PDA

View Full Version : Trying to Win the Unwinnable



Chess435
2011-05-19, 04:22 PM
Inspired by the thread on whether a party should always win in the end, I have a similar but inverse question: Is it okay for a DM to put the party in a situation in which they have no hope for success? (Barring extreme stupidity, of course) Furthermore, have you ever put a party through this fate, and/or been on the receiving end? If so, what happened, and how did it affect your game?

Thanks for your time! :smallbiggrin:

dsmiles
2011-05-19, 04:34 PM
As a DM, barring absolute stupidity on the players' parts, I try not to make unwinnable situations. (Except for the 5% recommended by the DMG.) The group I've been with for the past 7 years are by far not stupid (I'm looking at you The Mighty þ & family). They're probably the smartest players (and DMs) I've ever gamed with. Even those encounters that fall in that 5% rule are winnable, just not usually by combat, and my group inevitably finds a way to win them.

Douglas
2011-05-19, 04:37 PM
There are two problems with a DM putting players in an unwinnable situation:
1) How do you get the players to figure out that the situation is unwinnable before they've blown their last chance to escape and TPK is unavoidable?
2) Sometimes players surprise you and manage to win anyway, despite ridiculously stacked odds. Now what?

TheCountAlucard
2011-05-19, 04:37 PM
Yes and no, though it gets a little harder to say for sure when you talk about barring stupidity. :smalltongue:

For example, in one such instance, the PCs inadverdently allowed the guy in charge of the first circle of Hell to potentially unbalance the Blood War through their attempts at aiding a wizard in making a race of machine-people. :smallamused: At their level, stopping the Archduke of Avernus from advancing his scheme on their own may well have been utterly impossible.

Unfortunately, we'll never see for sure, because the game died for unrelated reasons. :smallannoyed:

In another instance, though a little more related to stupidity, one of my Exalted players took the time to min-max his character, but unfortunately took some of the most crippling flaws in the game; namely, he had amnesia, a deadly enemy, and the enmity of an entire nation. :smalltongue: Needless to say, he's found himself between three rocks and three hard places. :smalltongue: Unfortunately, that game's over for now, and we may or may not pick it up again. :smallsigh:


2) Sometimes players surprise you and manage to win anyway, despite ridiculously stacked odds. Now what?This is not a problem; I love when this happens. :smallamused:

KillianHawkeye
2011-05-19, 04:43 PM
I'll say what I said in the other thread: in no case should the PCs find it impossible to win OR impossible to lose. They can have an easy or hard time of it, but it's important to maintain an element of chance.

Fable Wright
2011-05-19, 04:49 PM
I'll say what I said in the other thread: in no case should the PCs find it impossible to win OR impossible to lose. They can have an easy or hard time of it, but it's important to maintain an element of chance.

Yes. The mere fact that it's the players being in the situation provides that chance. Level one characters fighting pit fiends? They could find a way. Hopefully they had warning ahead of time, or they can convince the demon not to kill them too soon, and then equip. Every situation is winnable, solely for the fact that it's the players that are in them.

Gamer Girl
2011-05-19, 04:49 PM
Inspired by the thread on whether a party should always win in the end, I have a similar but inverse question: Is it okay for a DM to put the party in a situation in which they have no hope for success? (Barring extreme stupidity, of course) Furthermore, have you ever put a party through this fate, and/or been on the receiving end? If so, what happened, and how did it affect your game?

Thanks for your time! :smallbiggrin:

Yes.

I have never liked the idea that the game must be 'fair and balanced' to be just right and perfectly 'luke warm' for the players. If the players head over and crash/attack the Red Dragon Birthday Party then they will expect to fight(be killed by) dozens of Red Dragons. Same way if the group heads in to Sage Evil's fortress and the very first trap on the very first sewer grate takes them all to -1 HP, then they should have the common sense not to continue.

I run the Status Que type game. Gor-Tork is a 21st level dwarf cleric when the characters are 1st level, 5th level or any other level. Gor-Tork does not 'magically and mysteriously' always have 3-4 levels more then the current players(he is not 5th level when they are 1st, but is suddenly 9th when they eventually get to 5th level.)

I've killed thousands of characters, as I'm a Killer DM. In general, I don't 'save' the characters. But as they know it's a deadly game, they will often be smart and give up. For example, once some lowly kobold thugs nearly kill the group, they will decide not to go kill the kobold king...at least not today.

