D&D General TPK or Imprison

[Vaalingrade]

Why wouldn't they come in and wipe the PCs out?

Because they don't actually know they're there and logic would dictate they wouldn't be.

 

[billd91]

Because they don't actually know they're there and logic would dictate they wouldn't be.

Well, they wouldn't necessarily know they are right there. But they would know they're in the vicinity, not in their best shape, and potentially vulnerable to a counter attack. That's worth a group going to investigate if nothing else.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Some people claim to be able to compartmentalize to such a degree that they can make choices without influence by the metagame information the GM has at this point. But the GM knows, at this point, if they are signing the PC's death warrants. The players will know the GM knows, as well.

...I'm not seeing the problem.

So, while you can hold up, "I was just a neutral arbiter" as a shield, if the GM goes for the TPK here, everyone at the table will know the GM knowingly chose that path.

Again, don't see the problem. Well, unless the GM is in the habit of coddling the Players so they don't loose and get their feelings hurt or ego bruised. The DM isn't being a "jerk" by doing what a DM should do...be a neutral arbiter, as you put it. The only time I see this happen (or, rather, read/hear about it) is when the Players are expecting to win all the time or "usually, if it's not an important 'thing' in the game" (re: not if it's a random encounter, or a fight they picked with an obviously...or supposedly...weaker foe, etc).

"But that's what my character would do!" is not an excuse for a player being a jerk at the table. Nor is it an excuse for the GM.

"But that's what my character would do!" IS a valid excuse for the player... "being a jerk", as you put it. It's just that I don't think a Player is being a jerk if he has his PC do something that messes up another Players Character... IF IT MAKES SENSE AND EVERYONE AGREES! Meaning, if the PC is known for absolutely destroying any thief/brigand due to an intense hatred of thievery...and another PC "accidently" steals from the party...well...sorry to Mr.Lightfingers there, but them's the breaks. But, if the Player suddenly just decides "I kill him. I don't like thieves", and, up until that point, that PC has never hinted at any particular hatred of thieves...that's when we have a problem. Everyone at the table will know that the Player is being a jerk for attacking another PC for "stealing a 50gp gem from the party" for who knows what reason.

Same sort of logic for the DM. If the DM is known for not running a world that has "consequences", but suddenly decides "Yeah, you killed two guards...even though they attacked you first. Everyone now has a bounty on their heads and assassins and adventurers are going to come after you...", when the group has killed dozens of guards over the campaign from various other towns/cities with no real consequences...that's a problem. The DM is being a 'jerk'.

But, a DM who is consistent, fair and actually is ALWAYS a "neutral arbiter"? Not being a jerk when he knows a TPK is coming...and so do the Players. Sometimes you get the owlbear...sometimes the owlbear gets you.

Now, that said, if the group are all friends, there is nothing wrong with the DM feeling bad and saying "Dudes, you're all going to die. Because [insert behind-the-scenes info]. Do you want to play it out as is and just see if MAYBE you can live? Or do you want to just get captured or something and we can do that?". There is nothing in the rules that says "being fair" as a DM means never talking to your players about what's going on, what's almost guaranteed to happen, and getting their input. I have done this on very rare occasions myself. But my players know me, my DM'ing style, and their own preferences. They usually opt for the "Lets just roll dice and game it out...see how many we can take with them!", because they KNOW that I wasn't "being a jerk" or that I was "out to get them" or "being unfair"*. Only a handful of times have they said "Yeah...lets have a do-over" or "Yeah...how about captured? I don't want to stop playing this PC and story. I want to see how it turns out".

EDIT: To clarify, they think this even if I *didn't say "Dudes, ....". If I just played it and they TPK'ed, they don't think I'm being a jerk, because they know I could have cheezed it and had the completely evil bad guys 'capture them'...but I've done that once before. Man...did they feel cheated! They were annoyed that I "kept them alive"...they knew they all should have died, but I had them get KO'ed in stead. They felt cheated for sure. Absolutely cheated. So I've never done that again! Just a bit more "FYI" there.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Shiroiken]

I was going to vote "you're history's worst DM" until I realized the vote meant you, not me.

It really depends on the situation. I've had intelligent bad guys take prisoners, usually with the intention of sacrifice or interrogation (torture), then setting up an escape opportunity. Low/non-intelligent enemies won't take prisoners though, especially ones they consider food. I lean towards imprisonment, but won't ruin the moment by breaking verisimilitude.

 

[Reynard]

Hiya!


Serious question: Why are you deciding this?

