PDA

View Full Version : DM Help What do you do if your players want to fight Big Bad early?



MonkeySage
2016-03-05, 02:52 PM
I had to establish a face to face meeting with the big bad in my campaign, and already I've got a player who seems absolutely convinced he can win a fight with this guy.

Now, in the big bad's eyes, the players are more of an annoyance; dangerous only because of what they know, not what they can do. Being a patient and deceptively smart villain, he's biding his time until he can claim that he was provoked. Once that happens, there's no power on the planet that could save them from his wrath.

This villain has managed to ascend the ranks of chivalry until he reached the very top; when his father died, he was named heir to the imperial throne. His sword is as sharp as ever. He has a reputation for his nigh-supernatural strength and speed.

The difference between overall party level and his challenge rating, by himself, already spells TPK. And he's accompanied by his knights, the 5 greatest knights of the realm.

Thing is, the players were not meant to fight him this early; this was supposed to be an establishing moment for him, to demonstrate all the more why he must be overthrown, as well as just how dangerous he is. I was going to use a high level enemy of the party as a Worf, but the party interceded and demanded the enemy get a fair trial. But if the party TPKs, all of this would be for nothing. Even if they survive the fight somehow, they'll be guilty of high treason.

shadow_archmagi
2016-03-05, 03:14 PM
Even if they survive the fight somehow, they'll be guilty of high treason.

That sounds like the promising start to a campaign. Run that. Let the bad guy ascend to the throne, become unstoppable, and establish a reign of terror. Have the PC's first great victory be overcoming one of his knights. Let them do things the hard way and spend decades running, hiding, building strength, until they begin to claw the kingdom back, brick by brick.

Machinekng
2016-03-05, 03:15 PM
I mean, if your players make this decision, and you can't talk them out of it, it's probably best that you work with it.

Let them know the consequences, and imply that it's highly improbable that they can win. Have the big bad defeat them and humiliate them by saying that they're "unworthy" of an honorable death by his blade. After all, they aren't a threat themselves, and killing them unnecessarily will only draw attention to what they've found. Throw them in jail for them to break out of, and modify the campaign accordingly.

If it's too out of character for the big bad to spare them, then you might have to talk to them OOC.

Zumbs
2016-03-05, 03:28 PM
From your description it sounds like a trial by duel?

If so, you have someone (try to) drug the player in question and fight the big bad in place of the player. That someone should preferably be more powerful than the player, e.g. a mentor (think Obi-wan vs Darth Vader), and be cut to pieces by the much more powerful big bad.

Lentrax
2016-03-05, 03:48 PM
Big bad is evil. He rigs the whole damn thing.

Sets up witnesses, statements, everything. And he sets it up so he can throw the PC to the side and, as is the case with evil overlords, dismisses the problem as dealt with.

The PCs are traitors, branded as outlaws (hell, make them physical brands).

Make the players know that it was their own actions that brought it about. The evil overlord gives them the traditional sweeping monologue. And then the newly branded villains get run out of town by the very people they were trying to save from evil.

Pluto!
2016-03-05, 03:51 PM
If this is a system like D&D, depending how long the campagn's been running, I'd let them try it, play it out naturally, and let whoever dies roll up new charactersbefore starting the campaign for real.

AMFV
2016-03-05, 03:53 PM
You have a few options. Getting them accused of high treason doesn't sound so bad, then they'll have to flee, maybe hide in the forest and meet new allies there. That sort of thing. I would let the players attempt the confrontation and fail, that will establish his power, I would give them some way out or some way to run away.

denthor
2016-03-05, 04:00 PM
This a campaign from the eighties have them kidnapped by the big bad guy.

While they are knocked out they get some magical tattoos on there arms legs backs all the same.

Each tattoo represents a different power that will need to overthrown by our heroes.

This ensures that they must level up to meet your power player.

In D&D terms these are geuas look it up high level spell.

They awaken in a room with no spells no spell books no equipment.

They find the tatatoes and that her there hotel bill has been paid for a month.

An "ally" gives them about 250 gold just enough to get started but not enough to go wild.

If they get in trouble a local thief can guide them out of town with a sewer system.

Filled with monsters the local "disappears" goes down to the first fight.

Let the game begin. They have no clues as to where they are.

Darth Ultron
2016-03-05, 04:16 PM
First of all, note they'll be guilty of high treason is only true if you say it's true. Your the DM, you can do anything. So....for example...you could make whatever the PC's do.....not high treason. See how that works?

Second, you could just have the bad guy ignore the fight. D&D works great for ''ignore fights''. A powerful character with a high AC and HP can stand there all the live long day and a weaker, lower level character has no chance of doing anything. It can be quite funny to watch a character miss and miss and miss and miss some more...

Third, you could have the bad guy toy with them. He can just knock them around, maybe knock them out or whatever and just leave them.

Fourth, you could have the guards stop any fight.

Anonymouswizard
2016-03-05, 04:39 PM
First, don't have them know who the big bad is, or have there be no way for them to physically reach them. This works wonders.

If you do know who it is and can reach them, make sure they aren't utterly unbeatable, and be prepared for PC deaths just in case they don't surrender in time. Also, except their surrender if it comes, chuck them in prison to stand trial for high treason, and let them escape. Then they can come back in a few months with proof and hopefully avoid being chucked in jail again.

