PDA

View Full Version : Challenges that the players can't overcome



PallentisLunam
2016-04-04, 08:58 PM
Do you use them? Should you use them?

Maybe I should phrase this as challenges that the players can't overcome by dealing with them directly. Like the encroaching barbarian hordes forcing them in a specific direction due to their sheer numbers, or the hill giant playing cat and mouse with the 2nd level party. My personal opinion is that in moderation these types of narrative devices are necessary for a good game, but I can certainly see some players that I have had at my tables defining any encounter that they can't win as an example of railroading.

What about social or puzzle based situations that the DM goes in planning to be stump his/her players/characters and force them to move on or come back to it later? In that situation I think if somebody comes up with something reasonable they should be allowed to succeed, or at least try, but the intent was still the same.

Gildedragon
2016-04-04, 09:15 PM
Problems ought allow for multiple solutions; and campaigns ought allow for a variety of problems, not all of which are solvable through combat. But one ought take into account that combat is the most supported problem-resolution tool the players are given. As such when presenting problems that can't be solved by brute force, the DM ought take special care to make other routes of problem resolution evident, and assure the PCs that they will get rewards for dealing with problems without needing to fight. As such the first encounter with a combat-unsolvable problem oughtn't be fatal; in a way PCs are then level 1 when confronted with such a situation, they need to learn and get used to other systems.

Example: The Bored Guardian
PC's come across the door to the caves they mean to explore. Guarding the door is some sort of bound creature; a powerful outsider that can cast a 2 mile baleful teleport at Will. Creature is bored and aware that the mage that bound it is long dead. Couldn't care less about their task of protecting the cave, but are compelled to do so because of the binding laid on them. Also they value their life heartily. Any attacker will be instantly teleported away to the base of the mountain if they try and attack the guardian OR go into the cave.
But there are ways around this: one could talk to the guardian and either free them or convince them one is allowed into the cave; one could tunnel into the cave from somewhere else; one could sneak past the guardian... etc
The guardian won't attack the PCs, just stump them for a bit, giving them the chance to learn that combat isn't the only solution

RazorChain
2016-04-04, 09:58 PM
This is a tricky one but yes I use them sometimes but very moderately


Like last session the PC's went along with a NPC they knew they couldn't trust on followed him into ambush. The PC's saw that they could not win and surrendered and were questioned. And yes if the PC's had put up a fight they probably would have been captured anyway or died.

Of course they knew they were following a individual they could not trust, they knew he was working for a powerful individual with lots of resources, and they knew the powerful individual was working against their patron/questgiver.

So they could have been a lot more careful or just not taken the bait, but knowing my players I assumed they would.

Now I'm going to assume the thread is not about player stupidity. Like the GM is relaying the latest news in the kingdom is an orc attack and the PC's decide to charge the orc army all by their lonesome.

But sometimes PC decisions take them to obstacles they cannont overcome. Often it is because I have placed things in the world and the PC's want to interact with those things, like PC's with no skills in breaking and entering decide to bust into the kings treasure chamber or Gringotts Wizarding Bank.

In other occasions the plot narrative or PC decisions may present a challenge they can't overcome, at least at the moment. Like the PC's being lured into an ambush where an whole brotherhood of assassins was making their base.

OldTrees1
2016-04-04, 09:59 PM
Use only when appropriate.

If I run a sandbox campaign it makes the world more alive if higher level challenges already existed before the PCs leveled up enough to face them.

If you want to run an underdog story, having the enemy be weak enough for the party to initially win in a direct conflict strains credulity.


While there are many things that factor into if it is or is not appropriate(most notably the preferences of the players including the DM), two related ones I would consider are intent based:
1) Why are you trying to directly influence player choice? How would the players feel about that intent?
2) If the players find out a way to do the "impossible", will you let the dice fall in the players' favor as they may?
There are not singular specific right answers, but if you have good answers then it is a good sign.

Belac93
2016-04-04, 10:23 PM
Use only when appropriate.

I agree.

However, I warn you, be very, very careful. I smart, stupid, or just crazy PC can destroy these "impossible challenges," and then gain a ton of xp. I warn you about this from experience, as a player and a DM.

