D&D 5E What attitude should Next encourage DMs to have to TPKs?

[Grazzt]

I would go with indifferent.

Sometimes the dice conspire to kill a party, but most of the time the party should have realized they were overmatched and tried something else. Also, adventuring is dangerous, it should not be a 100% success endeavor.

But if the group likes it that way, go for it.

Yep. Agree with this. More times than not when I've been on the DM side or the player side of a TPK, it's usually the players' fault. Rarely (as DM) have I seen the dice be the reason for it (and I'll usually fudge it if it wouldnt work well for the story or whatever; most of the time I just let it go...that works for the story too).

 

[Someone]

Spiritual/Hippie: "Your characters are now in a better place, and their corpses merged with the natural order (unless they are now undead). The wheel of life in in motion! Rejoice!"

Although now that i think on it, that pretty much counts as gloating.

 

[delericho]

Indifferent from me, too.

Unless I've screwed up in the encounter design, of course.

 

[Tallifer]

The key word in the question is unexpected. When a dungeon master assumes that his hints are transparent, that his threat is appropriate, that his players are able to figure out the monster's one bizarre weakness; sometimes his assumptions are not reasonable. In that case he should show some good nature and humility and admit that he made a mistake.

Oftentimes players just do obviously dumb things. The chiefest being cock-sure aggression and rudeness toward non-player characters. But not always, and a dungeon master should learn from his mistakes, not gloat or blame the players.

 

[cildarith]

Indifferent.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

neither. Disappointed would be the most appropriate. Except when you have cought the PC´s in a situation where no escape/surrender is possible and it was not their fault.

Gloating... never.

 

[Libramarian]

I promote Option 4...

"DM's Sidebar: What to do if you (accidentally) have a TPK?

"If all the party members go down in a fight, remember that this does not necessarily have to be the end of the campaign. Did your players enjoy the way things played out? Are they talking about the epic way they lost? Then maybe it's time to let their characters stay dead and start a new campaign.

"But if your players really like these characters, and want another shot, there are options. Remember that characters who are reduced to 0 hp are unconscious and helpless, not dead. Now, their opponents might just finish them off, but they might not. Intelligent foes might take the PCs captive. Unintelligent opponents might leave them on the battlefield to be picked up by passersby later. The key is to talk to your players. If most of them want to continue with their PCs, but one wants to let his character die as a result of the battle, let him create a new character."

"Remember that the point of the game is to have fun. If you and your players can use a seeming TPK to create a great story together, don't let anyone tell you it's a bad idea. From events like this, great D&D campaigns can evolve."

I don't think this sidebar is fairly representative of all D&D styles.

It gives the DM a lot of handwavy power over what to do when the players get killed. It puts it under DM fiat whether the players get killed for real or just knocked out and captured.

That actually changes the post-TPK social dynamic significantly. Now the players, if they get TPKed, know that if it's a "real" TPK and not just a knock out and capture, it's because the DM decided it to be so.

That pretty much means that a "real" TPK is always going to come across as adversarial.

Compare that sidebar with this one.

"DM's Sidebar: What to do if you (accidentally) have a TPK?

Do not allow sympathy for the players to cause you to avert the consequences of the rules. The players must create new characters. If they have made provisions for a will their new characters will be entitled to an inheritance, but otherwise they must start fresh. Treating the rules here as inviolable allows you the necessary detachment to be a fair referee."

That's more like something that would be in the 1e DMG.

Do we need a meta-sidebar discussing these two sidebars?

 

[El Mahdi]

NONE OF THE ABOVE.

I'd just go with matter of fact, and let both the DM and Gamers take it as a personal learning experience.

 

[Kynn]

I think the "gloating" point of view should be highly discouraged, apart from exceptions such as Lair Assault.

 

[TimA]

Theres nothing wrong with a little gloating as long as the encounter was fair and the PC's died because of bad tactics.

I usually have my big end of adventure challenges be a group of enemies of equal power to the PC's mathematically. I dont super optimize the bad guys and rarely use more then one PrC. So if my villains happen to win a fair fight and splat the PC's i dont see the problem with a little gloating. They surely gloat at me when they stomp one of my carefully crafted encounters.

I think it would be a good thing if they told new GM's to be impartial and just enforce the rules. If the heroes lose then they lost. Give a closing speech about the consequences of their failure to the world if there is any and let them roll up new characters. If they are really upset about dying encourage them to make characters in the same area and go get payback on the baddies that did it.