Etiquette of Character Death

[MrStabby]

Yeah, another one of these threads.

I have killed characters as a DM before - no issue. Everyone wanted a real dangerous world and that is what both the players and I as a DM wanted.

In each case though the encounters were balanced (ish) or at least I thought so at the time and simply put you fight enough tough encounters and sooner or later the party will make a mistake/roll badly. What's the point of having rules for player death if you don't use them?

This time is a bit different. My PCs have picked up a couple of pieces of evidence of someone being a bit suspicious. Their reaction has been to just dive in - no research, no scoping out, no reason to believe it is a level appropriate challenge. They have been homing in, unknown to them, on the campaign BBEG.

Some of them will die. The capabilities and history of this guy are established, they are walking into his lair all guns blazing. They are about 2 levels earlier than expected, less magic items than they will need and without the spell selection needed to handle the encounter. All in all it won't be a bad experience for the group (it's our style and I think we are all comfortable with it).

What I am wondering, is do other groups have some kind of etiquette for this kind of situation? Clues, either in or out of character? Leaving escape routes? Friends able to provide warnings? Telegraphed weaknesses? For me... I have ensured there are a couple of escape routes, if the party works out to use them in time. No punches will be pulled, no OOC warnings, but hopefully enough content to tip them off to bail on the encounter soon enough.

[Sariel Vailo]

Make it a good death.

[FreddyNoNose]

It depends on your style. As a DM, I allow characters to die. As a player, it ruins the game experience for me when GMs adopt the "good DMs never kill characters" line of thinking. BTW, that includes what some might call 'Unfair old school random deaths'.

I am aware some people won't play in my game. I am also aware that Kate Beckinsale will never have sex with me. That isn't cruelty it is life.

[Honest Tiefling]

Yes. That etiquette is discussing the policy on character death beforehand, precisely because of this issue. People have different tastes and different ways of approaching different games. Nothing wrong with that, but everyone needs to be on the same page. Which is what seems to be happening here, so I don't think there's much of an issue.

For me when avoiding character death, I use one of three approaches:

1) Saved by an NPC. This probably feels cheap to some, but I sorta like the idea that if the party saves a group of paladins they might come to the rescue later to make NPC interactions more rewarding. Also, it could lead to a situation where the NPC was secretly working with the BBEG and this is all a part of their plan in some fashion.

2) Crazy stuff happens. Yeah, maybe the BBEG has a captive fire elemental in his basement, and the PCs come just in time to disrupt him renewing the wards on it. The BBEG is now not engaging the PC because there is a crazy powerful fire elemental on the loose. If the PCs STILL engage the BBEG, they are too dumb to live and I let the dice fall where they may.

3) Escape Routes. But of course, nothing says the BBEG can't use these either. Even if they COULD mop the floor with the PCs, they might not want to risk things or waste the time/energy in doing so. Destroying a group of PCs could be done, but you might have to use consumables you can't easily replace and might not want to risk the damage you'll take or risk valuable allies/servants in doing so.

There is also the factor that even if you don't kill the PCs, you can have consequences. That fire elemental escaping? Yeah, it burniates half of the countryside, making widespread famines, banditry, and riots appear. Those paladins save the party, but now they are reduced to a handful of men, some of which resent the PCs for their actions and tell others of their resentment. They have escaped from the BBEG, who just decides to recklessly advance their plans, causing chaos and other forces to be unprepared for initial attacks.

[MrStabby]

Make it a good death.

I feel that the sacrifice they make might would be to reset the clock on the BBEG divine intervention for 20 days. Given how long 20 days can be in a campaign this is actually a big effect coupled with revealing their identity.

[RSP]

Different DMs have different styles: some are Robert Jordan, some George R. R. Martin. If you set the stage beforehand, and even discussed it, I think you've done your part.

One tip could be emphasizing the danger as they enter/progress thru the dungeon. Describe enemy hits as being really powerful ("you don't think you could take too many more of those"), even on a miss ("you raise your shield just in time to block the attack, but you feel the power behind it reverberate thru your arm").