I find that death, and the threat of death, makes the game much more fun. A character can die at any time, doing anything. This has the huge effect of keeping players on their toes, but even more so paying attention in the game. If you sit back in my game doing the Lone Wolf Ego Trip(or say texting away) and just mindlessly 'follow the group' you can suddenly find your character in a spot where they will die. The only way to avoid this is by playing the game. (''Um, guys lets not go down the Tunnel of Doom..").

Now, a lot of players like the safe nerf padded game..where they will just be challenged and they know their character will almost never die. Needless to say I don't get along with that type of player, but they are not too likely to play in my game anyway.

Frozen_Feet
2011-05-19, 04:50 PM
Inspired by the thread on whether a party should always win in the end, I have a similar but inverse question: Is it okay for a DM to put the party in a situation in which they have no hope for success? (Barring extreme stupidity, of course) Furthermore, have you ever put a party through this fate, and/or been on the receiving end? If so, what happened, and how did it affect your game?

Thanks for your time! :smallbiggrin:

Yes, it's acceptable from time to time, but shouldn't be overused or used as an implement to railroad the players. Though usually, I don't have to do anything as a DM - my players are happy to engineer lose-lose scenarions all by themselves. :smallbiggrin:

Have been on the receiving end a few times. The only case I vividly remember came so out of the blue I didn't really know what to do and just played along, desperately trying to escape the downward spiral with my character. We never resumed those characters, though, so ultimate fate of that character remains undetermined to this day. :smallbiggrin:

Ranos
2011-05-19, 05:02 PM
I don't really think about solutions, just the problems. The players have four times more brainpower at their disposal than me, so trying to think at their level is useless anyway.
Haven't yet seen an unwinnable situation though. There's always a way to get out of everything. The only question is, will the players will think of it, and is luck going to be on their side ?

Yukitsu
2011-05-19, 05:08 PM
Any situation where the outcome is predetermined regardless of action, decisions, luck, skill or any other factor other than the DM's decision as to whether or not the group should succeed removes all agency from the players. You can write your story and send me the manuscript, but if I'm just there to listen to you tell a story, I'll go read a novel instead.

Pisha
2011-05-19, 05:10 PM
Yes.

I have never liked the idea that the game must be 'fair and balanced' to be just right and perfectly 'luke warm' for the players. If the players head over and crash/attack the Red Dragon Birthday Party then they will expect to fight(be killed by) dozens of Red Dragons. Same way if the group heads in to Sage Evil's fortress and the very first trap on the very first sewer grate takes them all to -1 HP, then they should have the common sense not to continue.



That seems like it falls under the "extreme stupidity" exception. I mean, I don't like the "killer GM" type of game; I prefer a strong continuous story, and that's hard to do when characters are getting killed off left and right. However, even in a less-deadly game, if I were to crash a Red Dragon shindig I would expect to get killed.

(Actually, our PC's DID crash a dragon conclave once. I remember we stuck really really close to any friendly-seeming good-aligned dragons, sat quietly in the corner without disrupting the proceeding, and tried our hardest not to look like food. Because, you know, we were pretty sure that if we started a fight in there, our gentle, patient, non-killer GM would have them EAT US.)

Gamer Girl
2011-05-19, 05:25 PM
That seems like it falls under the "extreme stupidity" exception. I mean, I don't like the "killer GM" type of game; I prefer a strong continuous story, and that's hard to do when characters are getting killed off left and right. However, even in a less-deadly game, if I were to crash a Red Dragon shindig I would expect to get killed.

When players know that their action, or inaction can get their character killed they stay much more focused on the story.

I've seen tons of the 'safe style' where the players can just sit back and relax as they know nothing will kill their characters, at least until they get to the 'acceptable death points', like fighting a Big Bad.

It's a lot like TV shows. As a viewer you know the main character's will never die. So when the bullets or phasers or arrows start to fire, you know a regular cast member won't be killed. And when they 'duck down behind the rocks', it looks and feels fake. You know they could walk right up to the people shooting and stand at point blank range, and not get shot.

Watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk80c36PKiw You only need to go to :50 to see the classic scene.