Traab
2016-04-04, 10:27 PM
I think it depends on why you are doing it.

If the goal is "If you leave the forest path you will be attacked by uncountable monsters that are each capable of solo tpking your group" in order to make them stay on the path to where you want them to go, that sucks and is railroading.

If your goal is to show them they arent ready for the big showdown yet, like say, they went to fight the evil boss instead of clearing out his minions in the surrounding towns first, (and thus level up a few times) then sure, showing them the ancient black lich dragon perched on its mountain top or whatever could be helpful in making them rethink their plan.

You can even use the "unbeatable" confrontation as a method to make them think outside the box for a solution. Though then you might want to make sure they know that ooc so they dont think its railroading that this unbeatable according to the cr fight is being thrown at them.

hifidelity2
2016-04-05, 03:52 AM
Yes – in that they cant solve them “Head on”


In my last campaign (GURPS Fantasy)

Players release Zombie Plague
By the time they realise what they have done there is over 100K zombies so they can’t take them on 1:1
Players look for solution
Players open portal and let in a load of daemons (by mistake!)
Daemons with Zombies start wiping out humanity (and Elves and Dwarves etc)
Players have to unit all the races to fight a reargued action (they are losing) while they look for a solution

Gastronomie
2016-04-05, 06:53 AM
In all honesty I believe it depends on the game system. In games such as Paranoia or Cthulhu, that's the whole point. In games such as D&D, I suppose it could be done extraordinarily, but only by extraordinary DMs.

veti
2016-04-05, 07:07 AM
The word "challenge" is the only problematic aspect of this question. It implies an expectation that the PCs are "supposed" to react in a particular way to an encounter or environmental element.

There are all kinds of things in the world that the PCs probably can't change. Gravity drags things down. Giants are big and water is wet. The king is a fink and 300,000 barbarians are charging across the steppes. Which of these the party chooses to treat as "challenges", and how they handle them, is precisely what makes the game interesting.

Darth Ultron
2016-04-06, 06:42 PM
They should be used. And they should be used often.

In general, ''most'' of the world should be so powerful that the players can't ''overcome'' it. The game can devolve into a sad comic book when the Pc's are demigods and everyone else in the world is a bug.


And the best of all challenges are the ones that the players must work at to overcome.

EvilestWeevil
2016-04-06, 07:23 PM
They should be used. And they should be used often.

In general, ''most'' of the world should be so powerful that the players can't ''overcome'' it. The game can devolve into a sad comic book when the Pc's are demigods and everyone else in the world is a bug.


And the best of all challenges are the ones that the players must work at to overcome.

And now we know why no one comes back. As a player you want to feel like a hero, so it greatly depends on what you are putting in the way. A sphinx with a riddle is a fine challenge. A sphinx with an unsolvable riddle is frustrating. A player cannot read your mind, they can only react to the story and the forces you present to them. The pc's are the heroes of the story, if you block them at every turn, they won't feel very heroic. You can have those things, like armies of undead, and rampaging giants. You can certainly use those kinds of challenges, but always keep in mind that a player comes to the game assuming they are the heroes of the story. If they aren't then you are telling a story and they are just there. There needs to be a balance.

ATHATH
2016-04-06, 08:28 PM
The word "challenge" is the only problematic aspect of this question. It implies an expectation that the PCs are "supposed" to react in a particular way to an encounter or environmental element.

There are all kinds of things in the world that the PCs probably can't change. Gravity drags things down. Giants are big and water is wet. The king is a fink and 300,000 barbarians are charging across the steppes. Which of these the party chooses to treat as "challenges", and how they handle them, is precisely what makes the game interesting.
Reverse Gravity, Baleful Polymorph, and Prestidigitation "solve" the first three of those problems that the PC's "probably can't change". Read through Tales of Wyre (a campaign log) for an example of how a Druid can utterly decimate an army.

I know that wasn't your point and that many people don't play 3.0/3.5 spellcasters (hence the "probably"), but I took it as a (non-offensive) challenge.

BayardSPSR
2016-04-06, 09:20 PM
Do you use them? Should you use them?