The increased description may give them the idea they're not quite ready yet.

[FreddyNoNose]

Different DMs have different styles: some are Robert Jordan, some George R. R. Martin. If you set the stage beforehand, and even discussed it, I think you've done your part.

One tip could be emphasizing the danger as they enter/progress thru the dungeon. Describe enemy hits as being really powerful ("you don't think you could take too many more of those"), even on a miss ("you raise your shield just in time to block the attack, but you feel the power behind it reverberate thru your arm").

The increased description may give them the idea they're not quite ready yet.

This brings up an important point. I interview players before the can play in my games to reduce the chances of having a clash with the game.

[mephnick]

I've killed characters for basically failing a perception check while on watch. Taking on an enemy base under-prepared? Won't lose sleep over it. Just let new players to your game know you won't pull punches.

[Gryndle]

The "etiquette" of killing a pc comes down to the things every table needs to play without conflict: communication and trust. I am lucky to have those with my players.

One of the things I really like about 5th Ed is that I don't feel the need to pull my punches. Not every encounter is a deadly one, but none are designed to be taken on with impunity or stupidity. That said I am so glad to see save-or-die effects go the way of the dodo. I always thought the older editions' effects that could kill a perfectly healthy character on a single die roll (and level drain too) were included as a screw-you to players in general.

Even beyond editions, my DMing style has resulted in the group determining that stupidity is a terminal disease. Blithely charging headlong into the BBEGs lair with no prep, no research is a good way to roll a new character.

One of the blessings and curses of my players is that I have to work VERY hard to outthink them. One is former military with significant combat experience and good grasp of game mechanics, another was an I-kid-you-not intelligence analyst at a little place in Langley VA until his college was paid off and he decided it was too much for him, the third has a cautious approach to gaming gained from decades of AD&D meat-grinder dungeons, the fourth mainly comes from MMORPG background so his ideas tend to be the most dangerous (but sometimes amusing).

Catching these guys making a strategic or tactical mistake is rare, but I pounce on it like a cat on a laser dot when they do slip up. And usually when they make a mistake it is due to cockiness, or everyone just being too tired from real life (the consequences typically wake them right up).

[Ivor_The_Mad]

What I do is I usually leave clue to what the monster is and if that ruins the story I just don't include things beyond their level (despite what my friend says) (If a post comes up mentioning a pyramid with a pit fiend chasing a 7th level party just ignore it) because i am always fair to my group. Another thing you can do is nerf the encounter or lead them off on a side quest.

[the_brazenburn]

I just don't include things beyond their level (despite what my friend says) (If a post comes up mentioning a pyramid with a pit fiend chasing a 7th level party just ignore it) because i am always fair to my group.

Yeah, right. Causing a 7th level TPK with a CR 19 monster is very "fair". I lost my favorite character in that %#*^$ ARCANE LOCKED pyramid!

[Ivor_The_Mad]

Ignore that post. Ignore that post. I hand nothing to do with it.

ok maybe I had something to do with it

[some guy]

The above posts already illustrate it; but don't close off escape routes. A bad dm once let us fought a necromancer with neverending waves of zombies blocking the door, after a a couple of rounds I thought "oh, this must be one of those 'encounter the baddie, see how tough he is, escape'-deals" and asked about windows or other doors. There were none. We were tpk'ed and informed that the cultist was summoning a balor (we were level 1 or 2).

Anyway, the pc's are responsible for running away, you are responsible for not blocking off escape routes.

Also, it's nice, but not necessary, if the pc's still gain information with their failed battle (this will probably information about the BBEG's combat prowess in this case ("We lost Kraggat and Volderemius the Magnificent, but at least we now know not to attack Lord Skullface with lightning.", but could also be connections "Those were Bone Dagger Assassins skewering Kraggat when we fought Lord Skullface, we better first take out the Bone Dagger Assassin Guild before tackling Lord Skullface again.", "I was able to snatch that locket from Lord Skullface's adamantine neck, and look, inside is a picture of the elderly Baroness we met ten sessions ago.").