Pisha
2011-05-19, 05:29 PM
Fair enough. I suppose I prefer a compromise: our GM agrees not to kill us (or at least not TPK us), and we agree not to do something so stupid that it could only result in death. :smallbiggrin: It's the GM's job (in the games I like, at least) to provide us with enough information that we can reasonably tell stupid actions from smart ones. It's then our job to act on that information. If everyone does their job, nobody has to die (unless the dice just hate us, of course.)

Talakeal
2011-05-19, 05:38 PM
If you are so willing to kill off characters, wont even a well played character die sooner rather than latter simply due to bad lack or a single bad decision / miscommunication?
I guess it works for your players, but for me that would make me lose interest in the game quickly. Not because I can't die, but because I die so often I no longer care, and will just be playing fighter build #27 instead of a character I spent months or years creating and playing.

Tengu_temp
2011-05-19, 05:56 PM
I sometimes put my players in a situation they cannot win, to increase the drama and seriousness of the story. It doesn't mean their characters die, though - a good DM can show the players that **** hit the fan in dozens other ways than a TPK. And they often triumph anyway, later in the story - defeating a bad guy feels much sweeter if he kicked your ass before.


I've seen tons of the 'safe style' where the players can just sit back and relax as they know nothing will kill their characters, at least until they get to the 'acceptable death points', like fighting a Big Bad.

I've never encountered a player who had the "cool, I can do stupid stuff and not pay attention to anything since I won't die anyway" approach to this style. They tend to go "cool, I won't easily lose my character in this game so I can focus on the story and roleplaying, not having to be overly careful with everything" instead. Maybe I just play with the right people.

Gamer Girl
2011-05-19, 06:02 PM
If you are so willing to kill off characters, wont even a well played character die sooner rather than latter simply due to bad lack or a single bad decision / miscommunication?
I guess it works for your players, but for me that would make me lose interest in the game quickly. Not because I can't die, but because I die so often I no longer care, and will just be playing fighter build #27 instead of a character I spent months or years creating and playing.

With the chance of death, players rarely die from bad luck, bad decisions or miscommunications.

Sure some people like to build an immortal character and just challenge and play them. Again, it's the basic TV formula. You watch to just see the character over come challenges and advance a plot, but you know the character won't die or be killed off.

KillianHawkeye
2011-05-19, 06:05 PM
Yes. The mere fact that it's the players being in the situation provides that chance. Level one characters fighting pit fiends? They could find a way. Hopefully they had warning ahead of time, or they can convince the demon not to kill them too soon, and then equip. Every situation is winnable, solely for the fact that it's the players that are in them.

Uh... what? That's not what I mean at all. Level 1 PCs cannot win a fight against Pit Fiend(s). Anything that happens in this situation will be because the Pit Fiend(s) allow it to happen.

Siosilvar
2011-05-19, 06:20 PM
If you are so willing to kill off characters, wont even a well played character die sooner rather than latter simply due to bad lack or a single bad decision / miscommunication?
I guess it works for your players, but for me that would make me lose interest in the game quickly. Not because I can't die, but because I die so often I no longer care, and will just be playing fighter build #27 instead of a character I spent months or years creating and playing.

Good, healthy fear of loss != meat grinder.

There's a difference between killing characters once a session (or more) and being willing to let a character die because they made some bad calls and the dice fell where they may.

Frozen_Feet
2011-05-19, 06:38 PM
With the chance of death, players rarely die from bad luck, bad decisions or miscommunications.

Yeah, it's not like people die from any of those in real life... oh wait (http://www.darwinawards.com/). :smallwink:

Seriously, seen too many characters die because their players made bad decisions because of their fear of death. No, really, that happens. Like in a case where the coward(s) stayed behind, leaving rest of the party undermanned for the upcoming challenge.

NichG
2011-05-19, 06:39 PM
For me, the most important thing is that the long-term structure shouldn't be an unwinnable case. That is, it shouldn't be a campaign where victory in the end is impossible. If I have to flee a particular fight, or sacrifice a particular thing in order to approach that resulting victory, thats fine and interesting, but if the whole thing is doomed from the outset then thats not so good.

Local unwinnable situations show up all the time based on what the players decide their short-term goals are. Usually they're because of unrealistic goals, or because the players don't know something (e.g. the oft-cited we're level 1 characters and we heard of treasure in that mountain but we don't know its guarded by a great wyrm red dragon). It may be that if we set our hearts on killing the dragon, its unwinnable, but if we negotiate with the dragon we've got an employer, and when we're strong enough we can come back and kill it or steal from it or whatever. So in the long-term, there's a chance of success if we do it right.