I serious can't stress how important giving the PCs a (slim) chance is. This is why I like systems where anybody can be downed with a lucky shot or two, but you can do it in D&D or any game, just let the PCs be able to harm him with a clever plan. If the PCs win? This is why you should have backup villains (maybe their second in command or something). Imagine a street-level Shadowrun campaign where a gang is trying to take over the entire town. The PCs successfully sneak through their hideout, kill the troll leader in their sleep, and get away, only to discover a few weeks later the second-in-command and brains have kept it all together. Losing your planned villain isn't the end of the world, just reuse them in a campaign or two, especially if you haven't truly fleshed them out in the player's eyes.

Quertus
2016-03-05, 06:05 PM
I say, if they go for the TPK, give them the TPK.

Who knows? Maybe they have a clever plan to win, like having a friendly paying an archmage incantrix to cast maximized twinned delayed blast fireball a few times for them before they walk in.

Maybe they lose, but at least one survives abd is smart enough to flee, is branded a traitor, New characters are rolled up, campaign continues.

Perhaps the BBEG has a traitor with an amulet of emergency healing who can surreptitiously save the party.

Or perhaps they all die, only to be resurrected years later, as the only ones to ever stand up to the BBEG.

Rakoa
2016-03-05, 06:31 PM
First of all, note they'll be guilty of high treason is only true if you say it's true. Your the DM, you can do anything. So....for example...you could make whatever the PC's do.....not high treason. See how that works?

Verisimilitude is an important component of any game. The only reason the Big Bad has yet to destroy the PCs is that he wants their deaths to be viewed as justified self-defense. In what world would a group of people attack a ruthless and evil leader and get away without the full extent of the law falling on their heads? Ludicrous.


I say, if they go for the TPK, give them the TPK.

I'm with this guy. Let the dice fall where the may, and let the PCs face the consequences of their actions. But remember, verisimilitude! The idea of a traitor in the BBEGs ranks seems a bit forced to me, but the other ideas are great. Especially the last one.

Sredni Vashtar
2016-03-05, 06:39 PM
That sounds like the promising start to a campaign. Run that. Let the bad guy ascend to the throne, become unstoppable, and establish a reign of terror. Have the PC's first great victory be overcoming one of his knights. Let them do things the hard way and spend decades running, hiding, building strength, until they begin to claw the kingdom back, brick by brick.


Big bad is evil. He rigs the whole damn thing.

Sets up witnesses, statements, everything. And he sets it up so he can throw the PC to the side and, as is the case with evil overlords, dismisses the problem as dealt with.

The PCs are traitors, branded as outlaws (hell, make them physical brands).

Make the players know that it was their own actions that brought it about. The evil overlord gives them the traditional sweeping monologue. And then the newly branded villains get run out of town by the very people they were trying to save from evil.




Or perhaps they all die, only to be resurrected years later, as the only ones to ever stand up to the BBEG.

I love these responses and would gladly play the hell out of them.

Sam113097
2016-03-05, 08:30 PM
Now, in the big bad's eyes, the players are more of an annoyance; dangerous only because of what they know, not what they can do. Being a patient and deceptively smart villain, he's biding his time until he can claim that he was provoked. Once that happens, there's no power on the planet that could save them from his wrath.

This villain has managed to ascend the ranks of chivalry until he reached the very top; when his father died, he was named heir to the imperial throne. His sword is as sharp as ever. He has a reputation for his nigh-supernatural strength and speed.

The difference between overall party level and his challenge rating, by himself, already spells TPK. And he's accompanied by his knights, the 5 greatest knights of the realm.


Show how insignificant the party is to him at this point. You could set up the conflict so that he can only be attacked in a place where he can easily escape. Have him step out of the room and leave only one of his knights to deal with the party. Show the party that it would only take one of his guards to kill them, and that the Big Bad doesn't even see them as a threat.

Darth Ultron
2016-03-05, 09:52 PM
Verisimilitude is an important component of any game. The only reason the Big Bad has yet to destroy the PCs is that he wants their deaths to be viewed as justified self-defense. In what world would a group of people attack a ruthless and evil leader and get away without the full extent of the law falling on their heads? Ludicrous.


The ludicrous part is where the DM feels forced to do something because of what they have created. It's a far too common symptom in modern games: DM's feel like a big gamer brother is looking over their shoulder and will take away their ability to DM if they don't do everything right.

MonkeySage
2016-03-05, 11:33 PM
Consistency is important to me personally. I am my own worst critic at all times, and I want to tell a story that I myself would want to read. Because if I don't like what I'm doing, my players won't like it either.

Slipperychicken
2016-03-06, 12:58 AM
So what are the players supposed to do instead?


If they're supposed to say "Nah, let's put off this whole evil-empire plot; we need to grind up to level X before we can take him", then you probably need more effective ways of conveying this idea. There's nothing wrong with letting the players know OOC that they're not strong enough yet, and should do some questing to gather their strength before trying to take him down.

Dr.Gunsforhands
2016-03-06, 01:22 AM
Thing is, the players were not meant to fight him this early; this was supposed to be an establishing moment for him, to demonstrate all the more why he must be overthrown, as well as just how dangerous he is. I was going to use a high level enemy of the party as a Worf, but the party interceded and demanded the enemy get a fair trial. But if the party TPKs, all of this would be for nothing. Even if they survive the fight somehow, they'll be guilty of high treason.