[Beastrolami]

I follow a similar style. I'm not the biggest fan of glaring weaknesses or flaws in enemies for players to exploit. But I do drop clues, and let the players "choose their fight". I've had multiple games where the players ignored all the clues and suffered the consequences. But really, it depends on the group. If I was in that group, I would expect to die, because I like the idea of a player dying when they deserve it, and in that case, I would have deserved it. That being said, when my players make stupid decisions, I have taken different routes besides outright death because I knew that is not what the players would have wanted. Especially if they thought they were following an honest quest hook, and were actually being drawn into a trap. hehe.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Determine a flavor early and stick with it, come hell or high water. If the game's no-nonsense deadly, kill 'em. If the game's meant for newbies, maybe give them extra chances to survive (don't have enemies finish them off immediately, have them drag them off to their lair for later/take them prisoner).

For most groups I go back and forth depending on the enemy. Carnivorous monster? You're very dead. Humanoid that's not a sociopath? They're likely to take you prisoner if they think they can get away with it. Some great narrative moments come from the old 'escape the villain's lair' schtick.

In my current game the players are completely incapable of dying permanently due to the plot, but they're taxed the equivalent of experience points and 8 hours every single time it happens (possibly also losing their body and all their gear depending on how it happened). It's been rather amusing, because I've had zero compunctions about killing the party in vicious ways. Player death is met with laughter and celebration.

All according to plan.

[Pex]

It's ok for a PC to die. It's not ok for a DM to do it on purpose by adventure design, unless the player wanted it for some reason - player moving so character gets a glorious exit for example.

It's fine for the party to meet an NPC/Bad Guy way above their level. It's not supposed to be a combat encounter. If the party attacks despite its obviousness not suppose to be a fight, so be it. If the DM initiates it or sets the party or particular player up to instigate a fight as an excuse, phooey on him.

If the DM Honest True made a mistake and created a combat encounter too hard for the party without intending to, ok. Ret-Con if campaign verisimilitude allows, but even if not own up to it.

[Theodoxus]

1) Saved by an NPC. This probably feels cheap to some, but I sorta like the idea that if the party saves a group of paladins they might come to the rescue later to make NPC interactions more rewarding. Also, it could lead to a situation where the NPC was secretly working with the BBEG and this is all a part of their plan in some fashion.

I've done this - strictly because the BBEG is a living breathing entity in my campaign worlds. If the party had come traipsing up to his lair at 1st or 2nd level, unknowing what they were doing, he'd of destroyed them without consequence. However, they had grown more powerful by slowly unraveling the threads of his conspiracies over time - which annoyed, yet impressed him.

The party in question happened to tug a little too quickly on one thread, and managed to catch the BBEG off guard, but his minions (posing as a caravan) understood what was happening, and sent a message, asking what to do. The BBEG, wanting a more epic battle, told them to misdirect the party, so they would bake a little longer and be more worthy foes.

To paraphrase Labyrinth "Don't go that way!, that way leads straight to the castle!"

Fortunately, the players decided to heed the words of the caravan leader, went on a couple side quests, found a few more clues, gained a few more levels, and managed to thrash the BBEG at the conclusion, rather than be just another notch on his belt. It was really fun.

[FreddyNoNose]

I've killed characters for basically failing a perception check while on watch. Taking on an enemy base under-prepared? Won't lose sleep over it. Just let new players to your game know you won't pull punches.

But some GMs wouldn't do that. Save the player at any cost unless the death is some major big deal. You know, because the player needs to win an oscar for this death.

[FreddyNoNose]

It's ok for a PC to die. It's not ok for a DM to do it on purpose by adventure design, unless the player wanted it for some reason - player moving so character gets a glorious exit for example.

