PDA

View Full Version : DM tactics; using TPKs



Belial_the_Leveler
2009-09-24, 11:08 AM
After years of DMing you find the relatively easy fights boring. Or you may have powergamers in your group and their flattening every encounter is beginning to get on your nerves. You may have a story reason for the PCs to lose for a change. You may want to make the campaign more realistic and more horror-oriented. Or you may just want to unleash all that awesome power your position as DM grants you and cry out to the firmament; "POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!!!"


So, for whatever reason you have decided your PCs should lose in the next encounter. The only thing that remains is to decide how to make the encounter not just overwhelming mechanics-wise but also memorable. You don't want all that hard work you put into it to be wasted, do you?

Doomsday Sanction.
According to the encounter chart, one out of thirteen encounters should be 4-5 levels above the party level. This is the encounter where the power difference is obvious and the PCs should run, use diplomacy or otherwise avoid a direct confrontation. That, however, is classified in the Good DM Book as "not fun". To change that classification, pick that obviously too strong monster and put it in an occasion where the PCs can't or should not run. A situation like defend the innocents, final boss fight or have the monster track down the PCs in their lair instead of the other way around.
And here comes the important part; shift around items, feats and spell choices on the monster to make it a lot harder to kill than it already is but less powerful offencively. This prolongs the fight and gives the PCs a tiny chance to come up with a winning plan. And if they don't? It will still be an epic 20-rounds-plus fight with lots of scenery damage and crowning moments of awesome as the PCs heroically sacrifice themselves to weaken the monster enough for the NPCs to finally kill it.

The name is Wayne. Bruce Wayne.
Take a good look at your players' favorite tactics. Then take a good look at your players' available tactics for the day. Then take a spellcasting monster and give it the right spells, items, feats and other options to be crazy prepared against them. Then set the monster loose upon the players.
This does not usually produce a happy team of players. But it is an awesome way to teach borderline munchkins that some things are bad for the game. And just in case they defeat the monster? Have it be summoned, conjured, simulacrumed or astrally projected by the campaign's BBEG. No real monster, no loot.
The objective behind this encounter is teaching players not to try to break the game. Some people simply insist on doing gamebreaking stuff and won't take rule 0 for an answer. Sometimes, when subjected to reverse munchkinry they mend their evil ways.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Players know monsters. They can face down a horde of zombies or a raging dragon and not flinch-even if they know the encounter will be tough-because, in the end, DnD is based upon heroes triumphing. And because they've read the Monster books or faced such monsters before. There are no unknown factors and repetition is the slayer of doubt.
So, take a high HD but low CR monster. Elemental, giant and non-template undead work best but you can experiment if you want. Now, begin adding templates or straight abilities (the weirder the better) to catch up with the wanted CR and shift around the form until it no longer resembles the original creature. Add ranks in disguise and illusions or darkness coupled with nondetection or similar anti-divination measures. When the PCs fight the monster, they won't know what it is from its appearance. Once you start using abilities from several different templates, they won't be able to tell what the creature is from its abilities either. Now add in the darkness and illusions and that means they can't see the creature itself.
Here's where the doubt starts. Should I use blasphemy or holy word? Cold Iron or Silver? Should I orb or energy drain? Once a few attacks fail (or appear to fail) more questions follow; what's that thing's CR? should we be fighting it? maybe we should run now?
I've had level 20 players run from a shadow will-o-wisp ghost (CR 9) because they didn't know what it was and how to fight it.

Kylarra
2009-09-24, 11:13 AM
I kind of prefer rocks fall and everyone dies to DM fiats and abuse of the CR system.

Subjecting people to "reverse munchkinnery" in hopes that they'll be less munchkinny is just passive-aggressive BS, and probably will exacerbate the situation rather than helping it.


So I guess number 1 is more or less plausible. 2 I've just covered. 3 ought to strike some knowledge checks, but is more or less just abuse of the CR system. If they can't knowledge check it, then they'll just blast it. Sure it won't be optimal, but it's not like being paralyzed with indecision was doing them any good.

Grumman
2009-09-24, 11:33 AM
I have a better option:

Don't.
If you're going into a game with the goal of a TPK, you have failed as a DM. Option one can only work if you make sure that the players know what they're up against and are completely free to escape (even if that means abandoning the peasants to their fate), because railroading characters to their deaths is only fun for the DM. Option two punishes the players for trusting the DM not to cheat, and encourages them to not share any exploitable information in the future. Option three is the whole reason why the Paragon Mindflayer sucks.

Rixx
2009-09-24, 11:37 AM
Don't do this. Your players will hate you for it.

Not to mention that, as a DM, you have no chance of failure. And if there's no chance of failure, what you're doing can't reasonably be counted as a victory for you.

Playing in a campaign with no chance of failure is boring, but playing in a campaign with no chance of success is pointless.

MickJay
2009-09-24, 11:43 AM
Would work well for one-off adventures, with new characters, provided that the players are aware it's going to (most likely) end like that. If it's supposed to be a "surprise" ending of a long-running campaign, I forsee doom, gloom and gnashing of teeth (not to mention a possibility of lynching).

Lost Demiurge
2009-09-24, 11:43 AM
If you've already decided what happens in the next encounter, then why are you running a game?

Go write a story. It'll waste less of your players' valuable time.

EDIT: That said... I did run one campaign where the PC's were designed to run into a no-escape situation. But I did warn them before the campaign started, that things would get really freaking grim, and there was going to be one big incident where everything changed. So instead of ending the game, the TPK kicked off the REAL plot.

Basically, at the bottom of the first dungeon they found the necromancer who'd made the place. He revealed that it had all been a test, and that they'd passed. Then he killed the hell out of them. (They were 6th level, he was 28th.) They put up a struggle, but all died.

Then they woke up in caskets, each of them a different type of undead. They got out of their shattered tomb, and found that centuries had passed. The necromancer had made of them his undead generals, and for decades they'd ravaged the land. Finally the necromancer was defeated and obliterated, but at the cost of such power that the generals couldn't be treated likewise.

So they'd been sealed away... And over time, the protective magic had worn off, and people had forgotten. And once more they were free.

Now with the necromancer gone, they once more had free will, and limited memories of the time when they had been the horrors that ravaged the continent. Their dark powers were a shadow of what they'd once been, but they were still scary as hell.

And 7 other generals were loose, most of them far more malignant than the pc's could ever hope to be...

It was a fun game. Campaign folded before I got too far, due to other issues. Still, neat while it lasted.

Shademan
2009-09-24, 11:46 AM
well try to not see this as TPK but rather "a darn tough challenge", okay? okay.

No one gets TPK'd and we all have fun

Johel
2009-09-24, 11:52 AM
I like the idea of a custom monster, since it brings memories of a PbP game. I wasn't one of the players, mind you, but the DM had a "high bodycount" reputation, sadism but also wild genius... so I watched and wasn't disappointed.

Psychic rats.
The tiny little bastards could basically stun their enemies from the distance. The effect lasted no more than a few rounds but with unusual cunning, they basically used the darkness to hide, lured the warrior-type after them, stunned everybody and offed the group one after another.

And it was all just rats...
The group was level 2, by the way.

Kelpstrand
2009-09-24, 11:55 AM
After years of DMing you find the relatively easy fights boring.

Then don't play easy fights. Play tougher but not TPK fights.


Or you may have powergamers in your group and their flattening every encounter is beginning to get on your nerves.

Then why not make the fights be against tougher opposition that is a challenge, but not a designed TPK? Oh right. Moderation doesn't exist. Level 1 PCs can either face Kobolds or Pun-Pun, and there is no challenge in between the two to challenge but not TPK them.

Not to mention, maybe they just powergame because they don't want to lose or even be challenged. Maybe they have fun flattening enemies and then flexxing their muscles and giving Armstrong speeches.