Maybe I should phrase this as challenges that the players can't overcome by dealing with them directly. Like the encroaching barbarian hordes forcing them in a specific direction due to their sheer numbers, or the hill giant playing cat and mouse with the 2nd level party. My personal opinion is that in moderation these types of narrative devices are necessary for a good game, but I can certainly see some players that I have had at my tables defining any encounter that they can't win as an example of railroading.

What about social or puzzle based situations that the DM goes in planning to be stump his/her players/characters and force them to move on or come back to it later? In that situation I think if somebody comes up with something reasonable they should be allowed to succeed, or at least try, but the intent was still the same.

I wouldn't say they're necessary, or that they should be specifically designed to be unsurmountable. Keep in mind that some players may read what you intend to be "certain death" as an "interesting challenge," or vice versa.

Knaight
2016-04-06, 09:53 PM
As a player you want to feel like a hero, so it greatly depends on what you are putting in the way...You can have those things, like armies of undead, and rampaging giants. You can certainly use those kinds of challenges, but always keep in mind that a player comes to the game assuming they are the heroes of the story. If they aren't then you are telling a story and they are just there. There needs to be a balance.

Being the heroes of the story is not the same thing as being the biggest, baddest dudes in the setting, and it doesn't even mean being the biggest fish in some small pond. It definitely doesn't mean that there aren't entities somewhere with which one might come into conflict where physical violence is not particularly useful for dealing with them with any finality.

With that said: I wouldn't say I use "challenges" that the players must overcome. I don't work in terms of challenges, it's just not a part of my GMing model. What I do work with is setting elements, situations, etc., and plenty of them are large scale enough that the PCs can't really affect them. What they are much more likely to be able to do is affect how those big changes in the setting hit the PCs and setting elements that they care about. Consider the whole zombie subgenre, or those ridiculous global disaster movies involving titanic worldwide disasters that take a week or two. Can you kill all the zombies and deal with the zombie problem forever as an individual person? Generally no. Can you stop the rapid global cooling with its bizarre cold fronts that bring instantaneous blizzards? Also no. Can you try to leave a small mark on the world involving you and the people you care about? Absolutely.

The same general principle applies in almost any setting, it's just generally not as blatant.

Ikitavi
2016-04-06, 10:48 PM
Had an amusing one last game.

The party is very anti-necromancer, especially the priestess of the Hearthmistress (an amalgam of Demeter and similar goddesses). On the way to a major festival they encounter pilgrims who consider it to be their duty to maintain peace among all those who are going to the festival, including those who have undead oxen pulling their wagons. There are also some ancestor worshiping minor baronies represented, where the ancestors have willed their bodies to their descendants.

Needless to say, the priestess wished to apply her holy symbol (flail with the special aspect of setting undead it hits on fire) to all of them. But that would have disrupted the festival which was the whole point of their journey.

The characters were unhappy, the players were a mix of intrigued and outraged, and it was thus established that I could introduce some types of "bad guys" that the party would not just charge and kill. They did inform me that while I might have an idea of having a lich quest giver, the party would be rather likely to disencorporate first and ask questions significantly afterwards.

The borderline for undead seemed to be they could tolerate mindless undead that didn't feed on people... barely.

The next challenge involves a hopefully short trip to the city of Shadow Smote. A city that got struck with so much negative material plane energy during the great magical civil wars a thousand years before that color has yet to return to the city. The city is only vaguely safe to visit within an hour of high noon, so I think that and other hints will convince the players to avoid prolonged battles.

PallentisLunam
2016-04-06, 10:50 PM
I wouldn't say they're necessary, or that they should be specifically designed to be unsurmountable. Keep in mind that some players may read what you intend to be "certain death" as an "interesting challenge," or vice versa.

A potential problem to be sure.


Being the heroes of the story is not the same thing as being the biggest, baddest dudes in the setting, and it doesn't even mean being the biggest fish in some small pond. It definitely doesn't mean that there aren't entities somewhere with which one might come into conflict where physical violence is not particularly useful for dealing with them with any finality.

Can you stop the rapid global cooling with its bizarre cold fronts that bring instantaneous blizzards?