It's fine for the party to meet an NPC/Bad Guy way above their level. It's not supposed to be a combat encounter. If the party attacks despite its obviousness not suppose to be a fight, so be it. If the DM initiates it or sets the party or particular player up to instigate a fight as an excuse, phooey on him.

If the DM Honest True made a mistake and created a combat encounter too hard for the party without intending to, ok. Ret-Con if campaign verisimilitude allows, but even if not own up to it.
This is what I HATE about modern players. It has to be a glorious exit.

[Beastrolami]

This is what I HATE about modern players. It has to be a glorious exit.

I agree. I feel too many players nowadays are way to attached to their characters. You can drown in a swamp if you try to wade in wearing full plate. The only thing I ask is that the DM give me a reason I died. I remember one time my character pledged his loyalty to an evil outsider and the DM killed me. I asked why, and couldn't get a good answer, so the DM retconned it. Still took that character out of the campaign, but at least he wasn't dead for no reason other than, "it says chaotic evil in the monster manual."

[Waterdeep Merch]

I agree. I feel too many players nowadays are way to attached to their characters. You can drown in a swamp if you try to wade in wearing full plate. The only thing I ask is that the DM give me a reason I died. I remember one time my character pledged his loyalty to an evil outsider and the DM killed me. I asked why, and couldn't get a good answer, so the DM retconned it. Still took that character out of the campaign, but at least he wasn't dead for no reason other than, "it says chaotic evil in the monster manual."

The only time I was a player and had a death retconned was because the DM felt sorry doing it, as it was arbitrary and ham-fisted. The DM designed his adventures extremely narrowly, with little to no wiggle room for playing 'off the rails'. Then he decided that we went somewhere, described it, described the monsters getting the jump on us, and then rolled a bunch of dice and I died. He actually stared at me blankly when the first thing I'd said since he started narrating all this was that I didn't have a rabbit in my hat to avoid the death he handed me with zero interaction. Due to how I play, he was certain I'd have some crazy method for getting out of it all and didn't consider that not allowing me a single dice roll or decision robbed me of any chance to do so.

So, the DM ended up bringing me back with vague and treacherous dark powers, both to keep verisimilitude and a way of saying "I'm sorry for killing you in the equivalent of a cutscene".

[CaptainSarathai]

You can make deaths "non lethal." In fact, you can use TPKs to create a very memorable part of the campaign.

Some enemies might leave the party for dead, being too preoccupied or too self-sure to finish them off and make sure they stay down. Sometimes a friendly NPC can find them and nurse them back to health or revive them. The BBEG might also just make them prisoners rather than kill them outright.

Personally, I often find myself offering a level or two of Warlock in exchange for a Revive. Usually, the Patron and some or all of the first level choices are up to me, the DM and cannot ever be changed (just to keep people from diving off cliffs like lemmings to get Eldritch Blast).

My 3 best 'TPK reversals' were:


I had a very gothic Ravenloft campaign at one point. A player was definitely going to miss our climactic last battle, but the rest of the party was chomping at the bit to go face the BBEG they had finally pinned down and geared up for.
I told the player in question that I was going to kill him before the end of his last session with us, in order to stall for time, but he MUST NOT tell the rest of the party. After the session, I recorded a few lines of him saying things through one of those silly children's echo microphones.
Next session he's absent, and they go fight the BBEG with confidence. During the fight, when they take big hits, I play snippets of the recordings
"Over here"
"Help me"
"You need to be... this side... the veil"
Everyone eventually dies. Session ends with a cliffhanger - they reawaken in the midst of a huge battle in the spirit world, in which missing player is fighting.
Turns out, the powerful BBEG they had faced in life was only an avatar of the the true BBEG living in the realm of the dead. The only way to truly defeat him, was to die and face him on his home turf.


