TPK - Therapy session.

[Ragmon]

Disagreement does not exclude civil conversation.

Then I stand corrected.

A difference in DM and player expectations is often the source of significant game problems.

The story we've been given starts at the castle, but the story in game starts much earlier. Did the PC's immediately head off to this ice castle, or did they do some research beforehand? If the players are expecting to just be pointed towards the battle, but the DM is expecting them to research the enemy, then reconnoiter and gather intel, then this situation seems pretty likely.

The best advice so far on this thread, IMO, is a calm discussion between players and DM as to the game expectations - get the social contract out in the open so everyone has the same expectations of the game. That may mean the DM adjusting his game to be geared for combat-happy characters, the players adjusting their characters for a better balance between combat, investigation and interaction abilities, or a conclusion that the game the players want to play is not the game the DM wants to run so the DM needs new players and the players need a new DM.

Nothing beyond, some side quests where we got introduced to the mephit and its Icy Skeletons and a hunter's ghost who complained about the mephit and its master killing its pray. That and some mention of some fire cult a some days travel away (probable allies for later plot use).
On the not important note, there were groups who were headed to the town we came from (again probable allies).
Some priest of the god of murder, that we captured and took back to town.
hmm somethign like this:
- side quest, introduction to the mephit and the Icy Skeles.
- Heading out to find the source of the mephit.
- 4 days out captured and returned the aforementioned priest (random encounter, as far as I know).
- We headed out again, bumped into the ghost, he showed us the way to the castle.
- We entered the castle trough a sewer grating, killed an Ogre cook, melted the ceiling climbed up and happened onto the NPCs down a hall.
- We only found out about the castle when we got there.

Our characters didn't really have skill points to spare on cross-class skills.


To me it felt like he was leading us to the fight. But in the end he might have wanted us to just listen and leave.

New DM and new players are luxury items around here.

Yea I see what your saying and I agree, there might or might not be talks about this. The DM is a bit sensitive about criticism, if not that he blatantly ignores it out right (but that is a different matter that can't be helped).

Thnx for the feedback.

 

[Ragmon]

In response to the OP complaining that the DM "changed his gaming style", I just want to add:

Metagaming what the DM will do is a great way to get your PC killed.

Looks like you learned that lesson the hard way. Rather than blaming the DM for that, blame yourself. You shouldn't have been metagaming in that way.

Yes we did now I can go back to being called out on my cowardliness as a player. *Sigh*

And the point is that we did the opposite of meta-gaming. We played our characters as intended.
If we would have meta-gamed we would have never entered the castle and went farming enemies till we were at the level of the enemy who can have a mephit familiar....or something like that.

I've been the DM for about 50% of all my D&D gaming career. So I've seen this kind of situation from both the DM's side and the Players' side.

As a Player, I've seen:

Two PCs fighting a tough opponent who was easily taking what they gave and giving back very dangerous attacks. The NPC opponent even stepped back one time to laugh at the PCs -- he could have spent that round tearing into them some more. The PCs, instead of getting the hint and taking the opportunity to retreat -- which I directly suggested as an allied combatant fighting other enemies nearby, re-engaged the NPC in hand-to-hand battle. Those two PCs were killed by that opponent, (after which I and the other PC wisely retreated).

As a DM, I've seen:

The PCs decided to avoid a particular monster in an adventure because they estimated it was too tough for them. Then a few days later in the adventure, that monster showed up again. But this time the monster was with it's master plus other equally powerful NPCs. This time the PCs decided to take on the whole crowd head-on. They TPKed.


So, as a D&Der, I know that Players can do some really, totally, bone-headed things that lead to the death of a PC or a whole party. They can go against every clue, every hint, every bold-faced, flashing, obvious warning, and every DM expectation in order to accomplish a TPK. And nearly every time, the Players will want to blame the DM. And the DM is often left with an exasperated shrug.

Bullgrit

I see the point you are making and I agree.
In our case we the player received hints, the characters did not, but that was the DM's choice.