I feel like I missed something here. Whatever the party may know about our villain, you say that all they're doing at this stage is demanding that some guy get a fair trial. What did the guy allegedly do? Do they have legal justification for making this demand? And perhaps most importantly: are they in public?

While his combat prowess is key to making the game work, it sounds like our villain's defining attribute is that he's careful. Even if the PCs are ants to him, he doesn't want to crush them until he can make it look like he's in the right. The goal, then, is to put the PCs in a box where they can't start a fight without making themselves look like the bad guys. My first instinct would be for him to roll his eyes, tersely remind the PCs of his legal authority in this matter, and ask whether they actually have some evidence of the guy's innocence or whether they're just wasting everyone's time.

The PCs seem naive and easily swayed. Since the guy we're executing is someone they already don't like, the villain can spin this to his advantage. "After all, you want this criminal brought to justice, too... right?"

MonkeySage
2016-03-06, 02:00 AM
The prisoner is a loose end, an accomplice of the Big Bad. The Big Bad wants to make sure the prisoner doesn't talk. Basically, the prisoner was a gangster for hire; give neighboring nations trouble so that the Big Bad could "save" them in exchange for land and resources. The players don't like the prisoner because in the process of making the Big Bad look good, he killed a lot of people.

Dr.Gunsforhands
2016-03-06, 02:36 AM
I started imagining how that conversation might go in my head. I'm not sure how useful it is, but here's what I wound up with:

:xykon: "Preposterous. What on Earth gave you that idea? (Gag him.)"

:redcloak: "(Yes, sir.)"

:elan: "He told us so himself!"

:xykon: "...and you didn't find it suspicious that he wanted to implicate the same people who had foiled his plans several times in the past? He's clearly fabricating a scandal out of spite."

:elan: "But... but he had notarized royal communiques and everything!"

:xykon: "What? Let me see."

:elan: "Uhh..."

:xykon: "Well? Where are they?"

:elan: "Well, I mean, we didn't steal them from him or anything. I think he said they were in his tent?"

:nale: "MMMMPH"

:xykon: "...so, you mean to tell me that this known con artist said that he had some documents, and you just took him at his word."

:elan: "Exactly!"

:xykon: "...guards, take him to the gallows, and please escort these fine people out with my thanks for finally bringing him in."

Darth Ultron
2016-03-06, 03:48 PM
Consistency is important to me personally. I am my own worst critic at all times, and I want to tell a story that I myself would want to read. Because if I don't like what I'm doing, my players won't like it either.

Ok, so consistently is important, but the only way for the gameplay to go is the railroad?

Let that sink in: your railroading the game. If action A happens then action B must happen. It's like your saying you have no "DM agency "........lol.

Lvl 2 Expert
2016-03-06, 04:25 PM
If you want your PC's to not attack the villain, don't give them a way to attack the villain. Have them in jail when he monologues, or in handcuffs, or asleep with him appearing in a dream (all kind of dependent on the skillset of your party). If you gave them a way to attack the villain and they choose that way, let them fight. You're all writing this story together, and maybe your players would like to read this story. The villain is so far above the players in combat prowess at this point that I don't really see the need for killing any of them. Incapacitate them in a handful of rounds, showing them how badly outclassed they are. Maybe "accidentally" destroy a family heirloom or cut of a hand if the bad guy really means it. Have him rub it in with some monologuing and do to them whatever your evildoer would do. You said he would kill the if provoked? Well, a bunch of easily angered amateurs/first level characters trying to kill you is not really provocation is it? All his real opponents would agree on that. That's barely worth putting them on a train to Siberia for. It's not very genre savvy maybe, getting rid of the heroes in such a way that they'll surely never escape and come back for revenge, but it works in universe.

Rakoa
2016-03-06, 04:54 PM
Ok, so consistently is important, but the only way for the gameplay to go is the railroad?

Let that sink in: your railroading the game. If action A happens then action B must happen. It's like your saying you have no "DM agency "........lol.

That isn't railroading. That is simple cause and effect. If the player characters jump off a cliff, they will fall. If they run into a bear and her cubs, she will attack. If they fireball an orphan girl, she will die. If they attack the Big Bad too early, he will try his damnedest to kill them.

Railroading isn't "If action A happens then action B must happen." Railroading is "Action H will happen, regardless of what Action A through G might be, because I say so."

Darth Ultron
2016-03-06, 09:01 PM
That isn't railroading. That is simple cause and effect. If the player characters jump off a cliff, they will fall. If they run into a bear and her cubs, she will attack. If they fireball an orphan girl, she will die. If they attack the Big Bad too early, he will try his damnedest to kill them.


I just don't get this type of shortsighted one way railroading. When you say something must always happen, that just limits your game play. Like to say every single bear momma will automatically go all murderhobo if a character runs into them is just dumb.

This really is in the top three problems that modern games have: the insane idea that things must only be one way ever.

goto124
2016-03-06, 09:35 PM
If you want your PC's to not attack the villain, don't give them a way to attack the villain. Have them in jail when he monologues, or in handcuffs, or asleep with him appearing in a dream (all kind of dependent on the skillset of your party).

I'm going with this, but further.

Don't let the villain get anywhere near the PCs.

The PCs are creative. They can devise many ways to get out of what the DM thinks are impossible situations. The only way to stay alive, is to stay far far away from the PCs, and don't let them know where the villain is.