Playing the Dragon Queen modules, my party got wrecked in the fight against Tiamat.
I told them to hand in their character sheets and that I'd put together a 1-shot while we figure out what to do next.
1-shot is set 10 years later, in a world ruled by Tiamat, the Chromatic Dragons, and her cult. The party ventures into a mountain lair to rescue a sacrificial damsel from her fate. Inside they discover not only the damsel and young dragon, but also the bodies of 5 other adventurers. The rogue, sniffing loot, goes and starts rummaging these guys, finding nondescript but obviously high-leveled gear. As he's looting, one of the "corpses" opens it's eyes, and begins moving.
I hand the party back their old character sheets. They have been returned to life to have another go at Tiamat. This time, they'll need to gain a few more levels, more gear, and new allies to face her at her full power.
Took a game that should have ended at 15th and played all the way to 20.


Not technically a TPK, but it still holds.
Had a party go murder-hobo and laugh their way all the way to an evil alignment. Okay, fine, I'm a generous (if not forgiving) DM, so I answered their antics with a group of high leveled paladins that we'd always used as bogeymen to dissuade murderhoboism among players: The White Hand.

Turns out the White Hand are the kind of Lawful Insane people who believe in the eradication of evil at any cost. The kind of people who would burn a whole house down to kill one cockroach. The party, being Chaotic and valuing freedom, decide to defend a village against the White Hand (who would have likely burned it and tortured the villagers for information).
Upon defeating the White Hand, the party sees their "sick l00tz" and dons their armor. Immediately it seals shut, and the party gets a few DC:WTF Will rolls to keep their sense of self. They all fail, and become largely enthralled by the armor. They are told ominously, "even in death, you shall heed the call"
The armor deals lethal damage to enforce it's will, and if you die, it owns you completely (so you can't just suicide to get out of the deal). Their only hope was to quest to find a way to undo the armor's hold over them.
The campaign also ended with the "a good death" ending, as the players managed to break the death-link, and went on a suicide mission to eradicate the White Hand headquarters while the armor (and enemies) chipped away their health.

[Zman]

I strongly lean to the party being informed they are fighting outside their weight class and offering or allowing alternative paths that lead away from the encounter, or get through it ie narrow escape, diversion, or even if you have to the BBEG not wanting to deal with them and following the "Lieutenant, take care of them" etc.


One method I have used is tax the party to the max right before they are supposed to go after the big bad. If thye've burnt most of their resources and the last encounter was definitely "deadly", it should click that they are asking for certain death. Make sure they know turning back is a viable alternative. Make escaping their ill advised frontal assault become the current goal and let them live to fight another day knowing the BBEG is still out there and has bested them already once.


That being said, if the party tries to bat outside their weight class and the dice turn against them, then so be it. In my last campaign we had a party wipe, they took on the BBEG and his Lieutenants knowing it was a stretch of a fight, I put it about about 50:50 permanent character deaths with the most likely outcomes someone dies and they either narrowly succeed or retreat. Well, a Disintegrate took out the Support Bard at the bottom of Turn 1, and things went downhill from there.

[Tanarii]

What I am wondering, is do other groups have some kind of etiquette for this kind of situation?Every single group I've played with, and many I've run as a DM, has a different set assumptions for death. But within the sub-set of those in which is is possible for PCs to end up in combat challenges far beyond their capabilities, in the modern D&D era I've found:
- it's typically explicitly mentioned before hand that it is a sandbox, or that players are not expected to be able to win every combat encounter. Or to use the current phrase du jour, Combat-as-War.
- DMs typically lay down some seriously over the top hints when the party is outmatched, unless they've already gotten the party used to the idea that they need to be very cautious.
- Players often ignore over the top hints anyway until they lose a few characters.
- DMs that don't want to kill characters often resort to 'Out of Character' direct statements.

To be fair to players, what seems like an obvious over the top hint to the DM often is only obvious with DM-only knowledge. I try to keep that in mind when DMing.

But yeah, if they don't know it's possible to get into situations that are far beyond their combat capabilities, especially if they just think they're following the breadcrumbs (plot hook) and perfectly on track for the adventure's power curve, then it's probably time to have a sit down with them and state the situation in no uncertain terms.