I definitely agree with the first part, and can the second please be a reference to the day after tomorrow? :smallwink:

Ikitavi
2016-04-06, 11:02 PM
One of the challenges I have in my campaign is a rather weak form of undead. Basically it is an animation of materials near the undead's actual remains. The poltergeist's animation is actually fairly easy to overcome, but it regenerates the next day. Defeating the poltergeist itself would mean challenging the poltergeist on its own plane, where it has about 6 more hit dice and a lot more powers.

So a party can smash through the animated sticks and dirt and rocks fairly easily, but that would just make the poltergeists cranky, and likely to lash out. Getting the local ghosts and spirits all riled up will not win the party friends and applause. It isn't a matter that the party can not overcome the outward challenge, but they may not be able to deal with the consequences of only partially dealing with the monster challenge.

The impetus for designing this type of undead was that I always wondered how mindless undead could be a real problem. I mean, they are MINDLESS, which means they could be led into traps and kill zones fairly readily, and would not pass information about how to avoid that to other undead. But I also wanted low level undead encounters that would not kill the party. So I invented a hard to eliminate undead challenge that the party could fight their way out of.

Knaight
2016-04-06, 11:51 PM
I definitely agree with the first part, and can the second please be a reference to the day after tomorrow? :smallwink:

It was. There are other inadvertently hilarious disaster movies, but how could I pass up a chance to reference the shining icon of that entire genre?

HammeredWharf
2016-04-07, 05:02 AM
I think "can't overcome" is a bad starting point when designing an encounter. The DM should instead be designing challenges that the players can overcome in a non-straightforward way. For example, if the players encounter an overwhelmingly powerful opponent, the challenge isn't in defeating them, but in surviving the encounter or achieving a specific goal, such as stealing an item from that opponent. That challenge should be manageable.

And yes, this may look like a nitpick, but in my opinion it's an important difference in attitude and something that separates a good encounter from a bad one.

goto124
2016-04-07, 08:56 AM
Why do you design something where the number one priority is "players can't overcome it"? Sound like designing a roadblock for the railroad.

Best thing I can think of is, say, the party somehow found a way to the Biggest Evil God and tried to fight it. But would that be an encounter or just "the God snaps his fingers and all of you are dead, roll new character"? Or should the DM find a way to allow the players for a slim chance of success? Shouldn't dice be rolled only when there's a reasonable uncertainty?

The problem the OP asked for is how to communicate the players are going about things in a really bad way (brute force instead of stealth) without stepping on their agency?

Jay R
2016-04-07, 10:06 AM
If there are no encounters that the PCs can't solve by direct attack, then there is no story, and no tension - just a sequence of predictable fights.

Frodo and Sam should have to escape from an orc tower. Harry Potter should have to face the greatest evil wizard of the age. Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy should be threatened by a queen who can turn people to stone. The Incredibles should face a robot that can't be penetrated by their powers. The rebellion should face a death star.

Having said that, ask your players. If all they want is a series of straight-up fights, then that's what you should give them.

I want to believe that I could lose, and eventually figure out a way to win despite the odds.

PallentisLunam
2016-04-07, 10:12 AM
Why do you design something where the number one priority is "players can't overcome it"? Sound like designing a roadblock for the railroad.

Best thing I can think of is, say, the party somehow found a way to the Biggest Evil God and tried to fight it. But would that be an encounter or just "the God snaps his fingers and all of you are dead, roll new character"? Or should the DM find a way to allow the players for a slim chance of success? Shouldn't dice be rolled only when there's a reasonable uncertainty?

The problem the OP asked for is how to communicate the players are going about things in a really bad way (brute force instead of stealth) without stepping on their agency?

To some degree yes. The question is also addressing whether or not the players should be put in a situation where they are expected to lose. For example, take the fall of Azure City. Should a fight like that appear in a campaign rather than in a story?

NichG
2016-04-07, 10:23 AM
Such challenges are the only way for the game to include an element of strategy rather than just tactics. They require the players to create the opportunity to be able to win, rather than just correctly take advantage of one which has been already presented. So doing this element of the game correctly is a very important DM skill for making a really deep gameplay experience.