It makes sense anyway. Why would the villain have time to visit a bunch of low-level PCs? There's better stuff to do than expose yourself for nothing.

If the villain wants to talk to the PCs, leave a message, or use a magical version of a group Skype call. All that attacking does is to destroy the message and lose valuable information.

Why is a face-to-face meeting required?

Thrudd
2016-03-06, 10:20 PM
A. There is no reason to stop the players from doing anything that it is reasonable for their characters to do. If they are confronted by a bad guy and there is nothing physically preventing them from attacking, then the possibility exists that they might attack and you should know that before you put them in front of the bad guy.

B. Intelligent creatures rarely fight to the death, if they can help it, and usually don't seek to prolong a combat. If the PC's attack and see they are outclassed, wouldn't they retreat? After retreating, would the bad guy have any reason to pursue them?

Wouldn't it be likely that a high ranking person like this would command his underlings to protect him, in the event of an attack? Like any good villain, as soon as the players draw their weapons and make to come at him, his bodyguards will block their path, and a fight will ensue while he exits stage left. They will dramatically try to get to him, but too many bad guys will be in their way, or something else will stop them, like a wall of fire or a pit full of spikes will open up, or something. Maybe he presses a magic ring and just teleports away. If they insist on pursuing and get past the very obvious attempts to dissuade them, then let the dice fall where they may.

If they get into a fight with an enemy of unknown strength in a place where retreat is impossible, then they deserve whatever comes to them. You've got to let the players succeed or fail on their own decisions. Of course, presenting them with an unbeatable fight when, in the past, you have always given them beatable fights and rewarded them for fighting everything that they encounter, is going to be a problem. You need to consider how you've presented past games and this game up until now, as well as what the game system itself rewards them for and what expectations it creates. It isn't like a video game, where you have cut-scenes that you can't interact with in between combat encounters designed to be winnable for the player. Don't try to use the type of story telling conventions from other media (games, movies, books), they don't necessarily apply to TTRPGs.

MonkeySage
2016-03-07, 02:20 AM
Darth Ultron: They'd be accused of High Treason for conspiring against a monarch, and attempted regicide for trying to kill said monarch. This isn't railroading, it's simply the law of the land; actions have realistic consequences.

The face to face meeting with that monarch was the result of them being in the wrong place at the wrong time: The Big Bad went to visit his accomplice only to find him flapping his gums to a bunch of outsiders. The Big Bad doesn't know how much the players found out, how much his accomplice told them. He can reasonably guess that they know more than he wants them to know, and are thus a liability, all of them are.

The player in question decided against attacking the big bad. Said that the method he would have used would have been unsportsmanlike and cheaty, something I would have to actively house rule against because RAW don't forbid it.

Lorsa
2016-03-07, 03:43 AM
This scenario happens quite often, I think, and too many DMs deal with it in the wrong* way.

(* speculation on my part based on prior experiences and game stories)

The best thing to do is not to have your players meet the Big Bad if you don't want them to fight it. In general, players will ALWAYS try to fight Darth Vader, even if they aren't ready. Just like Luke in Episode V (yes, I just recently watched Star Wars with my girlfriend to introduce her to the movies).

There could be many reasons for this, starting with the simple fact that players usually try to fight their way out of anything. I usually try to look at it from a character perspective though (the power of hermeneutics).

From a character's point of view, the Big Bad represents utter evil, whereas the character is just an insignificant individual trying to fit for good. Unless the character is of such planning nature, and has such self-confidence that (s)he believes it is possible to eventually amass enough mundane forces (armies or the like) to defeat the Big Bad, (s)he will usually take any chance given to try and kill or defeat the Big Bad, even if it is a kamikaze mission.

Remember, the idea that "I will go and face level-appropriate challenges until I have gathered experience to face the end challenge of the campaign" is an inherently meta-game idea. Yeah, sure, a character could believe that training will eventually make them on pair with the Big Bad in fighting ability, but how long will that take? How much evil will BBEG have done in the meantime? What's to stop evil guy from also becoming better? Who is to say you will even get a chance to come into contact with the Big Bad even after you've become a better fighter? Regardless of your personal strength, they are nothing compared to the armies commanded by the villain.

I think this last is the main point. No matter how much personal skill is gained, from a character's point of view, it matters nothing, as the BB will always be more powerful than them. Since that is true, any character will jump on the first chance given to try to take BB down. For all they know, this will be the only chance. 1% chance is still better than unknown chance, so why not go for it?

Jayngfet
2016-03-07, 04:51 AM
I'm gonna reiterate the earlier mention point of "what are they SUPPOSED to do?"

I mean let's face it, your players would have every right to get pissed at you if they died from the sound of it. You set up a cutscene where they sat there and watched this other dude kill off the biggest thing they ever accomplished then decided they have no chance of winning because the guy is surrounded by a team of elite minions they never heard of who are also the best ever.

As a general rule if your plan for your players boils down to "have them gawk and be impressed at this super cool dude I made they can't even touch." Then your plan is bad. This is an interactive media, having them sit still or take penalties for messing with the script is bad.

Lorsa
2016-03-07, 05:00 AM
That isn't railroading. That is simple cause and effect. If the player characters jump off a cliff, they will fall. If they run into a bear and her cubs, she will attack. If they fireball an orphan girl, she will die. If they attack the Big Bad too early, he will try his damnedest to kill them.