[cZak]

I've had mixed feelings over character deaths. Mostly having to deal with circumstances, I guess
The death of a character can devastate my interest in a campaign to the point I might lose all interest. Maybe I invest too much into some.


My wizard leading a strike group, we were trapped in a sealed room with four 'counter-magic' items. Basically no magic was available.
A seemingly designed 'no way to win' situation. This was one of the campaigns I lost interest.

My Ruby Knight staying longer in the battle vs a much higher CR that reasonable for the party to allow the escape of the rest of the party.
More of the heroic, sacrificial decision. But it was my decision.
When he was raised, I played it as his first concern was if everyone else escaped. Still hurt, but I was willing to continue.


I'm a believer in campaigns having things that exceed the capabilities of the group. It makes sense.
But the players should understand the circumstances/ the DM should be dropping boulder sized hints when one of those comes up.

[Beelzebubba]

Repeating what others have covered; these games can be many, many different things to different people. It's way more varied than it used to be 'back in the day'. All types of games can be awesome, it's only 'bad' when the table assumes they are all in agreement but really aren't.

I start a game with an 'intended game' style discussion. "Here's the style of game I tend to run. Here's what that means for characters. Here's what I will do to make that be fun and fair. Here's what is required on your end to get the most out of it. Now that I've said that, what are your thoughts?"

It can be on paper or a chat. It can happen before the game, or during the game as little asides, whenever a situation comes up that is somewhat ambiguous. Whatever. But the discussion has to happen.

If that happens, and you all come to an agreement, then all is fair from then on.

But being candid and up-front is best.

[Pex]

This is what I HATE about modern players. It has to be a glorious exit.


I agree. I feel too many players nowadays are way to attached to their characters. You can drown in a swamp if you try to wade in wearing full plate. The only thing I ask is that the DM give me a reason I died. I remember one time my character pledged his loyalty to an evil outsider and the DM killed me. I asked why, and couldn't get a good answer, so the DM retconned it. Still took that character out of the campaign, but at least he wasn't dead for no reason other than, "it says chaotic evil in the monster manual."

The nerve of players feeling empathy about a fictional character. I've heard rumors some guy got all teary about a character who only appeared in one serial of an old Doctor Who episode. The character was a coward, but in the end finally found courage to fight off the BBEG to save everyone else but died along with him as they both fell down an elevator shaft, or lift shaft considering it's a British show.

Go figure.

[Tanarii]

The nerve of players feeling empathy about a fictional character.He used the example of drowning in a swamp if you wade in with full armor. That doesn't sound like a problem with having the nerve to feel empathy. But rather players expecting to be saved from their own stupidity. Or for logical outcomes and consequences to result from player choices, without any necessary retconning because the player can't handle losing their character due to their own choices.

Edit: I missed you were responding to their responses to your own post. I wondered why your response felt like such a non-sequitur. :smallamused:

[MrStabby]

Well this is my longest running campaign. On one level I am not worried about players dying. I described it as a lethal campaign and the players were well on board with that. However there has only been one character death in 11 levels and that was followed by a resurrection. Part of this was me being pretty conservative as a DM, no deadly encounters, everything restrained and so on.

As for clues - well there have been a lot over the campaign. About 10 to 12 of varying degrees of subtlety. Unfortunately over the course of two years many of these get forgotten so maybe not reliable. They don't know the guy whose castle they are in is the/a BBEG but they do know that the BBEG is a shapeshifter, they have come across a corpse matching the stature of this guy (which had had it's face removed to conceal its identity). They do know that the person they are up against has historically not been able to cast spells but have come across evidence of them currently casting spells and they have a couple of reasons to connect this guy to the faction of the BBEG.

