You win some, you lose some

[SnowleopardVK]

...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.

...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?

Fair enough. That could have worked I suppose.

As for your final question, they don't know that. They know for sure that there's an enemy in front of them though. Were I a player in that situation I'd have taken the risk that the way out was clear rather than try to fight at low power against what appeared to be a "boss" enemy.

 

[Elf Witch]

To be honest if I was a player I would be kind of angry over this situation too. Even though it is not it sounds like a DM pulling something out his butt because the PCs won.

You need to talk to your players let them know about how the module works.

You also need to talk them about how they feel about TPKs some players hate them and would rather not play in a game where they happen.

Personally the attitude that they need to put their big boy pants on and grow up is very insulting. RPGs are not a board game. You put a lot of work into your character and the game world. A TPK can totally erase everything your group has accomplished. Which is why some players don't like them. It has nothing to do with being a sore loser or being a baby.


I think it is important that DMs be aware of their players feel about this.

I think that after a TPK if the players are really upset over it the DM needs to discuss what to do. Maybe being prisoners is one way of handling it maybe having a god intercede on their behalf and expect something in return is another way.

Maybe they will be okay making new characters but you need to discuss what level some players can deal with the TPK but hate the idea of starting at first level again.

What I have seen usually happen in my groups after a TPK they want an entirely new game. The TPK takes the bloom off the game so to speak.

I think the worse thing a DM can do if his players are upset is to take a hard line approach of suck it up. The game is supposed to be fun. Talking it out always makes for a better game in the long run. This gives you a chance to talk about just how deadly they want a game to be.

Sure you can take the advice of the people saying tell them to get over it and you might yourself with no players or players who don't trust you. And that often leads to players who become afraid to take chances or play so cautiously that it really bogs the game down.

 

[Elf Witch]

Fair enough. That could have worked I suppose.

As for your final question, they don't know that. They know for sure that there's an enemy in front of them though. Were I a player in that situation I'd have taken the risk that the way out was clear rather than try to fight at low power against what appeared to be a "boss" enemy.

I don't know if my players would have run because after fighting monks they would kind of guess that the boss monk would be able to come after them and pick off the slowest members.

What makes them think that the boss monk would just let them run?

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=6677945]SnowleopardVK[/MENTION]

I agree with [MENTION=20187]GSHamster[/MENTION] and [MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION] . The issue is your group's social contract. However you resolve the TPK/capture in game is secondary to clearing the air with the group and figuring out what about the TPK was the problem.

Was it that the monk leader appeared to teleport in out of nowhere?

Was it that several players in your group had a bad experience of a past DM railroading them with overwhelming force?

Was it that you had such an engrossing session and your villains were so well developed that the players were really immersed? And the moment of indignation will pass?

Was it that there was the possibility of a TPK at all in an "unbalanced" encounter?

Was it something else entirely from earlier in the adventure where they felt there should have been more forewarning?

Was it just the tip of the iceberg of your group's frustration with a mediocre module?


I don't know, but those are the sorts of questions I'd ask myself and the group if I were in your shoes. Good luck

 

[korjik]

I have to concur also.

SnowleopardVK, you say they are sore losers and they need to suck it up. What is their opinion if what happened? Do you know it?

If it does turn out that they think that you jumped another Monk in just cause they won the first fight, then the problem is on you, not them. Even if they are wrong about it, the perception is what runs the game and ruins the game when the players perceptions and the DMs perceptions are divergent.

You need to know what they are bothered by, not just tell them to suck it up.

 

[malcolypse]

SnowleopardVK

Babies need to be spoon fed. Your players being upset is rough, but it's not your fault. If you have to treat them with kid gloves, then they're in need of some growing up.

From what you've said, things behind the screen were absolutely kosher.

Player entitlement is not cool. If they want to tell a story with you, then they have to trust you. If they won't trust you, then your hands are tied to an expectation that you cannot possibly have any plot that is not entirely revealed to the players, which will cripple the games verisimilitude. If they want to see everything piece in play,a board game is probably what they're looking for.

Sit them down and explain that the game centers on them, but the world it's set in doesn't necessarily conform to their expectations. They should have faith in you and put their adventuring hats on, or start meeting up for weekly games of Clue Jr.

You know your playing fair. They made a bad choice. You are not responsible for their enjoyment failure.

 

[prosfilaes]

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.

That's pretty egregious in some social contracts. Even in groups that won't nerf the battle when it's going against the PCs, escalating the battle when the party is barely winning as it is is pretty bad, even if it's written down in the adventure.