That said, I do feel that if the GM intentionally creates a scenario even in the short term that is designed to make it so the players are helpless to do anything, thats also not very good design. At that point you might as well just do a cutscene, and not waste the players' time. Basically, its important that the players have some form of agency all the time, even if that agency isn't total or even necessarily large for the situation: 'I can save one person from the slaughter of this city', 'I can loot while the city burns!', etc are all at least something that the player can decide and attempt to achieve, even if stopping the city from being lost is basically impossible at that stage.

Pisha
2011-05-19, 06:40 PM
If you are so willing to kill off characters, wont even a well played character die sooner rather than latter simply due to bad lack or a single bad decision / miscommunication?
I guess it works for your players, but for me that would make me lose interest in the game quickly. Not because I can't die, but because I die so often I no longer care, and will just be playing fighter build #27 instead of a character I spent months or years creating and playing.

I don't think that's what she's saying. A "harder" game is not necessarily going to have more lethality than a "softer" game, but the player's playstyle has to adjust somewhat. I don't think GamerGirl is going to squash her players without mercy for a single bad decision (correct me if I'm wrong here), unless that decision is spectacularly bad, but if the players blatantly disregard warnings that a particular course of action is a Very Bad Idea, then she's not going to shield them from the results of that. As a result, I'm guessing her players are much more attuned to those subtle hints that say "maybe this is not the door you want to kick down right now." And therefore don't die very often.

As opposed to, say, my game, where we have the mentality of "if the GM didn't want us to go the dragon conclave, he wouldn't have mentioned it. The fact that he brought it up means there must be a way to get in and out without getting squished, we just have to figure it out!" Different games, different playstyles, but it doesn't mean either one is intrinsically better or intrinsically more likely to kill a character who is well-played within the context of the game.

(Again, I'm assuming this based on what GamerGirl has written in this and other threads, if I'm terribly misrepresenting you, please tell me to put a sock in it!)

dsmiles
2011-05-19, 07:13 PM
...and here I though my answer would be the controversial one, like it usually is. :smalltongue: Finally, I got one semi-normal answer! :smallwink:

valadil
2011-05-19, 10:50 PM
There are certain games where being doomed is part of the premise. This is valid in most horror games, but can be present in comedic ones like Paranoia too.

Outside of that, I will use unwinnable fights, but I won't make the players fight. The way I see it, the challenge I'm issuing is not "win this fight." It's "realize this fight is too tough and then escape." So the challenge can be won, but the win condition isn't the one the players expect, if that makes any sense.

holywhippet
2011-05-19, 11:10 PM
I've been on the receiving end of some dangerously unbalanced fights during a 2nd edition campaign. The first was when our party (average level 2) was attacked by what was effectively a werewolf and we had very little in the way of things that could hurt it. The werewolf killed the druid in the surprise round and might have taken us all out if I didn't pour oil on it and set it on fire.

The second was when we were ambushed by about a dozen enemy characters (I think they were about level 2) after giving someone vague directions about where we were going. The DM was really surprised we survived (we lost 2 NPCs with us though, otherwise he was just unlucky with his rolls).

I don't really agree with that sort of thing - it suggests the DM doesn't care enough about their campaign to let you see the end of it.

Gamer Girl
2011-05-19, 11:42 PM
Well, my game is not full of 200d6 magic land mines that obliterate characters all the time, nor do lighting bolts fall from the sky at random to fry characters.

More like:

1.If a character takes a risky, dangerous action there is a risk for death. Any time, anywhere in the game. There are no safe passes, nerf padding or saving characters to be nice or to save a plot. And most of all a character will not be saved if it would not be a 'cool death'. For example. a character balancing on a very high cliff side, a character sneaking past some guards or a character opening a known trapped chest could all be killed by the action. Yes, part of this is random dice rolls...but D&D is a dice game and that is why the game has dice.

2.Monsters and bad guys won't pull punches or otherwise 'miraculously' choose to not kill a character. If Torg is in melee with a bulette and gets low on hps, the bulette won't 'amazing just decide' to move 30 feet and attack Durt who has full hps. Intelligent foes will attack a spellcaster first, even if that spellcaster is low on hps and they won't 'amazing' decide to suddenly attack the fighters first this time. And a dragon won't 'just decide' not to use it's breath weapon as 'it's not fair'.