You may have a story reason for the PCs to lose for a change.

Because you are a terrible DM that railroads horribly and you think you are writing a single author fiction novel instead of playing a cooperative story game?


You may want to make the campaign more realistic and more horror-oriented.

Which you cleared with your players first, since they all signed up for one type of game, and you wouldn't be a self centered jerk and change it on them with no warning.


Or you may just want to unleash all that awesome power your position as DM grants you and cry out to the firmament; "POWER! UNLIMITED POWER!!!"

Do I even need to say it? Some please tell me that I don't even need to point out what's wrong with this.


Then take a good look at your players' available tactics for the day.

How on earth would you take a look at that? I mean, sure if they are all fighters or Spontaneous casters and they always do the same thing. But if your players decide to prepare different spells, or plan different tactics, how are you going to figure that out?

Tehnar
2009-09-24, 11:59 AM
I don't think the OPs intent was a guide to make a TPK happen, more of a "using these things will make a fight harder, and could cause a TPK".

tyckspoon
2009-09-24, 12:00 PM
I don't think the OPs intent was a guide to make a TPK happen, more of a "using these things will make a fight harder, and could cause a TPK".

Really? Did you read the thread title?

Yar
2009-09-24, 12:03 PM
Sometimes TPK is part of the story. In the adventure called Adams wrath for the old ravenloft game the characters are KILLED the very first encounter than made into flesh golems. Damn creepy and TPK-Rific.

valadil
2009-09-24, 12:04 PM
I don't like the doomsday idea, unless it was central to the plot and everyone knew it. I could see players enjoying it in two ways. If they know what they're getting into and are choosing to martyr themselves that could work. The other idea is if it's a one shot prelude and then they play their real characters after the heroes have done the dirty work.

I use different tactics for different groups. One of my groups wants to be challenged. One group wants to beat up monsters. If I'm DMing for the second group, I'm probably going to let them keep reusing good tactics.

I usually make up my own enemies. I like have the MM handy and all, but I'd always rather give my PCs a plot enemy than a wandering monster. If I stat an NPC, players aren't likely to guess what I came up with.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2009-09-24, 12:05 PM
Doomsday Sanction
A good idea, yet poorly executed. Don't intend for the PCs to die, and always give them a chance. At the very least, give them the option of running away, or of somehow circumventing the encounter. It will given the PCs an oppressive despair to be beaten, even if they did manage to convey almost the civilians out of the monster's path, as the PCs will know that its rampage hasn't been stopped, or that they could nothing but flee before it. That's the stuff of horror, and can be great for the plot and the PCs developement as characters (and also introduce great new villians). Planned as a TPK or even a likely TPK it's a bad idea, but planned as an encounter that brute force can't necessarily overcome it might be a crowning point of a campaign arc.

The Name's Wayne. Bruce Wayne.
A truly terrible idea. Powergaming and munchkinry are best addressed out of game, as addressing the problems in game leads to anger and resentment. Don't ever do this unless you want the rest of your games to be filled with tension and a DM vs. Player mentality.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
A favorite of mine...but again, only when not used with the intent to kill the players. Confuse them? Yes. Disturb them? Yes. Scare them? Yes. But kill them? Only as much as any other encounter might. It's good to keep them on their toes, but bad to punish them for the need to keep them on their toes. Make the encounter strange and unique, as that will make it memorable and gripping, but don't make it unnecessarily deadly, as that's basically planning a TPK, something that, in a group with much-loved character, shouldn't happen. Even a pure horror game requires that the heroes have some chance of pulling through alive, although the cost may be great.

In short, there's never an excuse for a planned or attempted TPK, even in the name of an interesting encounter. Always give the PC's a way out, even if it's hard to see at first. They are, after all, the heroes, and it's really only in horror stories that the heroes stand little to no hope of ever triumphing. Take pride in your players victories against your challenges, rather than in their defeat at your hands. It makes their eventual triumph sweeter for both them and you.

Oslecamo
2009-09-24, 12:07 PM
To be honest, if I ever felt the need the need to make the PCs auto-lose a fight, I would just pick a random monster and then give it abilities on the fly. Also keep the rolls secret and claim it keeps making it's saves and add special immunities of thin air as needed.

But I never did this, and wouldn't do unless the players decided something really stupid like jumping right into an evil god's plane out of their will before epic levels and I hadn't the epic handbook at hand. And then it would be something like flaming balors fall, you take 100d100 damage, no save. Still alive? Well, here comes another wave...


The purpose of the monster rules is to give the players a chance to win.

Grumman
2009-09-24, 12:12 PM
Sometimes TPK is part of the story. In the adventure called Adams wrath for the old ravenloft game the characters are KILLED the very first encounter than made into flesh golems. Damn creepy and TPK-Rific.
If I wanted to play a game as a flesh golem, I'd join a game where the DM asks me to play a flesh golem. I'd rather not waste my time developing a character just so the DM can kill them and mutilate their corpse in the first session.

Fluffles
2009-09-24, 12:16 PM
If you are going to make it a TPK, make it so damn funny the can't hate you for it. Like Leeroy Jenkins. I'm actually kinda of going for a TPK in a game I'm playing in now, where I'm secretly CE, while I'm pretending to be LG xD I'm among a group of CNs and one CG :smallamused: What's even funnier is that I'm playing him like Richard, acting chaotic evil, and nobody calls me out on alignment issues. But then again, I'm not blindly murdering people, yet :Biggrin:

Back on topic: It's better to set them up for a TPK, like having a Lich trap them in a room or something, with no hope of escape, and then just before he kills them all have something stop the lich. Like an Angel stepping in to kill the Lich. But then let them watch as the Lich kills the angel. Then they get used like Mr. Stiffly did. Acid tank + Acid breathing Shark + Ray of Frost. And pretty much keep them there until they can escape. Win/win scenario. They get to go through the horror of them being sent to the point of death so that they learn they they can't win every fight, and you get to go through the enjoyment of finding cruel and highly inventive ways for their characters to nearly die.

Everybody is happy :D

Or you could just put them in a labyrinth, and let them find their own way out.

Godskook
2009-09-24, 12:27 PM
To me, not intentionally killing the PCs(one or many) is the other half of the gentleman's agreement a DM has with his players. They don't break his campaign into tiny pieces, utilizing loopholes he doesn't find, and he doesn't have time to really stop. Once the DM starts intentionally killing PCs*, Pun-Pun, chain-gated solars, shadow mages, and every munchkin trick in the book becomes fair PC game.

*The exception to this is when you've more or less warned your players about it, or it is part of the genre your campaign is set in.

Stycotl
2009-09-24, 12:33 PM
some of these dm tactics that belial mentions are useful in order to create a *harder* encounter, as others have said. but i too see no point in playing the game if you are going to railroad them into early deaths. if you hate your group that much, get a new group.

Xenogears
2009-09-24, 12:34 PM
Psychic rats.
The tiny little bastards could basically stun their enemies from the distance. The effect lasted no more than a few rounds but with unusual cunning, they basically used the darkness to hide, lured the warrior-type after them, stunned everybody and offed the group one after another.

And it was all just rats...
The group was level 2, by the way.

Those are cranium rats from the fiend folio. Not saying the dm didn't just happen to invent a monster that is also in a book just pointing out that they are basically identical to cranium rats who (depending upon size of the swarm) range in CR from a kinda OP 2 i think to much higher.

Tehnar
2009-09-24, 12:40 PM
Really? Did you read the thread title?

Yes, really, I read the title. And then I read his post.

At worst what he advocates is the the PC's lose the encounter. Now that might happen because of a TPK, or the PC's running away or being captured or whatever. Aside from the title (which I think was intended to shock), there are is no explicit advice to cause TPKs, only advice to make encounters harder.

Advice I find very solid. Players should lose encounters, even going so far that a DM plans a encounter where the players lose (as fitting the story of course). If the players never lose, then what is the point of winning?