 

[Oryan77]

And the point is that we did the opposite of meta-gaming. We played our characters as intended.
If we would have meta-gamed we would have never entered the castle and went farming enemies till we were at the level of the enemy who can have a mephit familiar....or something like that.

By metagaming, I'm referring to the fact that you assumed that because the DM didn't throw an overpowering encounter at you in the past 4 years, that this encounter would be a fair fight. You keep blaming this TPK on the fact that you were used to the DMs style. That's what I'm referring to and that was your mistake, not his. A DM doesn't have to give the players any sort of warning as far as that kind of thing goes. Blaming him for that is nothing more than whining, sorry, but it is.

If you need that sort of hand-holding as a player, then you should have made that clear to him long ago. It's a form of metagaming when the players think, "Hmm, the DM will probably not do this or that cause he doesn't typically do it."

 

[Ragmon]

By metagaming, I'm referring to the fact that you assumed that because the DM didn't throw an overpowering encounter at you in the past 4 years, that this encounter would be a fair fight. You keep blaming this TPK on the fact that you were used to the DMs style. That's what I'm referring to and that was your mistake, not his. A DM doesn't have to give the players any sort of warning as far as that kind of thing goes. Blaming him for that is nothing more than whining, sorry, but it is.

If you need that sort of hand-holding as a player, then you should have made that clear to him long ago. It's a form of metagaming when the players think, "Hmm, the DM will probably not do this or that cause he doesn't typically do it."

Oh no, no, I don't think it was a direct thought, I think it was because in the past he did not do so, we just got used to it, got used to "tough but fair fights" (fair only cause we win, IMO). After a 187 fights of "tough but fair" you won't think a second time that 188th will be different all of the sudden.
And like I said noone is being blamed for anything (starting to think I am, even tho I don't want to). If you check the original post I don't think I blamed anyone, just wrote down what happened, for myself and no one else.
This thread was my personal therapy session, and part I wanted to see how people react to a neutral post, with no purpose beyond me writing it down. (got some interesting results)
(check the main post, I tried to write it down as neutral as possible)

On a different note, (personal opnion time) if your DM-ing for strangers then no out-of-game warning are alright, but if your DM-ing for friends and been doing so for a while, IMO a heads up would be nice.
When I DM I give the players a choice of Easy, Medium and Hard difficulty. This entail, how much hints I give them or how "nice" I play the combat. This helps set the mood, some like to just mess around have fun with his friends and some want a challenge constantly alert to whats happening writing everything down, constantly being paranoid if the mug of ale is poisoned by the local assassins guild cause he just so happened to insult a pedestrian who bumped him in the street. XD

Simply put I love consistency in DM-ing.

And yes I agree with the fact that the DM has his reasons for doing things as he does, that is why I think that we the players are not angry, just confused a bit.

 

[MarkB]

By metagaming, I'm referring to the fact that you assumed that because the DM didn't throw an overpowering encounter at you in the past 4 years, that this encounter would be a fair fight. You keep blaming this TPK on the fact that you were used to the DMs style. That's what I'm referring to and that was your mistake, not his. A DM doesn't have to give the players any sort of warning as far as that kind of thing goes. Blaming him for that is nothing more than whining, sorry, but it is.

If you need that sort of hand-holding as a player, then you should have made that clear to him long ago. It's a form of metagaming when the players think, "Hmm, the DM will probably not do this or that cause he doesn't typically do it."

It's a form of natural human behaviour for people to accept the long-established status quo as normal, and to be caught by surprise when it suddenly changes.

And if one person is responsible for that sudden change, then yes he does bear some responsibility for the results of that change.

 

[Ragmon]

It's a form of natural human behaviour for people to accept the long-established status quo as normal, and to be caught by surprise when it suddenly changes.

And if one person is responsible for that sudden change, then yes he does bear some responsibility for the results of that change.

Masterfully said.

 

[Oryan77]

if your DM-ing for strangers then no out-of-game warning are alright, but if your DM-ing for friends and been doing so for a while, IMO a heads up would be nice.