Honestly, that's not your job. That's up to the Players. You simply present the world, play the inhabitants as you think they would "naturally behave", and let the Players do their own thing.

Live? Imprisoned? Dead? That's not up to you. You're just the DM.

(and it should be obvious how I would handle it; let the chips fall where they may...)

^_^

Paul L. Ming

While I understand the philosophy inherent in your question, and generally agree with it in theory, in practice that is not what GMs do by and large. We present situations, locations, personalities and so on, and let the PCs loose on them. But it is hardly a hands off action. We created all that stuff in the first place. Also, there is no "naturally behave." All that is is the GM making decisions and justifying those decisions. The reality is still the GM choosing to do things, using their own preferences, the players' actions and the dice to inform those decisions. It is a good practice but I don't think we should fool ourselves into believing there was ever some natural or right decision waiting to be discovered like a sculpture in a block of marble.

My original question -- TPK or imprison -- is really one about approach. There is no rule or requirement that either would be the "right" answer for the question "what would the duergar do next?" That question, and the idea that there even is a "right" answer for it, is just cover for the real question: what do I, as GM, think would be the most fun for this group of players, given the tangled mass of everything that has happened up to this decision point. It is the same question we ask ourselves, as GMs, every moment in the game.

Or, at least, I ask myself. I suppose it is possible there are real world GMs that always only care about verisimilitude, but I doubt it. If a GM doesn't recognize that there are other people across the table from them, I don't think they would be very fun to play under.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If it was me... I'd just do the "three waves of enemies" method. Send the duergar "scouting party" through the circle first... the weaker-but-sneakier group of duergar that were expecting to arrive and then scout the area for the party without being seen... only to discover the PCs are right there at the circle. Have this even happen before the group has fully bedded down, so the party is still in armor and such. This fight should be quick and easier for the group because these weren't the big guns.

Should most of the PCs survive this encounter, they can identify this group as merely scouts they've killed, and at that point can make another choice whether or not to still stay and sleep here (now having more concrete info that if the scout party does not return to the BBEG, the BBEG knows there's a real problem and will send an even greater force shortly) or that they should take the barbarian's advice finally and leave the area. At that point, if they sleep here at the circle anyway, then the larger military force arrives as they are out of armor and resting-- and kicks the crap out of the party and probably TPKs them. Too bad, so sad, you had two chances to make a better decision.

But if the group does leave the area to take a long rest... the military force arrives, sees their scouting party dead, knows something is up, and successfully reclaims the outpost and sets it up expecting an assault. When the fully-rested party comes back, the outpost is now fully armed and on high alert ready for them. Then if the PCs succeed in taking out the military force at the outpost as well, they then can make the decision to use the circle to go to the BBEG's lair and take BBEG on as the conclusion. And at that point, whatever happens, happens.

That's what I'd do.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

While I understand the philosophy inherent in your question, and generally agree with it in theory, in practice that is not what GMs do by and large. We present situations, locations, personalities and so on, and let the PCs loose on them. But it is hardly a hands off action. We created all that stuff in the first place. Also, there is no "naturally behave." All that is is the GM making decisions and justifying those decisions. The reality is still the GM choosing to do things, using their own preferences, the players' actions and the dice to inform those decisions. It is a good practice but I don't think we should fool ourselves into believing there was ever some natural or right decision waiting to be discovered like a sculpture in a block of marble.

I think we are just misunderstanding each other a bit.
I don't see anything a DM does as being "hands on action"...at least not past the point of him needing to actually, well, do DM stuff. What you said had me think of someone asking a painter, "Paint me a picture of something beautiful. But don't want a painting". You can't "do painter stuff" without touching a brush and paint. When you do start painting a flock of butterflies over a flower field, people can't claim "You did that on purpose! That's not your job...you were supposed to just 'do it without affecting it'". Makes no sense.

So when I draw two levels of a ruined Keep, then start doing all my DM stuff of thinking who built it, why, when, how did it become ruined, what lives there now, etc...I don't see that as the DM being "hands on". When I hear of OTHER DM's that have the preferred method of "Building to the PC's"...well, now we have distinctly "hands on" action. The DM is specifically placing two ogres in that room, and not five cultists because the DM knows the PC's are strong on martial, weak on spells, and there's only 3 of them.

