Was I unfair?

[tylermalan]

Terrible? All I can say is you might have a mismatch between your style and theirs.

I think taking bard for perform:insults is OUTSTANDING and applaud the character. IMHO.

I guess I'm using bias that you guys can't see. This sounds like a cop-out, but if you knew the player of that character, I think you might have a different opinion. For instance, his character was the self-declared jerk of the group, and didn't even play it that way - he just talked too much (not the character, the player), and NEVER used Perform, not even once. I would also have applauded it if he played it, which he didn't. Instead, he gave up utility and usefulness for garbage skill choices (under the assumption that skills not used = garbage choices no matter what they are)

 

[jdrakeh]

Man, so I'm considered to have punished them because the world didn't adapt to fit their choices, as opposed to them adapting to fit the world? Like everyone else?

Remember -- you're playing a game. Arbitrarily forcing your own vision of the campaign on the players by refusing to meet in the middle and adapting the fictional setting to better suit their vision of the campaign is exactly the kind of behavior that can be viewed as punishment. It's a passive form of killing off PCs until they fit your personal specifications of what PCs should be. Now, I'm not saying that your players see it this way, but trust me -- a lot of players do.

Incidentally, I know this to be true because I burned up a few play groups doing this very thing and had no idea how the players viewed it until they told me -- like I'm telling you As I said, YMMV, but it's something to keep in mind and ask your players about. Just ask "Hey, when I rain down death upon you because you didn't build characters optimized for combat, does that piss you off?" -- I can almost guarantee if you didn't stress to them ahead of time that combat optimized characters were recommended or required, then at least one of them will answer "yes".

 

[MerricB]

On that note, I actually didn't kill them all in the first go. The cleric/barbarian escaped, and the pally was still alive. Instead of trying to find the paladin, the cleric went to bed. The paladin went down there and got creamed, alone, because of a roleplaying choice (which I can respect). When the cleric woke up, he went in alone. End of party, not by my choice.

Huh?

Reminds me of the Ettin fight I ran once, that netted me a TPK. There are times when the party seems to want to just die.

Tylermalan, this article is also for you: How to be a Killer DM

Cheers!

 

[tylermalan]

Maybe I'm confused then about how clear I have to be with adults. Their first choices of characters were different - one of them was playing all NPC classes. I said to them "If he plays that garbage, even though there's not a LOT of combat, you will all probably die eventually". That doesn't spell it out? And I STILL don't think that I'm saying they have to be combat optimized - If they had used some smarts they would still be alive. They didn't die because their characters weren't combat optimized - they died because they made bad in-game choices.

 

[cthulhu_duck]

Lastly, I DID expect them to WANT to go in the sewer, but I personally want to skydive, though I'm not going to do it without a parachute, because I'm not stupid.

It's said that no plan survives contact with the enemy. I've found that no GM's expectation that the party won't open the doorway to hell/won't sit in the chair that will summon cthulhu/won't press the self destruct button ever survives contact with most groups of players.

 

[tylermalan]

On another note, there's a different, long thread that's going on somewhere on these boards about the "stupidest thing you've seen players do" or something like that. One of them was about a player casting a fireball on a wooden ship - presumably catching everything on fire. Is the DM of that game unfair because he didn't "alter the world" to fit with his player's play styles, making it so that wood isn't flammable or something? I wouldn't say so. That thread is full of other examples where the PCs acted stupid and got owned. DMs fault?

 

[tylermalan]

It's said that no plan survives contact with the enemy. I've found that no GM's expectation that the party won't open the doorway to hell/won't sit in the chair that will summon cthulhu/won't press the self destruct button ever survives contact with most groups of players.

Agreed, but when the big red button makes the building explode, and the PCs push it, should the DM change it so the building doesn't explode?

 

[tylermalan]

You know Merric, that was a really good article. I would say the TPK was the best for that particular group. Their new characters are amazing when compared to their old ones. Sensible (not powergamed) class and equipment choices, coordinated class choices, coordinated backstories in 2 cases...

My problem with the backstories being terrible was that they didn't care about their characters, which fueled the stupidity I'm sure. This time, I think it will be different.

 

[MerricB]

Agreed, but when the big red button makes the building explode, and the PCs push it, should the DM change it so the building doesn't explode?

Here's what makes this fair or unfair: Can the PCs discover what the Big Red Button does?

Look, I think TPKs are part of the game. I think you should relish it when they happen, as long as they weren't you mucking up as a DM. Sending 10 bodaks against a 3rd level party where they have no chance of running away or avoiding the encounter is bad DMing. Letting the PCs know that there is something deadly there *and they don't have to face it* is good DMing.

You need to present options as a DM, some good and some bad, and let the players take the path they will. Information is key - the players need to be able to distinguish between the options.

The first TPK is a learning experience for you and the players. If they continue dying, then you have a problem.

Cheers!

 

[Pielorinho]

Nah, we had fun. Its just like I said, they didn't complain, but I could tell they wanted to. It would have been light-hearted though.

If you had fun, then, what's the problem?

Daniel