That said, its easy to screw up, and not all players understand what they're supposed to do. A lot of players will only ever have played the game as 'the DM puts down monsters and we deal with it' rather than something that they can plan ahead for, maneuver, etc. So good communication becomes even more important when dealing with this kind of thing. The first few times, its probably necessary to drop to OOC and discuss 'okay, A, B, and C are the things that prevent you from being able to just deal with this head on; any ideas for changing those points or getting around that? What would be able to deal with it? Is there a way you guys can get that thing or set that up somehow?'.

Winter_Wolf
2016-04-07, 10:45 AM
I'm probably in the minority, but I like status quo worlds and campaigns. If the PCs want to be big shots, there's nothing stopping them from trying to shake up or overthrow it. But don't expect that just because there's a dragon or legion of hobgoblins two mountains over that you're ready to tackle it yet. Your first level characters know about the deep sewers under the city, but doesn't mean you're equipped to plumb its depths and survive the reputed otyugh or the were rat thieves' guild headquartered down there. Yet. Someday, maybe. Maybe you can sneak down there and strike the mother lode, but probably going down there before your fighters really know which is the sharp end of the blade will get you all tpk.

I mean, I'm not going to feed characters into the meat grinder for kicks, but you wouldn't realistically expect a suburban mall cop to do well as a police officer in an urban ghetto without some training and preparation, would you?

Knaight
2016-04-07, 01:33 PM
I'm probably in the minority, but I like status quo worlds and campaigns. If the PCs want to be big shots, there's nothing stopping them from trying to shake up or overthrow it. But don't expect that just because there's a dragon or legion of hobgoblins two mountains over that you're ready to tackle it yet.

This seems like two different points. I generally favor games here the PCs are all at human levels (not D&D, not superheroes, etc.) and where there's a whole lot of things too big to shake up or overthrow. That doesn't mean that the worlds are status quo though, and it's frequently the way the worlds are already changing which is least susceptible to being affected by the PCs. For instance, one of my settings is a group of three islands, with five recognized major nations (and a whole bunch of minor ones that aren't recognized because of the major ones likes to pretend that the area they're in is still its territory in any meaningful sense). Three of them are monarchies of some sort, and all three monarchies are threatened by the growing power of institutions of knowledge and industry, but in no position to try and stem their loss of power to said institutions without making themselves cripplingly vulnerable against the other nations.

The PCs are not going to change this. Even if they were positioned as the actual monarchs of the nations it would be a very, very difficult task. As they generally aren't, it's just not happening. That might be good for them or it might not, depending on who the particular batch of PCs are, but either way it's a major social change beyond their control. In certain games, it has even qualified as a challenge, as the game involved PCs that were members of the older order that was slowly being displaced, and one of the threats they faced was exactly that displacement.

OldTrees1
2016-04-07, 01:42 PM
This seems like two different points. I generally favor games here the PCs are all at human levels (not D&D, not superheroes, etc.) and where there's a whole lot of things too big to shake up or overthrow. That doesn't mean that the worlds are status quo though, and it's frequently the way the worlds are already changing which is least susceptible to being affected by the PCs. For instance, one of my settings is a group of three islands, with five recognized major nations (and a whole bunch of minor ones that aren't recognized because of the major ones likes to pretend that the area they're in is still its territory in any meaningful sense). Three of them are monarchies of some sort, and all three monarchies are threatened by the growing power of institutions of knowledge and industry, but in no position to try and stem their loss of power to said institutions without making themselves cripplingly vulnerable against the other nations.

The PCs are not going to change this. Even if they were positioned as the actual monarchs of the nations it would be a very, very difficult task. As they generally aren't, it's just not happening. That might be good for them or it might not, depending on who the particular batch of PCs are, but either way it's a major social change beyond their control. In certain games, it has even qualified as a challenge, as the game involved PCs that were members of the older order that was slowly being displaced, and one of the threats they faced was exactly that displacement.

Context you may be missing: Status Quo worlds is a poorly named term for worlds in which the power of an encounter is not dictated by the current level of the PCs.