Same idea with regards to how to "run a monster/npc in a natural manner" (as pertains to the game milieu as a whole). It would be "hands on" for a DM to play the cultists as just as stupid as the ogres, because in the game, they shouldn't be (all things considered). Now, a DM that plays the ogres as dumb brutes who love violence and suffering, or the cultists as fanatical zealots who work together...that DM isn't, imnsho, being "hands on". He is, in fact, not "justifying decisions"; he, the DM, didn't, at that very moment, decide to make ogres stupid brutes. They just are (assuming 'normal by the book' ogres, obviously).

My original question -- TPK or imprison -- is really one about approach. There is no rule or requirement that either would be the "right" answer for the question "what would the duergar do next?" That question, and the idea that there even is a "right" answer for it, is just cover for the real question: what do I, as GM, think would be the most fun for this group of players, given the tangled mass of everything that has happened up to this decision point. It is the same question we ask ourselves, as GMs, every moment in the game.

Or, at least, I ask myself. I suppose it is possible there are real world GMs that always only care about verisimilitude, but I doubt it. If a GM doesn't recognize that there are other people across the table from them, I don't think they would be very fun to play under.

I get that. My point was that you, as a DM, from MY perspective and experience, should put more emphasis on "what would be the most logical for the campaign world and situation", and less on "what would be the most fun for this group of players". But this is definitely going to be a "Group Style" thing, for sure! As I said, with my group, if the situation looks like it's going to be a TPK, and then it isn't, because the orcs who were rampaging the countryside suddenly have "knock out gas and shackles", and the PC's all wake up chained together to a post in a big cave...well...lets just say I'd get a lot of the Stink Eye Cantrip!

You know your players best; if you think they'd be more happy if you let them live, then go ahead and do that. The drawback to that is what I've said in other threads; once you start down that dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny! Meaning the Players will start to expect you won't kill them if there is some kind of 'out' you can take....and then, when you DO refuse to give them that out and they all TPK (or even just one or two die in a single battle), then they WILL blame you...because at that point, you most definitely chose to 'kill them'. It's obvious at that point. Save, save, save, save, save, TPK! Save, save, save, save, TPK! Etc. ...versus... TPK, TPK, semi-TPK, Save, semi-TPK, Save, Save, TPK, etc. If the Players know you WON'T save them, they appreciate it more...and they can't "blame you" for their deaths. If the Players know you WILL save them, they expect it...and then if you EVER 'let them die', they will "blame you" for their deaths.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Vaalingrade]

I get that. My point was that you, as a DM, from MY perspective and experience, should put more emphasis on "what would be the most logical for the campaign world and situation", and less on "what would be the most fun for this group of players". But this is definitely going to be a "Group Style" thing, for sure!

I am deeply confused here.

If it's a group style thing, wouldn't even choosing the 'logical for the world' approach from that angle be 'doing what's most fun for the group'?

 

[jayoungr]

I voted for imprison because that's what I'd do in a similar situation. I like the comment above about giving them one more chance to fix it.

 

[Reynard]

If it was me... I'd just do the "three waves of enemies" method. Send the duergar "scouting party" through the circle first... the weaker-but-sneakier group of duergar that were expecting to arrive and then scout the area for the party without being seen... only to discover the PCs are right there at the circle. Have this even happen before the group has fully bedded down, so the party is still in armor and such. This fight should be quick and easier for the group because these weren't the big guns.

Should most of the PCs survive this encounter, they can identify this group as merely scouts they've killed, and at that point can make another choice whether or not to still stay and sleep here (now having more concrete info that if the scout party does not return to the BBEG, the BBEG knows there's a real problem and will send an even greater force shortly) or that they should take the barbarian's advice finally and leave the area. At that point, if they sleep here at the circle anyway, then the larger military force arrives as they are out of armor and resting-- and kicks the crap out of the party and probably TPKs them. Too bad, so sad, you had two chances to make a better decision.

But if the group does leave the area to take a long rest... the military force arrives, sees their scouting party dead, knows something is up, and successfully reclaims the outpost and sets it up expecting an assault. When the fully-rested party comes back, the outpost is now fully armed and on high alert ready for them. Then if the PCs succeed in taking out the military force at the outpost as well, they then can make the decision to use the circle to go to the BBEG's lair and take BBEG on as the conclusion. And at that point, whatever happens, happens.

That's what I'd do.

Yeah, I think this is probably the best choice for myself. I will have a scouting party come through to give the barbarian the opportunity to gloat, then let the PCs decide whether they want to stand and fight, retreat or even plunge headlong into the BBEG lair. They are down on long rest resources but they have enough hit points that most of them should be able to survive an initial wave/scouting party, giving them a real meaningful choice. And, if things go sideways, it's TPK time...