You win some, you lose some

[Holy Bovine]

My players suffered their first total loss tonight and they're mad at me. Very mad. Which raises the question of how people deal with sore losers?

I opted not to kill them. Next week they'll be waking up in prison and by then I'll have reworked this dungeon into an 'escape from prison' scenario, which I think was kind of me considering they were beaten by an enemy who was ordered to assassinate them and by all means they should have been TPK'd.

I digress though, what does one do to help soften the blow of telling the players "sometimes you lose"? Especially when they're not accustomed to loss.

Tell it is time to put on their big boy pants and deal with it. You're not their mother or their enemy - you're an impartial judge who runs the game. Unless you went out of your way to break rules to kill them off and/or lied or left out critical information that the PCs would have had that led to the TPK you have nothing to apologize or feel bad about.

 

[the Jester]

My players suffered their first total loss tonight and they're mad at me. Very mad. Which raises the question of how people deal with sore losers?

I opted not to kill them. Next week they'll be waking up in prison and by then I'll have reworked this dungeon into an 'escape from prison' scenario, which I think was kind of me considering they were beaten by an enemy who was ordered to assassinate them and by all means they should have been TPK'd.

I digress though, what does one do to help soften the blow of telling the players "sometimes you lose"? Especially when they're not accustomed to loss.

Oh dear.

First off, personally I would TPK in a situation that calls for it- even if it's as simple as a random encounter with a gelatinous cube. I'm not one for going soft on the pcs. As assassin gets 'em all? So be it.

Then I would have them start new characters. Perhaps follow up on a thread from the old group, whether the main one or otherwise. Perhaps something else.

But then, my players know from the beginning that I run a pretty hardcore, high-lethality game: I make sure to tell new players that before they get started. To me, people who can't handle losing a character (or failing a quest, or not finding the secret treasure, or...) are often more trouble than they're worth, but that doesn't help you.

Your best bet is to sit down and discuss the game style you run with the players, as well as their expectations. Do they match? If there's a conflict in playstyle preference, someone has to compromise (or find a new group). But this is a player issue, not an in-game issue; to solve it, you're going to need to deal with and talk to the players, not simply wave your hand and so, "OK, you're not all dead, you're captured (by the guy who was hired to kill, not capture, you)".

 

[Asmor]

The biggest problem here is that you broke verisimilitude and had the assassin capture them instead of killing them.

I think you should try to come up with some explanation for that, e.g. the assassin is working for someone else who offered to pay more for the PCs to be delivered to him alive.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

The biggest problem here is that you broke verisimilitude and had the assassin capture them instead of killing them.

I think you should try to come up with some explanation for that, e.g. the assassin is working for someone else who offered to pay more for the PCs to be delivered to him alive.

They're not actually aware that the assassin was hired only to kill, as this was the first time they met her. The assassin herself actually commented just before things faded to black on the fighter that she didn't expect to be able to take them alive when she was hired, and that her employer would be pleased.

The adventure as-written may say that she was hired only to kill, but the players don't know that.

 

[GSHamster]

Four 6th level PCs faced five 4th level NPC monks while the leader of the monks (7th level) looked on invisibly. They won against the regular monks, staying up but all were low-ish on HP. The leader then revealed herself suggesting that they surrender and pointing out that they were injured and she was significantly more skilled than the ones who'd injured them. They immediately attacked her and got beaten unconscious for it. Retreat was never considered, though they could have managed it easily enough.

I would wager that your players are more upset about your use of invisibility than the actual TPK.

Look at it from their perspective. They're engaged in a fight with some enemies who they defeat. As soon as they win the battle, a more powerful foe instantly, magically appears and defeats them. *You* know that the monk leader was always there, but they don't. As far as they can tell, you pulled her out of your ass in an attempt to railroad the plot.

For the DM, invisibility works best when it is "telegraphed". When the players know that an invisible person exists, but don't know where exactly she is.

For example, in your situation, the leader monk should have been visible with the regular monks when the PCs encountered them. She should have spent the first round of combat going invisible. That way the players always know that the leader is out there, and her reveal does not come out of left field.