Night Monkey
2009-09-24, 12:40 PM
If players have munchy urges that you don't want them indulging in proper games, then a good idea might be the high-powered tournament. I am planning one where all the players make 20th level gestalt characters, with whatever cheese they like, and they get put against a series of hard battles until they finally all perish. Good fun, gives players some catharsis for their munchiness, gives the DM some catharsis for eeeevilness and even though the players will lose in the end there's the challenge of how many of the mental encounters the players can beat.

Myrmex
2009-09-24, 12:42 PM
lol @ player entitlement.

JonestheSpy
2009-09-24, 12:49 PM
If you are going to make it a TPK, make it so damn funny the can't hate you for it.

The Computer has decided you all have to die now. Disobeying the Computer is Treason. We know what happens to traitors, don't we...?

Kelpstrand
2009-09-24, 12:56 PM
lol @ player entitlement.

lol @ people who think they are more important than their players.

Yora
2009-09-24, 12:58 PM
Aiming for TPK can be interesting in certain, very special circumstances. But even then, I wouldn't enforce it.

As I see it, there are two situations that would be reasonable to am for TPK as a gm:
- The players know about the odds in advance and have their characters decide that they will try anyway, even though they will almost certainly not survive it. That includes for example getting into an enemy base and causing massive destruction but knowing that you won't get out again, or accepting that to win the final confrontation,they have to undergo a procedure that will boost them for that final battle, but will claim their lives shortly after. In either way, they have to have the choice to accept certain death, or avoid the final confrontation and accept the results of not having stopped the BBEG.
- The players decide that their characters want to make lots of trouble and have to realize that their antics will not go unopposed and unpinished. If they don't want to accept negotiations or agree to cease their action, and instead say "bring it on", I think it's acceptable that they will be overwhelmed by almost endless forces eventually.

In either way, it has to be because the players have their characters walk into certain death. Making everything they do futile is not the least fun, except in a survival horror game.

Myrmex
2009-09-24, 01:08 PM
I try to make every encounter a TPK. The games much more fun for me. I just tell the players not to be dumb and use the internet.

Kelpstrand
2009-09-24, 01:14 PM
I try to make every encounter a TPK. The games much more fun for me. I just tell the players not to be dumb and use the internet.

So how do your level 1 parties survive Pun Pun showing up an instant killing them?

Myrmex
2009-09-24, 01:16 PM
So how do your level 1 parties survive Pun Pun showing up an instant killing them?

Normally they don't.
But when they do, it usually involves time travel.

chiasaur11
2009-09-24, 01:32 PM
I try to make every encounter a TPK. The games much more fun for me. I just tell the players not to be dumb and use the internet.

Then why not just say "Rocks fall, everyone dies" at the beginning of every session?

Saves time for all parties concerned.

Myrmex
2009-09-24, 01:33 PM
Then why not just say "Rocks fall, everyone dies" at the beginning of every session?

Saves time for all parties concerned.

Why don't you just play Pun-Pun as every character?

Kylarra
2009-09-24, 01:36 PM
I try to make every encounter a TPK. The games much more fun for me. I just tell the players not to be dumb and use the internet.Why not just play CoC instead?

chiasaur11
2009-09-24, 01:42 PM
Why don't you just play Pun-Pun as every character?

Well, that does seem to be the only way to survive your games...

But the basis of Dungeons and Dragons as a game rather than an excuse to repeatedly kick former friends in the nadgers is a basic gentleman's agreement to not break the system in two over your knee. This applies to the DM more than anyone, as they're able to do whatever they want within the system. Them killing the players is a pathetic power trip on par with bragging you beat, say, Doom...

On the easiest difficulty. With god mode on.

Myrmex
2009-09-24, 02:00 PM
Well, that does seem to be the only way to survive your games...

But the basis of Dungeons and Dragons as a game rather than an excuse to repeatedly kick former friends in the nadgers is a basic gentleman's agreement to not break the system in two over your knee. This applies to the DM more than anyone, as they're able to do whatever they want within the system. Them killing the players is a pathetic power trip on par with bragging you beat, say, Doom...

On the easiest difficulty. With god mode on.

Nice strawman.

taltamir
2009-09-24, 02:04 PM
OP:
1. if you are bored of DMing, let someone else DM
2. if you feel people are abusing abilities, ban those abilities, allow them to rebuild their character to compensate.
3. if you are bored of easy encounters, then stop giving easy encounters, but don't go from "easy" to "impossible to win"
4. Be HONEST. Being sneaky about it is just abusive, and when your players find out they are just gonna leave, and not be your friends anymore either. Rocks fall, everyone dies is a much better way of doing it if YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST... at least you are honest instead of stringing them along. (and still some will leave and not be your friends anymore... fist fights might also break out).

chiasaur11
2009-09-24, 02:08 PM
Nice strawman.

Thanks. His name is Harold.

I feel the Visca hood worked quite well. Sure, a Parasisal hat would have also worked, but I feel a touch of commonality with the lower class made him more sympathetic.

taltamir
2009-09-24, 02:17 PM
Well, that does seem to be the only way to survive your games...

But the basis of Dungeons and Dragons as a game rather than an excuse to repeatedly kick former friends in the nadgers is a basic gentleman's agreement to not break the system in two over your knee. This applies to the DM more than anyone, as they're able to do whatever they want within the system. Them killing the players is a pathetic power trip on par with bragging you beat, say, Doom...

On the easiest difficulty. With god mode on.

as they say, when you cheat you are only cheating yourself. I have often seen something and said "I am not gonna do it, because then it will break the game". The DM doesn't HAVE to be the one to apply all the nerfs. And really, why is this even a problem? just up the encounter levels 2, if they are still boring, than by addition 1 level every time until they feel balanced... don't make it impossible to win.

it sounds like you (OP) are blaming your players for you being a bad DM, and deciding to punish them with a TPK, arbitrarily.

Lord_Gareth
2009-09-24, 02:24 PM
I don't try to kill my players, but I refuse to save them; the dice rest where they fall, and I'm not going to rescue them from their stupidity. That said, many times they have NPCs in their party with a vested interest in living, and THEY may, in fact, end up saving the PCs at times (generally speaking, by getting lucky, although some of them have made some rather impressive Knowledge checks in the past and thusly saved the party's ass). Mostly, I keep things interesting in my games by having my players fight intelligent, motivated beings who aren't just in it for the lulz/evulz. Hell, I've had some sessions where my players spend six - count 'em, SIX - hours debating whether they should be opposing the BBEG or joining them. Utlilizing intelligent opponents who aren't afraid to use their powers - or preparations - in creative ways is often a great way to keep things challenging, exciting, and new.

taltamir
2009-09-24, 02:28 PM
I don't try to kill my players, but I refuse to save them; the dice rest where they fall, and I'm not going to rescue them from their stupidity.

but this isn't what this thread is about... it is about engineering a TPK as punishment for "munchikinism" instead of "rocks fall, everyone dies"

Lord_Gareth
2009-09-24, 02:29 PM
If I want to punish my players for munchkinism, I throw homebrew at 'em. Exploit that, ya bastages :p

taltamir
2009-09-24, 02:30 PM
its better to talk about it honestly. and simply ban broken stuff.

arguskos
2009-09-24, 02:34 PM
its better to talk about it honestly. and simply ban broken stuff.
This attitude can (but does not always, mind you) lead to player entitlement, where players feel that they DESERVE to win, just cause they're players.

Without the sense of fear, that feeling that you might, just might, not survive the assault the DM will unleash upon you, there is no challenge any more, and the game quickly becomes meaningless.

This thread is not about mindlessly slaughtering the party (easy and unfun). Belial's point is that sometimes, the PCs shouldn't win. The title was in poor taste though. :smallwink:

Understand that I agree with the intent of this thread, not the content or advice. But, the idea is a sound one.