For plot hooks I tend to work on the basis of one out - two in. Each time the PCs resolve an issue or complete a quest two new hooks open up. This means PCs cannot ever do everything and can pick the most fun sounding path. Unfortunately in this case it means they ignored a lot of the adventure paths that would have revealed to them more of this part of the plot. Because so many things in the world are interlinked it does now mean they are heading into this without a lot of research/preparation as well as being a little underpowered.

[Contrast]

This time is a bit different. My PCs have picked up a couple of pieces of evidence of someone being a bit suspicious. Their reaction has been to just dive in - no research, no scoping out, no reason to believe it is a level appropriate challenge. They have been homing in, unknown to them, on the campaign BBEG.

Other than metagaming knowledge, what is a sign of a level appropriate challenge? Part of the problem of D&D is that a level 1 NPC can look visually identical to a level 20 NPC.

It can be very difficult to judge these things as a player (a wizard described as wearing fearsome glowing robes might have cast dancing lights or might be level 20 and wearing a robe with the spirit of a demi-god trapped within). I imagine this is why many players can get a little blasé about such things and just work on the assumption that when the DM feeds them plot hooks, they are intended to bite on them. Indeed stories of problem players often start with them not being willing to work with the DM to come up with reasons their characters will follow the DMs plot hooks.

It's easy to imagine a similar thread where a DM is complaining about his group who he has been feeding plot hooks about the next area the PCs need to go to but the players keep refusing to do anything for session after session saying they need to go get some more magic items or level up some more in case the fight is dangerous.

At the end of the day its your table so you'll know better than me if any of the above is relevant but maybe in future think twice before dropping plot hooks to the location of your BBEGs base before the party is ready to face them.

[MrStabby]

Other than metagaming knowledge, what is a sign of a level appropriate challenge? Part of the problem of D&D is that a level 1 NPC can look visually identical to a level 20 NPC.

It can be very difficult to judge these things as a player (a wizard described as wearing fearsome glowing robes might have cast dancing lights or might be level 20 and wearing a robe with the spirit of a demi-god trapped within). I imagine this is why many players can get a little blasé about such things and just work on the assumption that when the DM feeds them plot hooks, they are intended to bite on them. Indeed stories of problem players often start with them not being willing to work with the DM to come up with reasons their characters will follow the DMs plot hooks.

It's easy to imagine a similar thread where a DM is complaining about his group who he has been feeding plot hooks about the next area the PCs need to go to but the players keep refusing to do anything for session after session saying they need to go get some more magic items or level up some more in case the fight is dangerous.

At the end of the day its your table so you'll know better than me if any of the above is relevant but maybe in future think twice before dropping plot hooks to the location of your BBEGs base before the party is ready to face them.


You do make some good points in general. Here the issue is similar, although slightly different. The PCs know that there is this Big Scary Bad Guy that they can't handle and that they are scared of. They just don't yet know they have gatecrashed his castle. I guess it is a problem with shapeshifting bad guys in general.

As for PCs following plot hooks - I see your point there. I may have laid out some of the information a bit early. I was hoping that the PCs would piece together pieces gathered over the campaign to make deductions. As it was there was an unexpected shift in priorities: "yeah, screw the hostages and those marauding giants, lets investigate why this artist has decided to become more reclusive". Do I regret it? Maybe see in a few weeks time. In principle I like that players can make lethal mistakes. In reality I think I have done a poor job if when they look back they can't see that obviously they should have done something differently.

[Sigreid]

You do make some good points in general. Here the issue is similar, although slightly different. The PCs know that there is this Big Scary Bad Guy that they can't handle and that they are scared of. They just don't yet know they have gatecrashed his castle. I guess it is a problem with shapeshifting bad guys in general.

As for PCs following plot hooks - I see your point there. I may have laid out some of the information a bit early. I was hoping that the PCs would piece together pieces gathered over the campaign to make deductions. As it was there was an unexpected shift in priorities: "yeah, screw the hostages and those marauding giants, lets investigate why this artist has decided to become more reclusive". Do I regret it? Maybe see in a few weeks time. In principle I like that players can make lethal mistakes. In reality I think I have done a poor job if when they look back they can't see that obviously they should have done something differently.