Situation: The 1st level PCs wander towards a dragon's lair
Status Quo world: That dragon was a juvenile dragon and remains a juvenile dragon as the PCs approach.
Tailored world: While that dragon was a juvenile dragon, the PCs approaching it transforms it into a wrymling dragon(in order to give the PCs a chance of victory)

I prefer the 1st method since it makes the world feel more real, but both have their pros and cons.

Knaight
2016-04-07, 02:04 PM
Context you may be missing: Status Quo worlds is a poorly named term for worlds in which the power of an encounter is not dictated by the current level of the PCs.

That would be the context I was missing, yes. I hadn't encountered that particular bit of jargon, and took it for its (completely different) face value meaning.

For reference, does a world stop being considered Status Quo if NPC enemies of the party actively try to take them down, and allocate different resources depending on how dangerous they perceive the PCs to be? To use two example situations:
1) The PCs have pissed off the Emperor of Kailla, by traveling without travel permits from the Kaillan tribal areas, and spreading their local religion among the peasantry which disagrees with the state religion on key bits of doctrine like "Is the Emperor a divine being?" Here, they're probably low power characters.
2) The PCs have pissed off the Emperor of Kailla, by getting a half dozen warlords that had previously been fighting each other into a military pact to cease those hostilities and invade Kailla instead. Here, they're probably higher power characters.

So the question is, does the emperor responding to the second situation with vastly more force than the first constitute a tailored world by the jargon?

Winter_Wolf
2016-04-07, 02:15 PM
What OldTrees1 said. The term I've heard used was status quo world, so that's what I used. The world keeps doing its thing and players can choose where they adventure, but if they go looking for something over their heads, they'll find it eventually.

Bohandas
2016-04-07, 02:21 PM
If they can't be overcome it should be clear that they can't be overcome.

OldTrees1
2016-04-07, 02:49 PM
That would be the context I was missing, yes. I hadn't encountered that particular bit of jargon, and took it for its (completely different) face value meaning.

For reference, does a world stop being considered Status Quo if NPC enemies of the party actively try to take them down, and allocate different resources depending on how dangerous they perceive the PCs to be? To use two example situations:

Technically the section describes SQ(badly named terms don't deserve spelling out) and Tailored encounters rather than worlds. Obviously if there is an in game reason to use one or the other, use the correct one. Don't screw in nails or hammer in screws. So if the NPCs are attempting to ration their resources across a variety of fronts, then Tailored encounters make more sense even if the DM tends towards SQ encounters.

BayardSPSR
2016-04-07, 09:04 PM
If they can't be overcome it should be clear that they can't be overcome.

That's what I always say. Unfortunately, sometimes my players and I have different understandings of what "clear" means. Sometimes we even seem to differ on what "can't" means.

infinitum3d
2016-04-07, 10:59 PM
That's what I always say. Unfortunately, sometimes my players and I have different understandings of what "clear" means. Sometimes we even seem to differ on what "can't" means.

Any obstacle can be overcome. It's a fantasy world with Wishes. Some obstacles are just more challenging than others. Something is only impossible until it is not.

That being said, try to remember that encounters should NOT always be Level Appropriate. Sometimes the party is going to walk into a seemingly impossible situation, and running away should always be an option.

Tony
[email protected]
Click here for a SoloPlay module! (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1141200191/the-lair-of-the-black-dragon)

PallentisLunam
2016-04-07, 11:04 PM
Any obstacle can be overcome. It's a fantasy world with Wishes. Some obstacles are just more challenging than others. Something is only impossible until it is not.

That being said, try to remember that encounters should NOT always be Level Appropriate. Sometimes the party is going to walk into a seemingly impossible situation, and running away should always be an option.


But not all parties will have access to those tools and certainly not all the time. It's true that given time and preparation essentially anything can be overcome but that's not exactly what I was talking about here.

Knaight
2016-04-07, 11:08 PM
Any obstacle can be overcome. It's a fantasy world with Wishes. Some obstacles are just more challenging than others. Something is only impossible until it is not.

This isn't the D&D part of the board, and even Wish is limited in its power.

hifidelity2
2016-04-08, 06:21 AM
Any obstacle can be overcome. It's a fantasy world with Wishes. Some obstacles are just more challenging than others. Something is only impossible until it is not.