Starbuck_II
2009-09-24, 02:36 PM
The name is Wayne. Bruce Wayne.
Take a good look at your players' favorite tactics. Then take a good look at your players' available tactics for the day. Then take a spellcasting monster and give it the right spells, items, feats and other options to be crazy prepared against them. Then set the monster loose upon the players.
This does not usually produce a happy team of players. But it is an awesome way to teach borderline munchkins that some things are bad for the game. And just in case they defeat the monster? Have it be summoned, conjured, simulacrumed or astrally projected by the campaign's BBEG. No real monster, no loot.
The objective behind this encounter is teaching players not to try to break the game. Some people simply insist on doing gamebreaking stuff and won't take rule 0 for an answer. Sometimes, when subjected to reverse munchkinry they mend their evil ways.

That would make me Power game more. Because in my mind if I didn't do as much I would have (or did) die. So more will increase chances I live.

I'm not sure how making them realize they aren't powerful enough will make them want to be weaker...
Look at Russia did they disarm all weapons because we beat them in cold war by building better weapons (yes, it wasn't a real war, but same principle). No, they just don't attack us they still haven't disarmed Principle aka Death's Hand.
It is still aimed at us in case their radiation levels become as if nuked (still fearing we will someday do that).

taltamir
2009-09-24, 02:39 PM
This attitude can (but does not always, mind you) lead to player entitlement, where players feel that they DESERVE to win, just cause they're players.

Without the sense of fear, that feeling that you might, just might, not survive the assault the DM will unleash upon you, there is no challenge any more, and the game quickly becomes meaningless.

This thread is not about mindlessly slaughtering the party (easy and unfun). Belial's point is that sometimes, the PCs shouldn't win. The title was in poor taste though. :smallwink:

then i misunderstood (the title really is misleading). Certainly PCs should not be guaranteed to win every encounter. It should be a fight for life or death. Just as long as its not a roundabout way to force a TPK.


That would make me Power game more. Because in my mind if I didn't do as much I would have (or did) die. So more will increase chances I live.

I'm not sure how making them realize they aren't powerful enough will make them want to be weaker...
Look at Russia did they disarm all weapons because we beat them in cold war by building better weapons (yes, it wasn't a real war, but same principle). No, they just don't attack us they still haven't disarmed Principle aka Death's Hand.
It is still aimed at us in case their radiation levels become as if nuked (still fearing we will someday do that).

Yes, I agree with that conclusion... avoid the passive aggressiveness :)
A more munchikened out enemy is an inspiration, and also if they were holding back, it shows them that it is "ok" and "expected"

Parra
2009-09-24, 02:56 PM
To be honest when Im DMing, in every combat encounter I do my absolute best to kill any and every party member I can. I figure if the players know that I wont try to kill them then they take more risks, if they know that acting dumb gets them killed then you would be amazed at how cautious they act. I dont play my monsters for fodder (though obviously they are), I play them to win.

Now Im not saying that I would drop an Ancient Red Dragon on a group of level 1's, thats just plain dumb and no fun at all, for me or for them. But I find that only slightly less fun that a combat that is over inside of 2 rounds (once in a while is okay if someoe jsut got some funky new ability)

Your damn skippy that Im gonna make the players work for each and every single piece of xp they get.

taltamir
2009-09-24, 03:04 PM
To be honest when Im DMing, in every combat encounter I do my absolute best to kill any and every party member I can. I figure if the players know that I wont try to kill them then they take more risks, if they know that acting dumb gets them killed then you would be amazed at how cautious they act. I dont play my monsters for fodder (though obviously they are), I play them to win.

Now Im not saying that I would drop an Ancient Red Dragon on a group of level 1's, thats just plain dumb and no fun at all, for me or for them. But I find that only slightly less fun that a combat that is over inside of 2 rounds (once in a while is okay if someoe jsut got some funky new ability)

Your damn skippy that Im gonna make the players work for each and every single piece of xp they get.

and as a player, this is quite a lot of fun when the DM does that. If I wanted to grind levels I'd play an mmo.
As long as the PCs have a fair chance at winning though, things are good.

woodenbandman
2009-09-24, 04:05 PM
Here is how a fight should probably go:

-Pick monsters adding up to the CR a party should face.

-Look at the monsters. Does it seem unfairly swung to one side of another?

-If it is swung to the monster's side, you did it wrong.

-After you solve that problem, try to kill the PCs as much as possible.

So you have a 3rd level party, and you throw 2 level 2 gnoll rangers at them or whatever. That's a CR 3, and you then make the gnolls try to kill the players.

Kelpstrand
2009-09-24, 05:20 PM
1) No the OP isn't about how to make encounters harder. It's about how to make fights unwinnable, and in the first case, even inescapable.

2) No one is claiming that you should play monsters like idiots. You should play every monster as doing it's best to win the fight, which usually but not always involves killing the players. You should not however play monsters as sacrificing themselves to kill a PC or PCs, unless that is appropriate (dominate minion, Simulacrum, ect.)

We are saying you should not pick your monsters to try to kill the Players, because Pun-Pun is seriously a choice at all times.

The OP is specifically discussing how to make encounters that are entirely unwinnable before the fight even started. Nothing about how to play them once the fight starts.

See "Monster that is immune to everything they have!" or "Monster that is a Elder God and wins automatically" and "Make the level 4 party fight the CR 28 Gold Dragon or die trying to save the poor commoners."

You should choose opponents to be a challenge that does not TPK the party (or, in rare circumstances, once per level at most, to have a 50% chance of doing so) and then you should play them to their maximum ability.

Zincorium
2009-09-24, 06:22 PM
Since when is player entitlement a bad thing?

PCs are the protagonists of the story in D&D, they are why the game exists. They should expect to either triumph in the end or go out in a blaze of glory.

I agree with the people who point out that it's not a challenge on your part to kill the PCs. Of course it's not. You have dragons and high level wizards and custom PrCs that require ranks in craft: basketweaving.

The only real thrill I get from being DM is when the encounter seems incredibly dangerous and the PCs have to use every resource and item in their arsenal to win- and then get to celebrate their victory and progress to the next story with their treasured characters that much better for the adventurer.

The Big Dice
2009-09-24, 06:42 PM
Since when is player entitlement a bad thing?
Player entitlement is always a Bad Thing. Or rather, the complacency that comes with it is potentially as damaging to your games as anything else out there. I've played in games where characters got whatever they wanted, including being turned into Mind Flayers or everyone having a magic item that's a better caster than the party wizard. And it gets old fast.

To put it a different way, how do you make a daring escape if you never get captured? How do you have a recurring villain if players just destroy the carefully crafted NPC on the first encounter? And how do you go all out for revenge if you never get beaten?

As a GM you owe it to your players to go all out to kill them from time to time. Not by fudging dice rolls or bringing in homebrew. Instead, by playing an intelligent, prepared enemy. Then if the characters survive despite your best attempt to kill them without simply overpowering them, the players feel a real sense of achievement.

SmartAlec
2009-09-24, 06:56 PM
Since when is player entitlement a bad thing?

You said it, man. I hear comments like


I don't try to kill my players, but I refuse to save them; the dice rest where they fall, and I'm not going to rescue them from their stupidity.

And I think, 'one man's stupidity is another man's heroism'. And some folk play this game to pretend to be heroes.

Zincorium
2009-09-24, 07:05 PM
Player entitlement is always a Bad Thing. Or rather, the complacency that comes with it is potentially as damaging to your games as anything else out there. I've played in games where characters got whatever they wanted, including being turned into Mind Flayers or everyone having a magic item that's a better caster than the party wizard. And it gets old fast.

When you decide not to use the same definition as I do, we're of course going to have disagreement.

