topic, people get to the wrong conclusion to justify their rants. This has little to do with "stupid" decisions.

I had some players that had the idea to bargain with a Lich about the return of it's phylactery and at one point I felt the players got waaaay out of line (don't remember if they attacked or just talked).

You have random liches in a non-sandbox game? Was this a module or not? If you ran your game in a sandbox, I could understand your position, but then again you wouldn't be replying to my post like you did either.

 

[Blackbrrd]

As usual in this topic, people get to the wrong conclusion to justify their rants. This has little to do with "stupid" decisions.


You have random liches in a non-sandbox game? Was this a module or not? If you ran your game in a sandbox, I could understand your position, but then again you wouldn't be replying to my post like you did either.

What difference does it make if it's a sandbox or not? I allow my players to screw up in modules too.

 

[Ale]

Thanks everyone for the ideas, it helped a lot.

Well, I will try to do something to people can take a TPK, but it is not the end of the characters, but the bad result in combat will reflect on the plot

Of course, if they die, they will not become a ghost and fly near the corpse to res. I saw interesting ideas here like:

- take the last PC prisioner
- could be a dream (using the inspireds of Eberron this will be easy)
- back in time

Does anyone have other ideas?

Thanks again for the help

 

[Ranes]

Can I strongly suggest you don't go for the dream scenario? "It was only a dream," is one of the least satisfying plot devices in the history of least satisfying plot devices. Time travel isn't much better.

Capturing the last party member alive is not bad, especially as it can take an adventure along unexpected lines. Depending on their level, they could be resurrected by their enemies (for various nefarious purposes) or by a rescue party sent out by one of their guilds (even better if you've managed to talk them into buying some kind of guild-based adventurers' insurance*).

* I've yoinked that idea from a WotC dungeoneering article or book; can't remember which.