Tony
[email protected]
Click here for a SoloPlay module! (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1141200191/the-lair-of-the-black-dragon)
I play a number of systems that don't have Wish - and even with AD&D I as a DM have never given them a wish and they have never been of high enough level to cask one (and I would have VERY exotic spell components for a wish spell)

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-08, 08:37 AM
I've been in a situation somewhat like this but from a bit of a different angle.

In Stars Without Number there is an interstellar banking organization called The Exchange. It is basically the infrastructure that keeps interstellar society running. It is a faction so deeply ingrained into the setting and with its fingers in so many pies that it can't really be said to be a faction at all. More like a core necessity. Sectors can't exist without The Exchange.

And one of my players wanted to take it over. It was their stated goal to become influential enough to take over The Exchange.

Now, they never succeeded for a variety of reasons, but at least one of those was the realization that it just couldn't conceivably be done. It would be like taking over all of the phone companies in the entire world. Times 15. And also every bank.

So I'm not opposed to things my players can't hope to overcome. I just don't tend to present them as things to be overcome. I never presented The Exchange as a bad guy. It just is.

I don't expect my PCs to punch the ocean into submission. And I don't present the ocean as a thing to overcome or whatever. Some things just....are. And if they wanna butt heads with them, then sure. But I won't go out of my way to make it their problem.

goto124
2016-04-08, 10:04 AM
I don't expect my PCs to punch the ocean into submission. And I don't present the ocean as a thing to overcome or whatever. Some things just....are.

Someone in real life tried to whip the ocean into submission :smallamused:

Jay R
2016-04-08, 03:32 PM
If they can't be overcome it should be clear that they can't be overcome.

There's a problem with this. In the first D&D tournament I entered (Tacticon I, in 1976), they had a room with a 134-hit die monster.

No, that's not a typo. The hydra had one hundred thirty four heads. The tournament organizers had set it as a trap for any group stupid enough to try to fight a 134-hd monster.

And we killed it.

We opened the door, saw it, and closed the door. Then we made plans. In was in a 10x20 room, just the size of a Web spell. And an area effect attack will hit all the heads.

Player 1: I open the door.
Player 2: I cast Web.
Players 3 & 4: I throw in a flask of oil.
Player 5: I throw in a torch:
Player 1: I close the door.

Each head took 1-6 points of damage. After doing it twice, all the heads were dead.

This was supposed to be the encounter that couldn't be overcome. The DM can be wrong in his or her estimation.

OldTrees1
2016-04-08, 04:35 PM
There's a problem with this. In the first D&D tournament I entered (Tacticon I, in 1976), they had a room with a 134-hit die monster.

This was supposed to be the encounter that couldn't be overcome. The DM can be wrong in his or her estimation.

Where is the problem? That hydra was a nigh perfect example. The DM placed it despite expecting it not to be able to be overcome and the DM accepted when they were wrong. It is a validation for adding such encounters while also acting as a reminder about how to act when your estimate is wrong.

Jay R
2016-04-08, 04:45 PM
Where is the problem? That hydra was a nigh perfect example. The DM placed it despite expecting it not to be able to be overcome and the DM accepted when they were wrong. It is a validation for adding such encounters while also acting as a reminder about how to act when your estimate is wrong.

The problem was with the earlier statement, "If they can't be overcome it should be clear that they can't be overcome." This story was an example of the fact that the DM can be quite wrong about whether the encounter could be overcome.

OldTrees1
2016-04-08, 08:42 PM
The problem was with the earlier statement, "If they can't be overcome it should be clear that they can't be overcome." This story was an example of the fact that the DM can be quite wrong about whether the encounter could be overcome.

Even there I think your choice of example was educational rather than a rebuttal. In the 134 headed hydra example the DMs fully expected the hydra having 134 heads would successfully communicate "I don't think you can beat this". That clear communication between DM and PC is what I think "If they can't be overcome it should be clear that they can't be overcome." is meant to mean. Then the players are fully informed that it might be too hard a fight, but still have the agency to engage(especially if they think, like your group, that the DM is wrong about the difficulty).