The players are not entitled to Monty Haul. They are entitled to a reasonably enjoyable game, and in D&D it's traditional that you let them be the Big Damn Heroes tm.


To put it a different way, how do you make a daring escape if you never get captured? How do you have a recurring villain if players just destroy the carefully crafted NPC on the first encounter? And how do you go all out for revenge if you never get beaten?

1. I don't capture my Pcs, and I hate getting captured. Railroading at it's most annoying.

2. I don't have them fight recurring villains in a conventional toe-to-toe battle. That is what minions are for.

3. Revenge for other people who are not you. My players generally don't exist in a void.


As a GM you owe it to your players to go all out to kill them from time to time. Not by fudging dice rolls or bringing in homebrew. Instead, by playing an intelligent, prepared enemy. Then if the characters survive despite your best attempt to kill them without simply overpowering them, the players feel a real sense of achievement.

Or you can simply make it seem like the above, and they get the full sense of entitlement.

Because the last time the DM just killed all the characters we'd spent several months on with no chance of resurrection, we booted him.

Saph
2009-09-24, 07:11 PM
1. I don't capture my Pcs, and I hate getting captured. Railroading at it's most annoying.

2. I don't have them fight recurring villains in a conventional toe-to-toe battle. That is what minions are for.

3. Revenge for other people who are not you. My players generally don't exist in a void.

Are your players allowed to lose battles, or is that against the rules too? :P

Akal Saris
2009-09-24, 07:11 PM
I'm actually running a game that will probably end in a deliberate TPK.

The idea behind it is that in my home campaign (and that of a DM who split off from my game and began running another in the same 'world') is that partway during the 2E timeline of Forgotten Realms a major storyline occurred that ended in 1/3rd of Faerun being destroyed in an unimaginably massive undead invasion followed by an epic-level glacier spell centered on Waterdeep. So most of the current campaigns take place in areas at the border of this glacier, like Cormyr.

The new game is set in Waterdeep 17 days before the undead horde arrives, and the PCs have begun to have strange visions of the apocalyptic future, unlike everyone else in Waterdeep, who ishappily going about their lives. So they're doing their typical low-level quests, but with the full knowledge that in 2 weeks the world as their characters know it is going to collapse. So far the PCs have had a great time with it, especially since every time the NPCs say something like "I can't wait for the autumn harvest in 3 weeks!' the PCs all shudder and say 'There will never be an autumn harvest in 3 weeks...'

Along the way I get to throw in old, old PC characters and NPCs that their old character met maybe 5 years ago (in real time, mind you), and NPCs from the split-off game that they were in. So there's a lot of fun 'Hey, I remember that guy! He's my old character's father!' moments. But eventually I want the campaign to end - and spectacularly. I don't want the characters to die immediately to endless undead hordes, but rather with meaning - but I do eventually want to finish the game in a TPK, one that will leave the PCs as unsung heroes - but I haven't thought ahead to where I want the story to end.

Any suggestions or thoughts on this end?

FoE
2009-09-24, 07:30 PM
Nice strawman.

That's actually not how you use the term. Check Wikipedia for a helpful guide on "strawmen."


Player entitlement is always a Bad Thing. Or rather, the complacency that comes with it is potentially as damaging to your games as anything else out there. I've played in games where characters got whatever they wanted, including being turned into Mind Flayers or everyone having a magic item that's a better caster than the party wizard. And it gets old fast.

But that's an entirely different problem: a soft DM who won't say "no" to his players. It's a huge mistake, but that doesn't mean the opposite end of the spectrum is any better, ie. the killer DM who's out to utterly crush his players.

I've played with Killer DMs and I refuse to do so again. What's even the point of trying to develop an interesting character? **** it, I might as well just create an assembly line of characters named "Bob" and replace them as they go down with the next Bob.

There's a difference between challenging your players and dropping a rock on them. The latter is a betrayal of the DM's duties.

Thatguyoverther
2009-09-24, 07:38 PM
I don't think there's anything wrong with TPKs. They give the players a chance to start over and try something new and different.

I like the last idea, but I wouldn't bother with the template things. Just make up your own creature. In allot of my games I throw out the MM entirely and remake every creature the character's fight from scratch. It's a lot more fun have the characters have to guess then have encyclopedic knowledge about every enemy.

Sudduth
2009-09-24, 07:49 PM
I kind of prefer rocks fall and everyone dies to DM fiats and abuse of the CR system.

Amen. :smallannoyed:

Grumman
2009-09-24, 07:57 PM
I don't think there's anything wrong with TPKs. They give the players a chance to start over and try something new and different.
No, it does not: it forces the players to start over. If they wanted to abandon their current characters and start from scratch, don't you think they'd tell you?

Don't act like a TPK is some kind of gift to the players, because it's not.

Green Bean
2009-09-24, 08:10 PM
If you're going to go for a TPK, be blatant about it. Trying to pretend it's a normal encounter, or they just 'happened' upon the CR 58 Elder god is plain cowardly. If you have a good reason for a TPK, tell them. Explain, to their face, that you are putting them up against something that they have no chance against, and that they will not be able to flee or talk their way out of a confrontation.

Then, tell them your obviously amazing reason for doing so. Are they won over by your justifications? If not, you shouldn't be TPKing them, and you're kind of a jerk.

Karoht
2009-09-24, 08:12 PM
I was co-DM'ing a game, and our party was level 6 average. Now, we knew that some of the characters were going to go down some game breaking paths sooner or later. The characters also decided to go after some very low CR storylines that hadn't been wrapped up yet, because they ignored them when they were level appropriate. What followed was the most angry and whiney party of players I'd ever seen. Why?

They had their asses handed to them, by CR 0.5 orcs. Peasants even.

Thats right. Half a CR orcs. Not only was much of their encounters with these guys a completely waste of time because they got such a small amount of XP, but they still got beaten up pretty good. The CR 4 boss at the end of the encounter just about wiped the party. I'm serious.

So the orcs and their leader had started assembling a fortress in the swamp. The players were tasked with dealing with these guys ages ago. They go in day 1, kick down the door and... kill something like 75 orcs. Wiped out all the major combatants, but after about 11 encounters in this place, they were really way too weak to consider going after the boss. So they beat a tactical retreat. It was, in it's way, the best idea they'd had all day. These orcs outsmarted them at every turn. They had succeeded in using some great tactics to mess with the party.

They come back the next day. All thats left are peasant orcs, mostly laborers who have been working on the fortress. The previous day, a few walls got knocked out in the battle. The leader rallied these peasants to battle, just not the way you'd think.

They spent the night weakening most of the support structures. The leader figured, it's better it collapse than the party take it and hold it as a foothold. So the next day when the party comes in, they find a few minor distractions, get lead into rooms, and subsequently have a wall fall on them. They chase after more orcs down a hallway only to have another wall fall on them. All these orcs had to do was take their hammer and a wedge, swing once, make a DC10 strength check between 3 or more orcs, and a wall would collapse on the party. The party also had next to no way to hear these guys moving around in the commotion, taking positions behind more walls to bring down on them. And so on. The leader was also sitting up in a tower and could see down onto everything (the roof was destroyed the previous day), and was zapping them with a wand of magic missile firing every round he could see them. Again, almost wiped the party, with peasant orcs and magic missile.

This was a party of level 6's. They had a cleric. They had a Sorcerer who could fling fireballs. And they got chewed to pieces by about 30 half CR orcs and their CR 4 leader.

In the swamp on the way back, they were harassed horribly by these guys. They had orcs stealing their supplies, their food and water, stealing their loot, breaking their gear, put holes in their waterskins and canteens, wrecking their tents, stealing or injuring their horses. They attacked with hit and run tactics, they never aimed to kill the party, just harass them. They deprived them of sleep, scared off any game that could be hunted, and messed up the trail they were using to get out of the swamp. That party made it back to town after being annoyed by these guys for a solid week in the swamp, starving, sleep deprived, dehydrated, and otherwise miserable.