Railroading isn't "If action A happens then action B must happen." Railroading is "Action H will happen, regardless of what Action A through G might be, because I say so."

Or perhaps something like this:

"Action B must happen, but as action B depends on action A, then action A must also happen, and end with the result that leads to Action B."

So on and so forth in an infinite backwards loop.

Dimcair
2016-03-07, 05:21 AM
Perhaps the BBEG has a traitor with an amulet of emergency healing who can surreptitiously save the party.



I LIKE that built on that!

The battlefield is really just a huge trap, designed to capture the party and then let them die in it (fire, acid, smoke, pick your poison (pun absolutely intended).

So after sparring a bit with the 5 knights and the Boss (so they know their place, miss miss miss miss again, or eating some steel, 100-0 in one turn), the baddies laugh, there is a monologue (maybe from a balcony they retreated to? Or some iron bars? Then the trap starts killing them.

Only one of the baddies squires/servants/mooks is a member of the Harpers, and manages to free them, give them some exposition and then go back into his deep cover.
Conveniently you can kill off that character later on, after building more affinity between him and the party (noble undercover agent is tortured and killed in front of the party), make that future kill feel good.

Party took a beating, the bad guys don't just wander off after hitting some of them unconscious, but have a reason to trust that the party will die, giving them a good exit.

Now, it is time for a montage from Goblin, over Troll to Demons and then rape the BBEG

Dimcair
2016-03-07, 05:39 AM
. If the PC's attack and see they are outclassed, wouldn't they retreat? After retreating, would the bad guy have any reason to pursue them?


Ever tried to retreat with half your party being unconscious? Why would the bad guy NOT finish them off after they attacked him? Even if he lets them just lie there and pick themselves up, or simply leaves, it is a surefire way to ruin immersion. No matter whether he actually has a good reason to do so. But a trap... a trap is a good excuse. The person he leaves behind to make sure they die happens to be the harper agent ;)

nedz
2016-03-07, 06:50 AM
I just don't get this type of shortsighted one way railroading. When you say something must always happen, that just limits your game play. Like to say every single bear momma will automatically go all murderhobo if a character runs into them is just dumb.

This really is in the top three problems that modern games have: the insane idea that things must only be one way ever.

As I understand it this thread is about the opposite. The group has a player who always Leroy's encounters - which is a kind of player led railroading, well one player led - and the DM wants to avoid this.

As to dealing with this problem: DFTT. Just have some bodyguard remove Leroy from the encounter, should this occur, and let everyone else role-play. I agree with Darth Ultron in the sense that this shouldn't be seen as Monologue or TPK - there are other possible outcomes - also: Monologues, Leroys and TPKs are boring. If you really can't see any other outcome from the encounter then don't run this encounter - do something else.

MonkeySage
2016-03-07, 12:35 PM
I'm gonna reiterate the earlier mention point of "what are they SUPPOSED to do?"

I mean let's face it, your players would have every right to get pissed at you if they died from the sound of it. You set up a cutscene where they sat there and watched this other dude kill off the biggest thing they ever accomplished then decided they have no chance of winning because the guy is surrounded by a team of elite minions they never heard of who are also the best ever.

As a general rule if your plan for your players boils down to "have them gawk and be impressed at this super cool dude I made they can't even touch." Then your plan is bad. This is an interactive media, having them sit still or take penalties for messing with the script is bad.


There wasn't a "cutscene"; Big bad tried to kill a loose end quickly(well within character for him), the players intervened.

None of this was random whim, it all has everything to do with the setting. I wanted to use this moment to introduce the players to a character because I wanted to create a certain emotional effect on them by meeting one of the most dangerous people in the realm face to face. The Knights are his personal knights and are part of the setting; they aren't just random characters, they all have backgrounds and character sheets. All of my major npcs have fully fleshed out character sheets just like any PC.

I didn't "Decide" they had no chance of winning; the character has his own character sheet, which I prepared in advance because I had a feeling that the players would end up fighting him at one point or another. I just didn't think it would be this soon(and as I mentioned a few posts ago, it isn't going to be this soon). The player spoke big, but only because he had a plan that I will admit would have worked, according to the rules as written. He would have used his surprise round to teleport (he's a teleportation specialist) behind the monarch as a swift action and kill him with a bag of holding. The monarch doesn't need to breathe, but if the bag ruptured then the upper half of his body would have been destroyed. The Player decided against this, because even though the rules don't technically prohibit it, he hates instakills without any chance of defending against them. He suggested I houserule against it.

And the players are not sitting still; I try to preserve player agency as much as possible. If they're captured, they'll have multiple chances to break free, as they have just done so. They were taken to the Big Bad's embassy and locked into what basically amounted to a very fancy prison cell. Through cleverness and skill, they escaped. As a reward, they got to speak with the prisoner they interceded on before.

goto124
2016-03-07, 06:56 PM
Your villain is using the good ol' PC tactic of "put a Bag of Holding on 'em, then stab the bag to oblivion"?

*cue psycho strings*

Couldn't get someone else to do it instead?

MonkeySage
2016-03-07, 07:00 PM
No, not the villain. The player considered trying it.

The villain really would not need to go to such lengths; if he managed to get in just one Full Attack, the fight would be more than over. And that's without using any special abilities....

Jayngfet
2016-03-07, 07:46 PM
There wasn't a "cutscene"; Big bad tried to kill a loose end quickly(well within character for him), the players intervened.