Essentially there can be things that are too hard to overcome, but their difficulty should be visible(rather than misleading) thus allowing the players to recognize it might be too hard while they decide whether to take it on or not. Sometimes they will still push on and sometimes they will succeed (the DM being quite wrong about whether the encounter could be overcome).

Jay R
2016-04-09, 08:58 AM
Even there I think your choice of example was educational rather than a rebuttal.

A nice distinction. I agree.


In the 134 headed hydra example the DMs fully expected the hydra having 134 heads would successfully communicate "I don't think you can beat this". That clear communication between DM and PC is what I think "If they can't be overcome it should be clear that they can't be overcome." is meant to mean. Then the players are fully informed that it might be too hard a fight, but still have the agency to engage(especially if they think, like your group, that the DM is wrong about the difficulty).

If we re-interpret the statement I was disagreeing with to "If it's beyond the CR of the group, then it should be clear that it's beyond the CR of the group," then we have no more disagreement.

But that's not the original statement. The point I was making is that the DM cannot successfully make clear that it is unbeatable unless the DM is correct in his beleief that's it's unbeatable.


Essentially there can be things that are too hard to overcome, but their difficulty should be visible(rather than misleading) thus allowing the players to recognize it might be too hard while they decide whether to take it on or not. Sometimes they will still push on and sometimes they will succeed (the DM being quite wrong about whether the encounter could be overcome).

Mostly we're in agreement. I don't think everyone on this thread is talking about the same types of challenges. The OP wrote "challenges that the players can't overcome by dealing with them directly". Does this mean encounters that can't be overcome at all (which the hydra was not), or encounters that can't be overcome with direct melee (which the hydra certainly was).

The DMs of that tournament didn't make the distinction, and believed the hydra was undefeatable. They successfully communicated that it was too tough to engage directly, but failed to convince us that is was unbeatable - because we came up with an idea that they didn't.

Yora
2016-04-09, 09:25 AM
The key thing when doing apparently impossible fights (because players have a thing for defying odds) is to establish early on and throughout the campaign that there are many situations in which the players have to chose between two or more possible paths to get to their goal. If you keep that up, encountering something that looks really terrifying or turns out to be overwhelmingly tough should get the players to believe that there are other options they have not yet discovered yet.

Published adventures are usually very bad at this, so they don't have any really hard obstacles.

OldTrees1
2016-04-09, 09:44 AM
A nice distinction. I agree.

If we re-interpret the statement I was disagreeing with to "If it's beyond the CR of the group, then it should be clear that it's beyond the CR of the group," then we have no more disagreement.

But that's not the original statement. The point I was making is that the DM cannot successfully make clear that it is unbeatable unless the DM is correct in his beleief that's it's unbeatable.

Mostly we're in agreement. I don't think everyone on this thread is talking about the same types of challenges. The OP wrote "challenges that the players can't overcome by dealing with them directly". Does this mean encounters that can't be overcome at all (which the hydra was not), or encounters that can't be overcome with direct melee (which the hydra certainly was).

The DMs of that tournament didn't make the distinction, and believed the hydra was undefeatable. They successfully communicated that it was too tough to engage directly, but failed to convince us that is was unbeatable - because we came up with an idea that they didn't.

Your point is well taken, to the point that I even read the original statement as if it contained your point.

Personally I tend to default to the abstract and thus dropped the "by dealing with them directly" in favor of using it as a whole or for any particular angle.

Also to note on the topic of communication:

DM: You might not be able to be overcome it by method X
DM: I don't think you can overcome it by method X
DM: You can't overcome it by method X

3 different messages:
In general, the highest relevant is also the highest possible to communicate.
One should, in general, communicate the highest relevant

PallentisLunam
2016-04-09, 11:19 AM
The dealing with it directly line simply meant that the party's best hope was to try to survive rather than trying to actually overcome the obstacle.

Regitnui
2016-04-09, 12:15 PM
The dealing with it directly line simply meant that the party's best hope was to try to survive rather than trying to actually overcome the obstacle.

The only situation where running away isn't an option is when there's nowhere to run to.