And it was glorious. That party was so humbled. Normally they're just hack and slash and spell players. By the time they left that swamp, they were playing some great tactics, really using their heads in a fight. The sorcerer never once took for granted that he could just fireball a bunch of guys, ever ever again.

Bottom line, it's not the CR that makes something difficult. It's the DM behind the monster, every time.

Zincorium
2009-09-24, 08:17 PM
Are your players allowed to lose battles, or is that against the rules too? :P

You conveniently do not bring up the fact that 'go out in a blaze of glory' was listed in my first post as the other option to 'survive'. People die all the time in my games, but it's not intentional and I try to at least make it interesting.

If it can't be story relevant, it should at least merit some good description of exactly why the action was so boneheaded as to justify death. Gibbets of flesh and liberal slathering of gore not optional.

Lvl45DM!
2009-09-24, 08:43 PM
I once tried a TPK
I was running a few side by side campaigns and my PC's were playing a group of NPC's that they had allied with a while back for a few side quests
but i wanted some blood and decided to kill them off, and then the real PC's could come in and get vengence
i put them in a dungeon where they waded through a few waves of trolls and giants, nothing they couldnt handle, but enough to start weakening them
the beholder slew two, one with death one with flesh to stone
but i wasnt done yet
They got to the last level and they fought 20 Cthulu ghouls (i use Cthulu as the BBEG in my campaign)
Kicked their ass
then 20 ghasts spawned
then 12 night gaunts
then 4 Dark young. now dark young are 12 HD monsters against an average of 11 level party
i thought that thought would be enough, but the two illusionists (this is 1E btw) conjured a monster based on the random figurine i had with tentacles and a beak and a dragons head.
i gave it 10 HD cos one illusionist was level 11 the other level 9 and they were working together
the dice worshipped them and my dark young were slaughter
so i made a new level with 2 shoggoths, 300 HP each 2 attacks low AC high damage
Now these guys were tough, they ripped the illusion monster (swampie :) ) apart and killed both the remaining fighters and the cleric, and the lower level illusionist leaving the 11level illusionist with one spell left vsing the last shoggoth on 1 HP, honest to god it had one hp left. but the last two spells weren offensive and there was no way wizard could hit a low AC before the shoggoth killed them right?
the spell was rope trick
so he sat in that damn rope trick casting polymorph out of his wand Now the shoggoth could hit at him, but cos of the cover and the dice it didnt connect.
but it didnt fail its saves either. eventually the mage got fed up and threw his dagger, his one dagger with a dex penalty
he rolled a 20
TPK's DONT WORK!

another time i had my party climbing a mountain in a blizzard. there were supposed to fall off and get rescued by the clan that livind in the mountian, moving the story. not one fell
-8 to dex rolls as they were climbing. no flying otherwise the wind would dash you against the rock. but clever use of rope of climbing and bind spells kept them going to the top and i was stuck putting them into the big fight at the end without the healing and magic items the dwarves were gonna give them
needless to say they didnt need them
My parties are invincible

Lord_Gareth
2009-09-24, 08:51 PM
For future reference, I bring in homebrew to surprise my jaded players. Nothing says, "Surprise!" like fighting someone they THINK is a druid...until he turns a party member inside-out. A party member who remains ALIVE in that state. So YEAH.

Lvl45DM!
2009-09-24, 08:55 PM
well thats just mean!

The Big Dice
2009-09-24, 09:17 PM
But that's an entirely different problem: a soft DM who won't say "no" to his players. It's a huge mistake, but that doesn't mean the opposite end of the spectrum is any better, ie. the killer DM who's out to kill his players.

Who said anything about simply being out to kill the characters? There's been more than one time when I've started a session by saying "Tonight, I'm out to kill someone. I don't care who, but a PC should die tonight." And that's made people bring their A Game to every encounter. That's not to say that I'm going out with the intent of running an unfair, un-foreshadowed fight. What it is saying is, if you want to win, then go out there and earn it.

The thing is, if your players are aware that you won't kill their characters, then they don't stand to lose anything. And if there's nothing to lose, then there's nothing to gain. Whereas, if you play tough but fair and make it clear that character death is a real possibility, then people respond to that in one of two ways. They either complain that "We're the PCs! We can't lose!" or they take their game to the next level and start being smart about things.

I know which kind of player I prefer to have in my group.

As a GM, never underestimate the power of foreshadowing. Give people a hint that they're getting out of their depth with a situation. Let them see the power of the thing they are going to face. Then let them decide if they're willing to go up against someone or something that has the potential to rip through them like they would through a bunch of orc mooks.

That way, they have no grounds to complain to you that you put an unwinnable situation in front of them. My philosphy is, character death should always be directly traceable back to a decision the player made. Whether that decision was to fight on when it was obvious they were getting creamed, sticking their head over the wall when they know the enemy is armed with fully automatic assault rifles or telling a daimyo that he's not fit to be a samurai makes no difference.

The player made a bad choice and got handed a freshly printed blank character sheet because of it. And player choice is what really matters.


They are entitled to a reasonably enjoyable game, and in D&D it's traditional that you let them be the Big Damn Heroes tm.

How can you win if there's no chance you could lose? A Big Damn Hero needs to overcome adversity on his journey. Otherwise he's just a thug. Worse, he's He-Man from the 80s Masters of the Universe cartoon, on a relentless march of victory after victory. Each one becoming more hollow than the one before it.

Pick a hero, any hero from any style of literature, movies, comics, wrestling, manga, anime or whatever. At some point they get beaten and have to make some kind of a comeback. A true Hero Journey has our hero recovering from a dramatic defeat and then bouncing back to turn the tables.

How we deal with defeat is more important than how we deal with victory.

1. I don't capture my Pcs, and I hate getting captured. Railroading at it's most annoying.

2. I don't have them fight recurring villains in a conventional toe-to-toe battle. That is what minions are for.

3. Revenge for other people who are not you. My players generally don't exist in a void.

1. Here's a thing: any time a GM sets pen to paper, there's railroading going on. Ever ran a module? That's on rails. Ever planned an encounter, session or campaign? You just put rails in the way of your players. I used to run Cyberpunk back in the day and I tried going totally freeform for a couple of months. I'd drop the Night City Sourcebook on the table and ask people "What do you want to do?" And guess what they did.

They got bored of not having anything to do within a few weeks. After partying, cleaning up the neighbourhood because of random encounters with boosters and getting a hot new custom hand cannon, they ended up waiting for the next plot hook to come their way. Give people total freedom to do as they please and they either go off the rails, or sit around and wait for something to happen. Usually the former, follwed by the latter. Unless the whole world revolves around and scales to them, of course. Which is a pretty unrealistic prospect and still involves the GM steering events in one direction or another.

Or railroading, if you prefer.

2. You can only fight minions for so long before the whole thing starts to look contrived. Even James Bond eventually killed Blofeld. At some point, you need some kind of resolution to things, or your games start to look like a saturday morning cartoon where the villain always escapes to try again next week with another plan to take over the world. Which is of course doomed to failure, as the PCs are going to stop him. Again.

There's a reason that The Empire Strikes Back is widely held as being the best of the Star Wars movies. It's because it breaks the trend of "the good guys must always win." And that makes it memorable.

Which is what we all want our games to be, at the end of the day.

3. If your characters don't exist in a void (yes, I'm separating the player from the character deliberately here) then things will happen that they have no control over. Not all of those things will be good things, and there will be times when those characters want to get even with someone. In other words, they want revenge.

One of the most memorable moments I've had in my time as a roleplayer was in a GURPS game. We'd spent months building our characters up and had got to the point where we had land granted to us for our heroic deeds. Tax season rolled around, and our PC earl collected all the revenue the king was due from his territory. Tens of thousands of gold pieces, all in his strong room waiting to be taken to the treasury.