I'm not sure why it would be unwise for them to target enemies with special powers or are in charge. It's a good way to force a moral check on your enemies, and if they aren't attacking right away, it's a good way to drop them before they get a hit. If you know that an entire group is going to attack you, I don't think who is currently choosing not to attack you really factors in to who to attack.

 

[prosfilaes]

Sit them down and explain that the game centers on them, but the world it's set in doesn't necessarily conform to their expectations. They should have faith in you and put their adventuring hats on, or start meeting up for weekly games of Clue Jr.

Why should they start meeting up for weekly games of Clue Jr., when they could just get a new DM? Any DM that condescends to me is going to get walked out on.

There's no one definition of kosher (no, not even in real life). From what I see, they were screwed, by no fault of their own. They couldn't have retreated; a 7th level monk has a move of 50 (or possibly 40), more than anyone in the party, baring certain magic spells or items, another monk or non-standard races. A surrender would have put them in the exact same situation; the monk should have killed them, but instead would have imprisoned them.

Is this cool in some games? Sure. No game I've ever played in, though. In a lot of games I've played in, that game would have been over, and we just would have gone on to the next DM in the group.

 

[Elf Witch]

SnowleopardVK

Babies need to be spoon fed. Your players being upset is rough, but it's not your fault. If you have to treat them with kid gloves, then they're in need of some growing up.

From what you've said, things behind the screen were absolutely kosher.

Player entitlement is not cool. If they want to tell a story with you, then they have to trust you. If they won't trust you, then your hands are tied to an expectation that you cannot possibly have any plot that is not entirely revealed to the players, which will cripple the games verisimilitude. If they want to see everything piece in play,a board game is probably what they're looking for.

Sit them down and explain that the game centers on them, but the world it's set in doesn't necessarily conform to their expectations. They should have faith in you and put their adventuring hats on, or start meeting up for weekly games of Clue Jr.

You know your playing fair. They made a bad choice. You are not responsible for their enjoyment failure.

You know this whine DMs have of player entitlement is getting old. DMs are not gods they make mistakes. Personally I don't care how a module is written a DM needs to be able to adjust it on the fly.

The DM brought out an invisible foe a boss no less after a battle that the PCs barely won. As a DM myself I would have changed the module at this point unless I didn't care if they were TPKed.

They were given a choice of surrender or fight. As for fleeing like others have said a lot of players won't do that and in this case this monk could have gone after them and would have been faster. So they really couldn't have fled unless the DM pulled his punches and let them go run away.

If you look at it from the players point of view it looks like they won a hard fight only for the DM to pull out a higher level bad guy to kill them.

Which is why the DM needs to talk to them and treat them like children.

If a DM ever talked to me like you are suggesting I would walk and the DM would never be allowed at my table because they obviously lack social skills in dealing with an issue.

 

[fireinthedust]

Very good points on either side of the argument here.


GM: you've got to be able to be "wrong" in order to be right, to "lose" in order to win.

You're objectively right, but your players don't understand it. I get what's being said.


That said, my group is in a similar predicament: they make some dumb choices, and then when I follow what seems like natural consequences with that they get upset.

Case in point: they found a ruined village with a single, untouched Inn, the hideout of Bandits. After a fight was interrupted by a dragon showing up, the party was in the Inn while the dragon was outside eating the bandit bodies. The party left their mule and wagon at the village gate, where the bandits entered and retreated from. When one of the bandits (prisoner of theirs who escaped) took the wagon with him, one player got upset and blamed me for handing stuff out and taking it away. Me! It's a wagon filled with loot, left in front of the entrance FAR FAR FAR away from the players.

The long and short of it is that I still need to present things in a way that THEY feel responsible.

Responsibility is power. If you believe you are responsible, you have the power. If you blame the GM, or the world, you are externalizing the locus of blame, the locus of responsibility for your successes or failures. Now, it may be your fault. Really, you're the one who threw in that Assassin, whether or not the module wrote it. You're the one who should be saying "what makes a good scene?" rather than "what does the module tell me to do."

You could do the exact same encounter, but if you presented it differently, let the players have the power (or think they do) so that THEY chose the end result, they will at least understand they are the ones who did it.

This experience is making you a better GM. Learn from it. How can you change your presentation, whether or not you are in the right, so that your future games are better?


foreshadowing: mention the assassin works by invisibility, watching his foes; or that he strikes only when they're weakest.

Hints: mention there's a shadow or a moving tapestry (failed stealth you offer them), maybe an invisible assassin.

Roleplaying: The assassin could say "i'm impressed with your spirit. I'll give you a chance to flee. If not, I will fight you."