When a person DMs, they can't possibly think of every situation and cater to the players exactly the way they expect to be catered to. My point is, it's very likely that it never even crossed your DMs mind that this 188th encounter is different all of a sudden and that he needs to warn you guys in any other way besides in-game clues. When things don't go a players way, their first reaction is always to blame the DM and complain that the DM should have done this or that. Players put this kind of expectation on DMs way too often.

I'll bet money on it that if you had overcome that encounter (by fleeing, surrendering & escaping, or getting lucky & killing them), you never would have even thought that the DM needed to warn you about his "style changing". You would have chalked it up as being the same as all of the other tough encounters.

And yes I agree with the fact that the DM has his reasons for doing things as he does, that is why I think that we the players are not angry, just confused a bit.

I know you keep saying you are being neutral, or that yer not upset/angry, but man, all you have done is blame the DM and come up with excuses for why it isn't your groups fault. Maybe you don't realize that is what you're doing? Whenever someone has put the blame on you guys (and I blame you guys), you have a reason why it isn't your fault. But when someone has criticized the DM, you are in complete agreement. You have stated multiple times that the DM should have warned you (which he did but you won't acknowledge that). So you're blaming him by saying he should have handled it a better way. Then in your next post, you say you don't blame the DM. The only time you have blamed the players is by saying, "We stayed in character and didn't metagame." Which is not really a negative thing now is it?

Anyway, in all the years I've posted on gaming forums, I don't think I have once ever seen a player or a DM admit fault when they are called out on it by fellow posters who side with the other person. I know nobody likes to be criticized, it's human nature. But geez this sort of thing gets old.

 

[Ragmon]

When a person DMs, they can't possibly think of every situation and cater to the players exactly the way they expect to be catered to. My point is, it's very likely that it never even crossed your DMs mind that this 188th encounter is different all of a sudden and that he needs to warn you guys in any other way besides in-game clues. When things don't go a players way, their first reaction is always to blame the DM and complain that the DM should have done this or that. Players put this kind of expectation on DMs way too often.

I'll bet money on it that if you had overcome that encounter (by fleeing, surrendering & escaping, or getting lucky & killing them), you never would have even thought that the DM needed to warn you about his "style changing". You would have chalked it up as being the same as all of the other tough encounters.

I know you keep saying you are being neutral, or that yer not upset/angry, but man, all you have done is blame the DM and come up with excuses for why it isn't your groups fault. Maybe you don't realize that is what you're doing? Whenever someone has put the blame on you guys (and I blame you guys), you have a reason why it isn't your fault. But when someone has criticized the DM, you are in complete agreement. You have stated multiple times that the DM should have warned you (which he did but you won't acknowledge that). So you're blaming him by saying he should have handled it a better way. Then in your next post, you say you don't blame the DM. The only time you have blamed the players is by saying, "We stayed in character and didn't metagame." Which is not really a negative thing now is it?

Anyway, in all the years I've posted on gaming forums, I don't think I have once ever seen a player or a DM admit fault when they are called out on it by fellow posters who side with the other person. I know nobody likes to be criticized, it's human nature. But geez this sort of thing gets old.

Eh, let me try to clear up some misconceptions.

- The DM is not wrong, no one is blaming him of being unfair, he is the DM he does what he wants (except if he is using the rules by memory and is wrong, we can correct him(that is our agreement)).
- No one is saying the player were right or wrong, they just did what they thought there characters would do.
- Now that I say that a "I feel like that a warning would have been nice" that is my own subjective opinion (Like: Chocolate tastes good). I am not saying the the players are entitled to a heads-up, just stating my opinion on the situation.

There is no right or wrong in the main post, there is a situation a story as it were, and I just so happened to add my personal opinion at the end. I did not ask for help on solving this situation, I did not ask for opinion. The interesting part is not the main post, but how everyone reacted, trying to solve a none existent problem, trying to help when it was not asked for.
And what I realize as I write these lines is how helpful people on ENworld try to be, want to be and it is remarkable how ready they are to help out anyone who posts here.