Our characters got called away to deal with orc raiders on the border, and when we returned, the earl's chief advisor had stolen every penny out of the vault. All bar a single gold coin and a note saying not to spend it all in one place.

We spent the next few months of play tracking that guy down to give him what he so richly deserved.

Revenge is a powerful plot motivator.


Or you can simply make it seem like the above, and they get the full sense of entitlement.

I can't speak for everyone on this one. Or speak for everyone on anything, really. But I can say that when I get the feeling that the GM is making things easy, I feel cheated. I don't want an illusion of entitlement, I want to work for things and not get them handed to me on a plate. And what exactly is it that I'm entitled to as a player anyway? Having fun in the course of practising my hobby? But do I want it to be a never ending march to the next batch of experience points? Personally, I prefer to be on a rollercoaster ride that involves ups and downs, sharp turns and dramatic reversals.

As a GM, I understand the value of plot immunity for characters. But equally, I understand that with no risk of character death, we may as well be playing Mario with infinite lives. Instead, you could use the threat of character death and even TPK to make your players remember what it is they play for. The thrill of vicariously living dangerously.

Green Bean
2009-09-24, 09:23 PM
Who said anything about simply being out to kill the characters?

The OP :smalltongue:

Primal Fury
2009-09-24, 09:24 PM
This prolongs the fight and gives the PCs a tiny chance to come up with a winning plan. And if they don't? It will still be an epic 20-rounds-plus fight with lots of scenery damage and crowning moments of awesome as the PCs heroically sacrifice themselves to weaken the monster enough for the NPCs to finally kill it.

This? This right here? THIS is where you messed up. You shouldn't put the PCs through some long, arduous (sp?), and fruitless battle just to have some freaking NPCs kill the thing. That's just dumb. I don't DM, I don't have the head for it; but if I did, and MY players were going to die (and they were cool with it by the way :smallwink:), then they would fight the beast, and yes, they would die, but they'd take that sucker with'em.

NPCs? Honestly. :smallannoyed:

The Big Dice
2009-09-24, 09:27 PM
The OP :smalltongue:

Actually, he just said about making the characters lose.

The death thing is sort of impled by the topic header though :smallbiggrin:

taltamir
2009-09-24, 09:59 PM
the beholder slew two, one with death one with flesh to stone
but i wasnt done yet
They got to the last level and they fought 20 Cthulu ghouls (i use Cthulu as the BBEG in my campaign)
Brought it on themselves... if you fight something and it slays two party members before going down, you retreat and regroup.

Akal Saris
2009-09-24, 10:10 PM
Ah, but they beat that encounter apparently :P

By the way, Big Dice, I think you wrote a very solid post a few posts earlier. I'm of a similar viewpoint on almost every point.

Zincorium
2009-09-24, 10:57 PM
The thing is, if your players are aware that you won't kill their characters, then they don't stand to lose anything. And if there's nothing to lose, then there's nothing to gain. Whereas, if you play tough but fair and make it clear that character death is a real possibility, then people respond to that in one of two ways. They either complain that "We're the PCs! We can't lose!" or they take their game to the next level and start being smart about things.

I know which kind of player I prefer to have in my group.

You aren't grasping the idea that the PCs can, do, and will continue to die. I just do not set out to kill them, and I don't put them in situations where they are all going to die.


As a GM, never underestimate the power of foreshadowing. Give people a hint that they're getting out of their depth with a situation. Let them see the power of the thing they are going to face. Then let them decide if they're willing to go up against someone or something that has the potential to rip through them like they would through a bunch of orc mooks.

None of which requires you to intentionally TPK everyone.


That way, they have no grounds to complain to you that you put an unwinnable situation in front of them.

This bit confuses me. You are putting an unwinnable situation in front of them- that seems to have been your entire point so far. If there is a creature that will kill all of them if they face it, there is no real option here.

And if the players don't like this? They have grounds to complain.


My philosphy is, character death should always be directly traceable back to a decision the player made.

If you're forcing the decision, instead of leaving them a valid option, I would say that's not being a particularly good DM. If you're not forcing them...

...That's what I do. And thus your disparagement of me is groundsless.


How can you win if there's no chance you could lose? A Big Damn Hero needs to overcome adversity on his journey. Otherwise he's just a thug. Worse, he's He-Man from the 80s Masters of the Universe cartoon, on a relentless march of victory after victory. Each one becoming more hollow than the one before it.

Just because you can't imagine people having fun doesn't mean they aren't.


Pick a hero, any hero from any style of literature, movies, comics, wrestling, manga, anime or whatever. At some point they get beaten and have to make some kind of a comeback. A true Hero Journey has our hero recovering from a dramatic defeat and then bouncing back to turn the tables.

The difference: Protagonists in those media do not just die and get replaced by some unrelated character to the detriment of the storyline.

Which you said is what you do.


1. Here's a thing: any time a GM sets pen to paper, there's railroading going on.

Misuse of the term. Railroading is not saying "There is a wall there." Railroading is saying "There is a wall everywhere except here."

Imprisoning the PCs after an unbeatable encounter subdues them all is not only incredibly insulting, it kills the player's involvement in the plot. It doesn't matter what they did, they got captured because the plot said so. Those are the games you play?


2. You can only fight minions for so long before the whole thing starts to look contrived.

You said first encounter. Don't expand what I said to cover things that I didn't.


There's a reason that The Empire Strikes Back is widely held as being the best of the Star Wars movies. It's because it breaks the trend of "the good guys must always win." And that makes it memorable.

Failure to win is not the same as TPK. Please, please tell me you get that part, and why it's so very important. If Luke, Han, Leia, and the droids all got thrown out the airlock, no one would have like the movie.


3. If your characters don't exist in a void (yes, I'm separating the player from the character deliberately here) then things will happen that they have no control over. Not all of those things will be good things, and there will be times when those characters want to get even with someone. In other words, they want revenge.

?

What I was saying is that revenge does not have to be revenge for something that happened specifically to you. It can be for things done to someone or something else. My PCs not being in a void means I have a range of targets other than their characters.

And it's hard to get revenge when there's a TPK. So I avoid them.


I can't speak for everyone on this one. Or speak for everyone on anything, really. But I can say that when I get the feeling that the GM is making things easy, I feel cheated. I don't want an illusion of entitlement, I want to work for things and not get them handed to me on a plate. And what exactly is it that I'm entitled to as a player anyway? Having fun in the course of practising my hobby? But do I want it to be a never ending march to the next batch of experience points? Personally, I prefer to be on a rollercoaster ride that involves ups and downs, sharp turns and dramatic reversals.

You don't understand the midpoint between easy street and a planned TPK? Sucks to be you.

Myrmex
2009-09-24, 11:05 PM
-Pick monsters adding up to the CR a party should face.

CRs are totally laughable. They should largely be ignored.


We are saying you should not pick your monsters to try to kill the Players, because Pun-Pun is seriously a choice at all times.

lol @ faulty assumptions in real games.

Yar
2009-09-24, 11:25 PM
If I wanted to play a game as a flesh golem, I'd join a game where the DM asks me to play a flesh golem. I'd rather not waste my time developing a character just so the DM can kill them and mutilate their corpse in the first session.


Well you got cured by the end of the adventure so Dont get too weepy about it :smallsmile:

Kelpstrand
2009-09-24, 11:28 PM
lol @ faulty assumptions in real games.

How about instead of saying:

lol @ X, you actually explain what you mean in English so I can tell how you are insulting me.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-24, 11:45 PM
I presume he was laughing at the idea that pun-pun was a legitimate option in real games? Only thing that really seemed to make sense there.

I agree with those who don't believe in designing TPKs. I may design encounters without a specific means of solving it, trusting in the players ingenuity, but I don't specifically design encounters to be UNsolvable death traps.