3.The world does not revolve around or wait for the players. If the players destroy a lich, but let his vampire servant get away...the vampire won't wait until the group is full rested to strike back. If the players attack a castle, they will get chased by guards. If the players kill NPCs, their friends may strike back at any time..even when the group is 'not ready'.

rayne_dragon
2011-05-20, 12:00 AM
I think it is fine to put players in an unwinnable situation, but not a completely inescapable one. And you should always let them play it out unless they want you to just say "okay, this is how things end up...." PCs often do far better in situations that look like certain doom than seems likely. I know I've played in parties where by all rights our DM should have said "okay, you all die" but he let us play it out and we came startlingly close to surviving. I also think that it is important to make sure to keep these situations fun and fair, though and that requires a fair bit of skill.

As for on the playing side of things, I have a lot of enjoyment trying to overcome impossible odds. Call of Cthulhu wouldn't be a fun game if you couldn't enjoy perserving in the face of overwhelming adversity. And in Paranoia it can be a lot of fun to try to survive because it makes your death that much sweeter for whoever kills you causes your accident. In other games, setbacks can add a lot of flavour. It's rare in life that everything goes perfectly all the time, so not being able to succeed at something can add a touch of realism or set up for an eventual success that is much sweeter for the earlier failure. Finally killing that obnoxious villain who has escaped or defeated you every time you've encountered them before can be more satisfying than just casually offing them with a lucky strike the first time you meet them.

Lord.Sorasen
2011-05-20, 01:41 AM
Uh... what? That's not what I mean at all. Level 1 PCs cannot win a fight against Pit Fiend(s). Anything that happens in this situation will be because the Pit Fiend(s) allow it to happen.

Not nearly as ridiculous as Pit Fiends, but worth mentioning, that at one point my party of 3 level 1 units (paladin, druid, psychic warrior) managed to defeat two owlbears. And not with wit. They just hit them with their weapons until they died. The dice can be weird.

Though now that I look at the Pit Fiend's stats I realize it's a very different story, so I guess there's no relevance after all.

Lonely Tylenol
2011-05-20, 01:41 AM
My party, at third level (and not including myself, the Wizard, or my girlfriend, the Sorceress), downed a Hydra that was specifically powered up to be a "run-or-die" fight.

In one shot.

The Scout went first, rolled three natural 20s in succession (for a 5x crit, which he confirmed), and then rolled high on the damage for this critical... And then rolled high on the damage from his lightning ring (which does 4d8 lightning damage to the target of his first attack in an encounter, if the attack hits), and that damage got 4x critical. (EDIT: I forgot to include skirmish damage, for what it's worth.)

The Hydra was in water.

It stood no chance.

There are two lessons to be learned from this:

First, PCs will attack anything and everything you throw at them, like a group of treasure-hungry sociopaths.

Second, nothing is unwinnable.

Nothing.

Jude_H
2011-05-20, 01:52 AM
Tactical games? Never. If the end's already clear, there's no point.

RP heavy games? Absolutely. The fiction is the purpose, so players knowing their characters will eventually 'lose' isn't especially important. There are a fair number of games founded on the notion of inevitable PC failure (Polaris, Shotgun Diaries). They're still fun.

Pulpy games? Usually no, unless there's already a tone of dark humor. Changing tones mid-game can be annoying, especially if it's a depressing change.

Horror games? Almost always. The players are there to lose in the most fun way possible. Maybe they'll survive the zombie uprising for the first few days, but what about when the food runs out, or the bullets? It's bound to happen sometime.

TheCountAlucard
2011-05-20, 01:56 AM
I think it is fine to put players in an unwinnable situation, but not a completely inescapable one. And you should always let them play it out unless they want you to just say "okay, this is how things end up...."Not only do I approve of this, but this is exactly what happened in tonight's game.

The PCs, a group of demonically-empowered beings, wants to do battle with a divinely-empowered warlord who'd been active in the region for the last seventeen years or so. At the moment, they're seeking allies. They discovered a tribe of death-aspected barbarians and sought to win them over to their cause. The death-barbarians pointed them in the direction of their "goddess," who the PCs then attempted to bargain with.