Otherwise, while an invisible enemy may make perfect plot sense, it looks "arbitrary" for the players. The world in the DM's head is far more detailed than the info the PCs have. The world has to be reasonably predictable for the PCs, at least in hindsight, in order for them to make good and fair decisions. Things like invisible monks randomly appearing out of nowhere cuts against that predictability, and can makes the world seem less "fair" to the PCs.

 

[kitsune9]

I let the dice fall where they may in my Carrion Crown campaign. If they die, they can spend their fate point or make up a new character.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

[MENTION=20187]GSHamster[/MENTION]: As-written, the module has her in an entirely different room when the PCs enter the area where they fight the monks. If the combat goes on long enough and the noise they make is loud enough she notices that it doesn't sound like sparring, and drinks a potion of invisibility, then goes over to see what's happening. She lets her students attempt to win and then interferes if they go down.

Had I moved her into the main room and made her go invisible when the PCs arrived it would have made the combat too difficult. They would have knocked out her invisibility and targeted her right away (these players always go for the ones who have special powers or appear to be in charge, even if those ones aren't attacking right away), bringing her into combat right from the start (The "you know there's an invisible person, but you don't know exactly where" trick doesn't work against players with see invisibility and glitterdust). They had difficulty against her students, so I doubt they could manage against her and them at the same time.

Had I just kept her in the other room and not had her respond to the noise the dungeon would start falling into the format of monsters sitting in their rooms and waiting for PCs to come kill them, which I don't do.

...And there was an open door right behind them that they could have run through. They didn't consider it.

 

[GSHamster]

As-written, the module has her in an entirely different room when the PCs enter the area where they fight the monks. If the combat goes on long enough and the noise they make is loud enough she notices that it doesn't sound like sparring, and drinks a potion of invisibility, then goes over to see what's happening. She lets her students attempt to win and then interferes if they go down.

The point is that there is a very large gap between the DM's perception of the situation, and player's perception of that same situation.

You, as the DM, know all about the monk leader's existence, the separate room, and the too loud noise, the potion of invisibility. The players know none of this. All they see is the monk leader pop into existence. It's very jarring for them. I daresay that if the monk leader had come rushing through the door (not invisible) as the fight ended, they would have been much more okay with it, even if it's more or less the same situation.

Now, I'm not faulting you for following the module. I'm just saying that invisibility can be one of those tricky spots when DM'ing, because of the players' lack of information. I personally would not have written the module like that.

I don't know, though. I'm just speculating on what made your group unhappy. I'd talk to them, and ask them if the invisibility was an issue. Maybe show them the module where it says that this is what the monk leader does.

Also, for not retreating, here's a question for you: How do the players know that there are not more invisible monks behind them who will attack if they run?

 

[wingsandsword]

They're not actually aware that the assassin was hired only to kill, as this was the first time they met her. The assassin herself actually commented just before things faded to black on the fighter that she didn't expect to be able to take them alive when she was hired, and that her employer would be pleased.

The adventure as-written may say that she was hired only to kill, but the players don't know that.

If I was a player in that game, with the information as-given, I'd be upset too.

Then again, most gaming groups I've played with have as an unwritten rule "NEVER surrender". Seriously, prisoner scenarios are bad. Most DM's I've played under don't run them (or if they do, they only do it as a campaign/mod starter of "you all are captured and thrown into a jail cell together"). Sending an invisible monk, that apparently has been hired to kill them but there is no way the PCs can know about this by this point, in to attack them right after they finish an encounter with other monks?

Also, most DM's I have played with tend not to run very "killer" games, it's more about having fun playing the same character from low to high level, with combat being challenging but not so brutal that a TPK ever happens and deaths being uncommon and big events.

I know of one DM whose games tend to be a revolving door of characters due to deaths where a campaign or two have crashed due to TPK, but I don't play in his games anymore.

 

[Rune]

Also, regarding this particular question:

I digress though, what does one do to help soften the blow of telling the players "sometimes you lose"? Especially when they're not accustomed to loss.

Have them read this.