None of this was random whim, it all has everything to do with the setting. I wanted to use this moment to introduce the players to a character because I wanted to create a certain emotional effect on them by meeting one of the most dangerous people in the realm face to face. The Knights are his personal knights and are part of the setting; they aren't just random characters, they all have backgrounds and character sheets. All of my major npcs have fully fleshed out character sheets just like any PC.

I didn't "Decide" they had no chance of winning; the character has his own character sheet, which I prepared in advance because I had a feeling that the players would end up fighting him at one point or another. I just didn't think it would be this soon(and as I mentioned a few posts ago, it isn't going to be this soon). The player spoke big, but only because he had a plan that I will admit would have worked, according to the rules as written. He would have used his surprise round to teleport (he's a teleportation specialist) behind the monarch as a swift action and kill him with a bag of holding. The monarch doesn't need to breathe, but if the bag ruptured then the upper half of his body would have been destroyed. The Player decided against this, because even though the rules don't technically prohibit it, he hates instakills without any chance of defending against them. He suggested I houserule against it.

And the players are not sitting still; I try to preserve player agency as much as possible. If they're captured, they'll have multiple chances to break free, as they have just done so. They were taken to the Big Bad's embassy and locked into what basically amounted to a very fancy prison cell. Through cleverness and skill, they escaped. As a reward, they got to speak with the prisoner they interceded on before.

Speaking as a player and a GM, that's not really a reason that it's not that way so much as justification as to why it is. I take a kind of harsh view about this kind of thing but every other GM has large amounts of notes and sheets and details the players don't see that they pour lots of effort into but from a game design perspective the issue is still the same: They basically got thrown into an encounter they had no real way out of after a certain point.

To me, it sounds like you built up a scenario in your head and the PC's just have to go along with it. Because every NPC is already familiar with every major detail of the setting(or at least, a way larger amount of information) and they already have a bunch of power in the political sense in addition to the stat sense. Unless it's an established setting or you drop a guide book on them they won't really understand how powerful the enemy is politically and they can't really deal with him in the sense of there's no IC way for them to know when they're "ready" to fight him.

Which is the problem I think is going to come up if you have a guy who can outfight and outbuy and outthink them. After a certain point he becomes a dude with no exploitable weaknesses and there's no real in character reasoning to fight him that isn't either an exploit or them just going along with whatever exposition you give on the world.

For a more charismatic way of saying it, I'm gonna point you to Lorsa in the page before this one: The players will always try to fight Darth Vader. The idea of "too early" is metagaming for them. They'll usually try to take a shot at the bad guy because that's kind of what the game is about.

Malimar
2016-03-07, 08:03 PM
He would have used his surprise round to teleport (he's a teleportation specialist) behind the monarch as a swift action and kill him with a bag of holding. The monarch doesn't need to breathe, but if the bag ruptured then the upper half of his body would have been destroyed. The Player decided against this, because even though the rules don't technically prohibit it, he hates instakills without any chance of defending against them. He suggested I houserule against it.

The rules don't provide for the possibility of putting a bag over a foe's head, so you're in the realm of houserules either way. I don't understand why anybody would assume the lack of rules on the subject means it's an automatic success -- quite the contrary: strict RAW is that the maneuver is impossible. I, for one, would require the player to at least grapple the foe before being able to to get the bag of holding on him; I might even require a pin.

MonkeySage
2016-03-07, 08:15 PM
Speaking as a player and a GM, that's not really a reason that it's not that way so much as justification as to why it is. I take a kind of harsh view about this kind of thing but every other GM has large amounts of notes and sheets and details the players don't see that they pour lots of effort into but from a game design perspective the issue is still the same: They basically got thrown into an encounter they had no real way out of after a certain point.
I make setting details that my players should know available to them. There were certain things they knew going in, such as that this was a campaign with a story, which takes place in an active setting; stuff is always happening, cities don't disappear just because the players leave. As for the encounter, I just said that I'm not railroading the players. The choices they've made have been their own; they wanted to protect the prisoner until they got the information they needed, so they were invited to stay in the embassy as "guests". They realized early on that was a euphemism for prisoner, and escaped the moment they could do so safely. Up to that point they were surrounded by guards in a city that was loyal to the Big Bad as a ruler.

Would your solution be to not have any story? To have a world that sleeps when the players aren't there to look at it?


To me, it sounds like you built up a scenario in your head and the PC's just have to go along with it. Because every NPC is already familiar with every major detail of the setting(or at least, a way larger amount of information) and they already have a bunch of power in the political sense in addition to the stat sense. Unless it's an established setting or you drop a guide book on them they won't really understand how powerful the enemy is politically and they can't really deal with him in the sense of there's no IC way for them to know when they're "ready" to fight him.
I take every opportunity to fill them in on the details of the setting that their characters would be familiar with, I actually have that guide book you speak of and it is available to them. Complete with a detailed political map.


Which is the problem I think is going to come up if you have a guy who can outfight and outbuy and outthink them. After a certain point he becomes a dude with no exploitable weaknesses and there's no real in character reasoning to fight him that isn't either an exploit or them just going along with whatever exposition you give on the world.
Out fight? Yes, for now. Out buy? He's a monarch. Outthink? He's smart, but not that smart. So no. He has his weaknesses and his strengths, as any believable character should; he is arrogant and believes himself to be invincible. He could overwhelm most of his enemies through sheer brute force, but prefers diplomacy, which he feels lends him some legitimacy. But it also means that his enemies have time to think of a different tactic when they do inevitably come to blows.
As far as physical weaknesses, that is up to the players to figure out through game play.