The players, using out-of-character knowledge, knew that these negotiations were pretty much "unwinnable," and that the best they could manage was to get out of it with as little loss on their part as possible. As such, the asked me to just get on with it. :smalltongue: We still roleplayed out a decent portion of the talking, with the understanding that the PCs would inevitably-acquiesce to her, but still try and make it as fair for them as possible.

Coidzor
2011-05-20, 01:59 AM
Well, there's always uncroaking (http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F134.jpg) a (http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F135.jpg) volcano (http://www.erfworld.com/book-1-archive/?px=%2F137.jpg).

...Or a Kobayashi Maru solution like he was expecting from the players he was gonna run through his own scenario, anyway.

Knaight
2011-05-20, 02:06 AM
RP heavy games? Absolutely. The fiction is the purpose, so players knowing their characters will eventually 'lose' isn't especially important. There are a fair number of games founded on the notion of inevitable PC failure (Polaris, Shotgun Diaries, ). They're still fun.

This is very true, and applies even in RP light. As a personal anecdote, one of my games that my players loved far beyond the norm had an unwinnable premise, the basic concept was that a group of characters were looking for El Dorado*. It didn't exist.

*In an alternate reality with demons all over the place, advanced technology including powered armor, and access to lots of fragile civilian vehicles. It was not a high RP game, as it was fundamentally the wrong group for that and I had realized that trying to introduce role playing to this group was counterproductive.

Killer Angel
2011-05-20, 02:20 AM
Is it okay for a DM to put the party in a situation in which they have no hope for success? (Barring extreme stupidity, of course) Furthermore, have you ever put a party through this fate, and/or been on the receiving end? If so, what happened, and how did it affect your game?


Once I've planned (and done) a TPK. It was functional to the adventure: in this way, the PCs have been able to do a mission for the Gods, in a realm not accessible to living creatures.
That mission was the end of the campaign, and they greatly appreciated it... but when didn't know what was my plan, when they faced the TPK.

KillianHawkeye
2011-05-20, 03:44 AM
My party, at third level (and not including myself, the Wizard, or my girlfriend, the Sorceress), downed a Hydra that was specifically powered up to be a "run-or-die" fight.

In one shot.

The Scout went first, rolled three natural 20s in succession (for a 5x crit, which he confirmed), and then rolled high on the damage for this critical... And then rolled high on the damage from his lightning ring (which does 4d8 lightning damage to the target of his first attack in an encounter, if the attack hits), and that damage got 4x critical. (EDIT: I forgot to include skirmish damage, for what it's worth.)

The Hydra was in water.

It stood no chance.

There are two lessons to be learned from this:

First, PCs will attack anything and everything you throw at them, like a group of treasure-hungry sociopaths.

Second, nothing is unwinnable.

Nothing.

No, I'm afraid the only lesson to be learned from that is that ridiculous critical hit house-rules lead to ridiculous outcomes. I am also not a fan of the "3 20s equals instant death" house-rule. :smallannoyed:

Mastikator
2011-05-20, 03:58 AM
Defeat does not necessarily equal death. So yes, absolutely yes. Sometimes the players need a good spanking.

And sometimes the DM simply needs a good laugh.

Earthwalker
2011-05-20, 06:28 AM
For me it works like this, when I start a new campign my players get a hand out on a background for the campaign setting, what style of game I am looking for and what themes will arise.
Included in this will also be a note on what kinf of encounters they should expect. For example in my Pathfinder city base campaign I made it clear any encounter I would bring against them, it would be of a level they should be able to overcome.
For my RuneQuest game I made it clear that they would encounter NPCs of many different power levels and it would be up to them to make sure they didn’t bite off more then they could chew.
Now everything was winable depending on your clasification of a win. In the runequest game, winning usualy ment surviving. In Pathfinder it was more a case of beating up the bad guys.
Different themes for different games. In general I will never put a group in a situation where they can’t win unless they choose with full knowledge to put themselves in that situation.

Lonely Tylenol
2011-05-20, 07:08 AM
No, I'm afraid the only lesson to be learned from that is that ridiculous critical hit house-rules lead to ridiculous outcomes. I am also not a fan of the "3 20s equals instant death" house-rule. :smallannoyed:

Hey, I've seen the die fall both ways, and it's much nastier when critical miss houserules are involved. I had an encounter where, on the same turn, I attacked with both weapons (rapier in the main hand, short sword on the off), rolled natural 1s on each attack, confirmed a critical miss on each, dropped both my weapons (as per the percentile chart for critical misses that the DM was using). Next turn, I reached for a third, concealed weapon (rolling a 2 on my Sleight of Hand check, provoking an attack of opportunity), attacked, rolled a natural 1, confirmed critical miss, and fell on my own dagger when I slipped and fell off the table.