Ravens_cry
2009-09-25, 12:02 AM
There was a similar thread a few months ago about using a Kobayashi Maru on players. I was opposed then, I am opposed now. Sure, there may be fights that are extremely difficult from a combat perspective, even with the favour of the RNG, but there should then be other ways around such fights, Also, be open to third options that you didn't think off. One should reward such creativity.

Thatguyoverther
2009-09-25, 12:08 AM
No, it does not: it forces the players to start over. If they wanted to abandon their current characters and start from scratch, don't you think they'd tell you?

Don't act like a TPK is some kind of gift to the players, because it's not.

A TPK doesn't have to be unsolicited.

TPKs, unless your GM has a vendetta, are usually avoidable. When the BBEG shows up and says "Surrender or die." you can always take the first option. Or runaway leaving the villagers/orphans/party members to their fate. It might mean abandoning you're character's mores, "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" and what not.

At least in my experience every time I've had a character die, I choose to have the character die.

Tackyhillbillu
2009-09-25, 12:57 AM
I'm actually running a game that will probably end in a deliberate TPK.

The idea behind it is that in my home campaign (and that of a DM who split off from my game and began running another in the same 'world') is that partway during the 2E timeline of Forgotten Realms a major storyline occurred that ended in 1/3rd of Faerun being destroyed in an unimaginably massive undead invasion followed by an epic-level glacier spell centered on Waterdeep. So most of the current campaigns take place in areas at the border of this glacier, like Cormyr.

The new game is set in Waterdeep 17 days before the undead horde arrives, and the PCs have begun to have strange visions of the apocalyptic future, unlike everyone else in Waterdeep, who ishappily going about their lives. So they're doing their typical low-level quests, but with the full knowledge that in 2 weeks the world as their characters know it is going to collapse. So far the PCs have had a great time with it, especially since every time the NPCs say something like "I can't wait for the autumn harvest in 3 weeks!' the PCs all shudder and say 'There will never be an autumn harvest in 3 weeks...'

Along the way I get to throw in old, old PC characters and NPCs that their old character met maybe 5 years ago (in real time, mind you), and NPCs from the split-off game that they were in. So there's a lot of fun 'Hey, I remember that guy! He's my old character's father!' moments. But eventually I want the campaign to end - and spectacularly. I don't want the characters to die immediately to endless undead hordes, but rather with meaning - but I do eventually want to finish the game in a TPK, one that will leave the PCs as unsung heroes - but I haven't thought ahead to where I want the story to end.

Any suggestions or thoughts on this end?

This sounds pretty cool. I'm ignoring the main discussion, because I seriously doubt the OP is going to be convinced that his position is wrong, and he isn't going to get the rest of the Posters to respond.

Have them die protecting some of those remembered NPC's. Don't make the fight a charge of the Light Brigade. You want them dead, but you want them to die with a point.

You want a really epic last battle? Pull a Siege, like the attack on Sapphire City in the comic, and let the PC's get no rest. Finally, unleash the big bad on them. Give him a weakness you can reveal once you've got them in dire enough straights that their only real option is giving it one last go. Make sure they die feeling that A. they are heroes, who died defeating something that had to be stopped, and B. that there will be someone to carry on the memory of what they did.

You want to ever tie it in, run a campaign in that region of Faerun, and have them come across a Cairn stacked in someplace where it wouldn't have been crushed by the Glacier (Cave or something) with a short message about the characters.

(I haven't DMed in a while, but I love epic last stands, and those little hints that the PC's made a difference. Those kind of things make the difference between a good DM and a great DM.)

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2009-09-25, 01:18 AM
TPK is punishing players for the DM's incompetence.
I stress to my players that my games are not easy. So, in turn they strategize(not a word) and think. They get tactical, ration out abilities and items. And as a result, they get in way over their heads, and after a hard fought battle, EARN their XP. And they love it. Can they die? Yes. Do they? On occasions, but they know when they're going to die, and they know it will have been their fault.
If you railroad a game to failure, you are failing as a game maker. If you give them a way out all the time, every time, you are doing okay.
If you make them work for their victory, then your are succeeding.
If you are acting out any harsh feelings about the group, then you need to sell your books on eBay and never come back.

Yes, my group has a tendency to piss me off, but I don't hold it against them in game. When the Wizard comes in trouncing everything, I give magical resistances, and weaknesses to melee.
Never punish your players.

taltamir
2009-09-25, 01:27 AM
TPK is punishing players for the DM's incompetence.
I stress to my players that my games are not easy. So, in turn they strategize(not a word)

yes it is :)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strategize

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2009-09-25, 01:29 AM
yes it is :)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strategize

Firefox gravely disagrees for some reason.

taltamir
2009-09-25, 01:31 AM
Firefox gravely disagrees for some reason.

funny...

oh, btw... excellent explanation. I totally agree with all the points you made

Fiendish_Dire_Moose
2009-09-25, 01:32 AM
funny...

oh, btw... excellent explanation. I totally agree with all the points you made

Thanks, I kind of learned what not to do from having what shouldn't be done, done to me. That, and thinking about what would be the most fun for me to play in, then throwing it at my players.

Myrmex
2009-09-26, 02:00 AM
I presume he was laughing at the idea that pun-pun was a legitimate option in real games? Only thing that really seemed to make sense there.

Thanks.


I agree with those who don't believe in designing TPKs. I may design encounters without a specific means of solving it, trusting in the players ingenuity, but I don't specifically design encounters to be UNsolvable death traps.

Even if you design encounters as unsolvable death traps, there are usually ways out that you didn't anticipate, or ways to foresee it and avoid some part of it.

Killing a well-prepared & well-optimized party is actually pretty difficult.

Kelpstrand
2009-09-26, 03:14 AM
Thanks.

For the DM? Yes it is. Anything is an option for a fight. It's specifically called RFED.

To claim that you try your hardest as a DM to kill your players is a joke, either you do, and they instantly die once the game starts, or you don't, and so your claim is meaningless.

Akal Saris
2009-09-26, 02:15 PM
This sounds pretty cool. I'm ignoring the main discussion, because I seriously doubt the OP is going to be convinced that his position is wrong, and he isn't going to get the rest of the Posters to respond.

Have them die protecting some of those remembered NPC's. Don't make the fight a charge of the Light Brigade. You want them dead, but you want them to die with a point.

You want a really epic last battle? Pull a Siege, like the attack on Sapphire City in the comic, and let the PC's get no rest. Finally, unleash the big bad on them. Give him a weakness you can reveal once you've got them in dire enough straights that their only real option is giving it one last go. Make sure they die feeling that A. they are heroes, who died defeating something that had to be stopped, and B. that there will be someone to carry on the memory of what they did.

You want to ever tie it in, run a campaign in that region of Faerun, and have them come across a Cairn stacked in someplace where it wouldn't have been crushed by the Glacier (Cave or something) with a short message about the characters.

(I haven't DMed in a while, but I love epic last stands, and those little hints that the PC's made a difference. Those kind of things make the difference between a good DM and a great DM.)

Thanks for the advice :)

I think I'll go with something a lot like that - maybe a sort of rearguard battle or something.

Inhuman Bot
2009-09-26, 02:42 PM
Even if you design encounters as unsolvable death traps, there are usually ways out that you didn't anticipate, or ways to foresee it and avoid some part of it.

Killing a well-prepared & well-optimized party is actually pretty difficult.

Yeah, but what's the punchline?

woodenbandman
2009-09-26, 03:19 PM
CRs are totally laughable. They should largely be ignored.


My point stands.

I don't like to kill players. Not that I would go out of my way to avoid a player death, but I try to make each death fair, and a result of good tactical decisions, not stupidly high CR.

I once almost TPKd the party, which I didn't want to do on my second or third session. So I let them live, but they were battered pretty badly.