Jayngfet
2016-03-08, 01:36 AM
Would your solution be to not have any story? To have a world that sleeps when the players aren't there to look at it?



Ok lets pull back and address this right here. This is rhetoric and you know it. You're going "What do you do if the players want to get into this fight? But don't tell me that there may be an issue because I'm so great".

You may not have a problem right now, but an attitude like that is poison to any game. Because you've stopped thinking of yourself as a GM talking to people and cast yourself as a genius being put upon.



I take every opportunity to fill them in on the details of the setting that their characters would be familiar with, I actually have that guide book you speak of and it is available to them. Complete with a detailed political map.


Out fight? Yes, for now. Out buy? He's a monarch. Outthink? He's smart, but not that smart. So no. He has his weaknesses and his strengths, as any believable character should; he is arrogant and believes himself to be invincible. He could overwhelm most of his enemies through sheer brute force, but prefers diplomacy, which he feels lends him some legitimacy. But it also means that his enemies have time to think of a different tactic when they do inevitably come to blows.
As far as physical weaknesses, that is up to the players to figure out through game play.

You know, the first paragraph is kind of crossed out by the second and kind of illustrates the point, and this entire problem you've presented the problem with.

"I started out my players in a city controlled by the big bad and put them in conflict early on. But for some reason, they insist on fighting the guy! They can't win except through rules exploits right now, because he's super rich and powerful and can kill them in one hit, and the only reason he's not doing so despite his motive right now being to tie up loose ends is that he decides to take them prisoner."

I don't want to sound hostile here but the problem is kind of obvious here. You built up a narrative in your head and got thrown for a loop when your players acted like players tend to and went off script. They escaped when you gave them an out but it's very clear there's a script you expected them to stick to. Hence why you wanted to worf a guy in front of them and were planning on them just watching it happen. You let them not do that, but the thought process that got you thrown for a loop to begin with will just repeat itself.

MonkeySage
2016-03-08, 09:49 AM
Ok lets pull back and address this right here. This is rhetoric and you know it. You're going "What do you do if the players want to get into this fight? But don't tell me that there may be an issue because I'm so great".

You may not have a problem right now, but an attitude like that is poison to any game. Because you've stopped thinking of yourself as a GM talking to people and cast yourself as a genius being put upon. No, I'm trying to figure out my next move. You keep insisting that I'm railroading when time and time again I've explained extensively that that is what I'm avoiding. As for feeling that I'm being put upon, well why wouldn't I with your agressive attitude right from the start. right from the get go, you made about a dozen assumptions about a game and a person you know nothing about. you have offered nothing constructive. so instead of discussing the next course of action I should take as a gm, I'm stuck debating with you about whether or not the actions I have taken so far qualify as railroading.




You know, the first paragraph is kind of crossed out by the second and kind of illustrates the point, and this entire problem you've presented the problem with.

"I started out my players in a city controlled by the big bad and put them in conflict early on. But for some reason, they insist on fighting the guy! They can't win except through rules exploits right now, because he's super rich and powerful and can kill them in one hit, and the only reason he's not doing so despite his motive right now being to tie up loose ends is that he decides to take them prisoner."

I don't want to sound hostile here but the problem is kind of obvious here. You built up a narrative in your head and got thrown for a loop when your players acted like players tend to and went off script. They escaped when you gave them an out but it's very clear there's a script you expected them to stick to. Hence why you wanted to worf a guy in front of them and were planning on them just watching it happen. You let them not do that, but the thought process that got you thrown for a loop to begin with will just repeat itself.
See this is what I'm talking about, you continue to make assumptions. Where did I suggest that they started out here in this city? they came of their own volition because something they wanted was here. it was their choice. and I had a plan, yes. sure. I amended it in light of their choices. because stuff happens. our actions can change the course of events, but events still take place. so, I will ask you this: what would you have done?

Douche
2016-03-08, 10:25 AM
Have the bad guy use a high level spell or something. Then the metagaming aspect takes over. "Oh snap, this guy can cast meteor storm?!? What level is he?!?" and it's all like "Too high for you to kill, dummy."

Or you could have one of his henchmen fight in his place and do it like Beatrix from FF9. Just have him fight them for a few rounds and then do a finishing AoE move that reduces them all to 1 hp, or the equivalent. It's got it's own page on TVTropes.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HopelessBossFight

MonkeySage
2016-03-08, 11:01 AM
Well, he can't really cast spells that well, but he can smite good or attack 4 times per round. ^_^ Also he's very strong, and grows stronger when angered thanks to racials. as far as spells go, he can cast 4th level spells. two of his knights are primary casters though.

Cazero
2016-03-08, 01:09 PM
I think that situation is pretty simple to work around. You just need to consider an actual need for a contigency.

Your clearly stated that the big bad wants to have a clear cut case of self-defense when/if the PCs attack him. That means he wants witnesses. But if he was going to have his devoted men as witnesses, he could just have them lie for him. So he wants trustworthy people that aren't his agents to be witnesses.
And here is the catch : those people would probably object to the big bad murdering the PCs when incapacitating them for arrest would suffice. So the big bad has planned for a trial to happen in case the killing isn't an option. Make sure this is what happens and have the PCs thrown in jail, maybe get sentenced to death.
And if/when the PCs escape? They're now wanted fugitives, making them much less of a threat than before they attacked him.