Truth is, you have a (EDIT: 1/8000, as if the world needed more proof that my 2 AM posts lack basic forethought) chance of rolling three consecutive 20s, so if you happen to roll a 20 on your to-confirm roll, why not roll to confirm a slightly higher multiplier? I mean, if we're accepting the basic premise that rolling the highest possible number gives you a multiplier to your damage, then getting a single step up on the multiplier for rolling the highest possible number twice isn't exactly a stretch.

KillianHawkeye
2011-05-20, 07:30 AM
Truth is, you have a 1:6000 chance of rolling three consecutive 20s, so if you happen to roll a 20 on your to-confirm roll, why not roll to confirm a slightly higher multiplier? I mean, if we're accepting the basic premise that rolling the highest possible number gives you a multiplier to your damage, then getting a single step up on the multiplier for rolling the highest possible number twice isn't exactly a stretch.

For the same reason that a natural 20 isn't an automatic success on skill checks. I shouldn't be able to jump to the moon or convince the humongous dragon to give us all it's stuff just because I rolled a 20. I shouldn't be able to turn a critical hit into instant death just because I rolled a(nother) 20.

Knaight
2011-05-20, 07:55 AM
Truth is, you have a 1:6000 chance of rolling three consecutive 20s, so if you happen to roll a 20 on your to-confirm roll, why not roll to confirm a slightly higher multiplier? I mean, if we're accepting the basic premise that rolling the highest possible number gives you a multiplier to your damage, then getting a single step up on the multiplier for rolling the highest possible number twice isn't exactly a stretch.

You have a 1:7999 chance, or more accurately a 1/8000 chance. Concerning the premise, exploding dice are just fine as a mechanic, but D&D was clearly not made to handle them well.

TheCountAlucard
2011-05-20, 08:07 AM
Concerning the premise, exploding dice are just fine as a mechanic, but D&D was clearly not made to handle them well.Clearly, especially if you factor spellcasting into that...

"Yeah, I rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll for my Twinned, Split Ray, Sudden Maximized Enervation. Do I get a roll on the critical hits table?" :smallamused:

It is an attack roll, after all... :smalltongue:

Choco
2011-05-20, 09:44 AM
I put my players in encounters that are unwinnable on occasion when it would make sense, but when I do I am sure to always give them a way out.

Putting players in unwinnable AND inescapable/unavoidable encounters on the other hand is railroading at best and just plain wrong at worst (unless of course monumental stupidity on the player's part got them into that situation).

Just_Ice
2011-05-20, 11:03 AM
It depends on the campaign, the purpose and the players, but if we're talking TPK, then no. Pretty much never.

Not only are most groups looking for some measure of continuity, but they're probably not thrilled about the prospect rolling up new characters. I'm personally pretty good about losing characters, but I've seen some fits and there's just a big ol' dissonance between the DM's aims and the players'.

Faced with certain doom, it does tell you a lot about a player/their character based on what they do with it. I've had teammates go berserk and cut our very tight "timer vs. hopeless death" in half because they killed a King that was barely keeping his country from spreading a spectral plague. And that was the only place left on earth. That campaign was frustrating and mostly unrewarding for everyone due to a villain that we basically had to arbitrarily follow and couldn't possibly hope to trap.

Basically in the interest of your players' time and everyone's schedules there's no reason to screw everyone over.

Lonely Tylenol
2011-05-20, 05:28 PM
You have a 1:7999 chance, or more accurately a 1/8000 chance. Concerning the premise, exploding dice are just fine as a mechanic, but D&D was clearly not made to handle them well.

Edited my post, as if the world needed further proof that I should definitely not be posting at 2 AM.

:smallsigh:

Anyway, I never meant for this to veer off-topic like that; my point is, incredibly unlikely events can transpire to make an unwinnable event... Well, not only winnable, but laughably easy. Whether it's an unlikely critical (or string of criticals), or an unorthodox use of spells or tactics that wasn't foreseen by the DM when the encounter was crafted, it happens, and it can shatter all preconceived notions of "unwinnable" for your party.