 

[Dwimmerlied]

Ragmon, you have have clearly already made up your mind. You came here not for advice, but for grousing. The person you need to bring this up with is your DM. You are clearly unable to get over the fact that you played the encounter badly, so you need to ask your DM to handhold more and to never throw anything threatening at your party. Just about everybody here is telling you that your DM acted appropriately. When the whole world is wrong, it may be time to look inward.

that reads like you are hijacking the whole thread for your own interpretation, which only works if you ignore the posts that disagree with your opinion.

 

[N'raac]

That sounds like a DM who wasn't giving enough hints. If it was a high-hp creature who was brought down to 10HP, then descriptions should have been long the lines of, "As you watch from your hiding place, you see him limping back to his lair, holding a bleeding stump where one of his hands used to be. He repeatedly watches over his shoulder as if afraid somebody might be watching. At a bend in the path, he stumbles and almost falls, but stops to catch his breath before continuing on. He's covered in sweat, and seems to barely be holding back tears of pain."

Hearing it like that, you'd most likely have stepped out and run him through rather than wasting time planning.

Is that how the PC's would appear when down to 10hp? Right down to that bleeding stump?

There's also an NPC aspect to this - if the Big Bad is down to 10 hp, and the opposition is running around for positioning, does "escape or surrender" occur to the opponent? If not, why not? The only adversaries I can think of of would typically keep fighting when reduced that close to death would be some form of automaton - a living statue or animated skeleton, for example, and none of those descriptions fit such an opponent.

Nothing beyond, some side quests where we got introduced to the mephit and its Icy Skeletons and a hunter's ghost who complained about the mephit and its master killing its pray. That and some mention of some fire cult a some days travel away (probable allies for later plot use).
On the not important note, there were groups who were headed to the town we came from (again probable allies).
Some priest of the god of murder, that we captured and took back to town.
hmm somethign like this:
- side quest, introduction to the mephit and the Icy Skeles.
- Heading out to find the source of the mephit.
- 4 days out captured and returned the aforementioned priest (random encounter, as far as I know).
- We headed out again, bumped into the ghost, he showed us the way to the castle.
- We entered the castle trough a sewer grating, killed an Ogre cook, melted the ceiling climbed up and happened onto the NPCs down a hall.
- We only found out about the castle when we got there.

Our characters didn't really have skill points to spare on cross-class skills.

Emphasis added - your decision to universally dump INT, interaction and research was YOUR decision. Now, as a GM who expects players to do some homework, I'd be inclined to point out that the group seems to have a great, gaping hole in its capabilities that suggest they will struggle, at best, with much of the tasks the campaign will expect them to accomplish. But regardless of skill points, I suspect that PC's can actually converse with the locals and read a book.

That said, perhaps you should ask the GM what his expectations were for the scenario he set - and consider a PC group that is not so light on non-combat skills as to be incapable of achieving those expectations. Thisa assumes, of course, that he was expecting more interaction and research, or perhaps more reconnoitering rather than a head-on attack on anything that happens to be encountered.

Again, expectations of the GM which don't seem to match expectations of the players.

To me it felt like he was leading us to the fight. But in the end he might have wanted us to just listen and leave.

New DM and new players are luxury items around here.

Yea I see what your saying and I agree, there might or might not be talks about this. The DM is a bit sensitive about criticism, if not that he blatantly ignores it out right (but that is a different matter that can't be helped).

I think it's important to approach this in a non-confrontational, non-critical manner. That may start with something like "It seems like we blew it somewhere along the line, resulting in us getting into a no-win combat. What did we miss that you had expected us to consider?" That is, not "GM, you should have done this differently!" but "Where did we, the players, drop the ball?" I doubt the DM wants to throw out all his prep work, so he should also be looking for a solution, not a blame game.


You were, it seems, expecting a fairly obvious trail of bread crumbs between tough, but winnable, combat encounters. That's not what the GM provided. So how do we close the gap between the player expectations and the GM expectations? To me, the first step is putting those expectations on the table, in clear terms, and it seems like you don't understand what he was expecting you to do, so the simple starting point, to me at least, would be to ask.