As long as his superiority in combat isn't a delusion, your big bad can't lose this and shouldn't look stupid for not killing them.

Talakeal
2016-03-08, 01:28 PM
When you post online about a campaign problem expect people to pick apart every aspect of the campaign looking for flaws and trying to paint you as the railroad conducter DM that exists in most player's minds.


Also, I really like the idea about having one of the BBEGs lieutenants being an undercover double agent.

goto124
2016-03-08, 08:44 PM
Instead of worrying about the villain dying, don't have him go meet the PCs at all.

Use a right-hand man. Deliver a message with magic. Don't actually be there.

MonkeySage
2016-03-08, 08:59 PM
I wasn't worried about the villain dying, I was worried about a tpk. :P

I was worried the villain would tear through the entire party... and then draw his sword to make sure they stay down.

goto124
2016-03-08, 09:03 PM
If he's not there at all, he can't TPK them!

Lorsa
2016-03-09, 04:59 AM
I wasn't worried about the villain dying, I was worried about a tpk. :P

I was worried the villain would tear through the entire party... and then draw his sword to make sure they stay down.

Sometimes the best way for people to learn to be careful is to have them suffer the consequences of their actions.

I don't think a TPK is the best way to go, but if that is logical outcome of this fight, and the players want it, then let it happen.

On the other hand, you can never be too sure of the outcome of a fight. If you roll really poor and the players roll extremely well, it's possible the NPC might die. I've seen this thing happen more than once.

MagicMask
2016-03-11, 06:15 PM
Instead of worrying about the villain dying, don't have him go meet the PCs at all.

Use a right-hand man. Deliver a message with magic. Don't actually be there.

Just out of curiosity did you read the rest of the thread, where OP clearly outlines the situation and the story that got them there? The PC's are "guests" of BBEG already and are in or going to soon be in dialogue with him. It's not as simple as "don't be there".

Now before I say too much on this I have a couple questions. Do the PC's know this is the BBEG? Was he meant to be a reoccurring villain or did the players make some "lucky" choices that ended them here?

I've seen a few different scenarios like this as a player and each has ended differently, and never in a TPK (partly because our DM does not like making PC's dead).

We had one recurring villain who we saw twice as a mage, once later as a lich. He was always significantly higher lvl than the PC's but not impossible. We usually ended with 1-2 players down and he would teleport away/escape before we could kill him (once the DM had to basically make up an ability so he teleported with 1 HP) but it made sense in the story and we got loot/xp/info from his lackey's/hideout.

More recently we encountered a BBEG that we weren't really supposed to meet and even though the DM powered him up and had a plan for escape, our PC's are now lvl 22 and through use of lots of powers and magic items we were able to catch and "kill" him ( we chose not to kill but capture). This totally changed the DM's plans but we as players also have to deal the consequences of having the owner of the second largest company in the world as our prisoner.


I, for one, would require the player to at least grapple the foe before being able to to get the bag of holding on him; I might even require a pin.

I also agree with Malimar. We've used similar rules where placing an item on an unwilling person is either a grab attack itself or requires the person be grabbed/restrained.

As a side note, all of the above situations occurred in a D&D 4e homebrew world.

Clistenes
2016-03-11, 06:47 PM
They are sentenced to a long time in prision, but the Big Bad graciously changes it to exile, and secretly sends a team of assassins to kill them the second they cross the border.

Or they are sent to prision and La Résistance breaks them out.

Or they are sentenced to a lifetime of forced labor in the copper mines and they have to organize a breakout.

Or he captures them and sells them to a gladiatorial school.

Or he makes a deal with them in order to get them out of his hair, and sends them in a mission that is in fact a death sentence on itself.

Rakoa
2016-03-12, 04:04 PM
They are sentenced to a long time in prision, but the Big Bad graciously changes it to exile, and secretly sends a team of assassins to kill them the second the cross the border.

I like this solution the best. Think of it this way: The PCs are dangerous for what they know. So the Big Bad, rather than murder the PCs in self defence after they've attacked, decides to sentence them to exile, keeping them gagged or otherwise preventing them from speaking the dangerous information they know. This makes him look like a very gracious, kind, and benevolent ruler.

Once they've been deposited far away from him, his assassin squad heads off to make sure they never come back.

Of course, this only works if your campaign isn't dependent on the PCs remaining within the borders of the Big Bad's kingdom. If this guy is half as bad as you've made him sound, I'd be more than pleased to be exiled.

Coidzor
2016-03-12, 06:11 PM
If they know enough to know he's the bbeg rather than aware of more than he's publicly let on, then let them try a suicidal rush instead of attempting something more subtle, after pointing out that the plan is pretty suicidal.

You might want to look at node-based design as a way to generally funnel them towards the things to immediately investigate or overcome, too.

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/7949/roleplaying-games/node-based-scenario-design-part-1-the-plotted-approach

Edit: Sounds like they might have missed a clue that they needed to discredit him in order to turn his guards against him or split his forces.

Also it seems like his revelation as ultimate big bad was premature if he's that ridiculously overleveled that they need to do an entire campaign to make up for a ~15 level difference between them.