So, unless you squash them handily in the first fight, that fight can be hard enough do drive home that it's time to leave and come back later unless it's hard enough that they TPK in 1-2 rounds and don't have enough time to get the hint.

It also helps if the players are aware that you do not strictly gate content to their level and it is possible to challenge an encounter too early and be killed. My party is well aware of the fact that some content in the world is mental note for later content.

[mephnick]

The main problem with encounters that are out of the characters' league is that the need to escape is tough to call and then it's handled absolutely horribly.

Usually it takes a round or two to realize you're f***ed and by then it's probably too late. Even if you get a chance to escape, how? Almost every monster is as fast as the PCs or faster. Ranged attacks hit for miles.

You really need to allow for a narrative retreat or use a chase system if you want to have PC's not fight to the death in every encounter. As someone who extensively uses encounter tables with varying levels of deadly encounters (level 4 PCs may very well stroll into an encounter that's deadly for level 7 etc), I've taken to allowing skill checks to narratively escape rather than play out some huge chase scene.

[Sigreid]

The main problem with encounters that are out of the characters' league is that the need to escape is tough to call and then it's handled absolutely horribly.

Usually it takes a round or two to realize you're f***ed and by then it's probably too late. Even if you get a chance to escape, how? Almost every monster is as fast as the PCs or faster. Ranged attacks hit for miles.

You really need to allow for a narrative retreat or use a chase system if you want to have PC's not fight to the death in every encounter. As someone who extensively uses encounter tables with varying levels of deadly encounters (level 4 PCs may very well stroll into an encounter that's deadly for level 7 etc), I've taken to allowing skill checks to narratively escape rather than play out some huge chase scene.

On occasion I have allowed an encounter to be simply too lazy or disciplined to give chase. After all this group hitting you and running away sounds like bait for a trap to me.

[MrStabby]

On occasion I have allowed an encounter to be simply too lazy or disciplined to give chase. After all this group hitting you and running away sounds like bait for a trap to me.

Oh that is good! There is still a little time to build this guy up and add some character - his being paranoid about traps and ambushes adds a layer of defence and plausibility to them not later falling into any cheesy traps that the players might want to spring. Responding to the attack with divination spells to track the party and a counter attack through his agents might make for some interesting encounters.

[Socratov]

Fairness, in its basic principle is all about reciprocal behaviour:

if you players give no quarter, why should you?

Mind you, this is about being fair: they should get a fair challenge, but once the training wheels come off (i.e. after T1), anything you do as a player is a viable tactic for me as a DM to use. Any overused tactic (like using your familliar for autoadvantage in combat) will get out and once in a while be countered. If you players play smart and tactical, well, then so should you.

A challenge should feel like a challenge, mind you, death and/or failure is always an option

cakewalks can feel nice, once in a while, to boos your confidence and, well, curbstomping sometimes just feel awesome. If you are powerful, you should feel like it.

However, the thrill of death and failure is what makes succeeding at a challenge so worthwhile. Once you succeed against the odds, it's not just luck that decided the battle, but skill. And that feeling of satisfaction is fan-fornicating-tastic. And that is where the crux lies: you succeed against the odds, so as the odds are against you, sometimes the odds line up and you get beaten. Quoth Adam Savage: "Failure is always an option" which segues me nicely into the next bit:

Plan for failure, aim for success

Wether it's the dice hating you, tackling an encounter a bit too big or a momentary lapse of reason, sometimes it all goes wrong. As a player you should take that into account. sure, you aim for success, but you should plan for failure. Like being halfway decent at perception as discussed in another thread, making sure you can GTFO and NOPE the hell outta dodge is adventuring 101. If you players don't plan for failure they have only their hubris to blame. (Well, unless you sic a Pit fiend on a lvl 7 party and close off their pyramids by magic, but I digress.)

[MrStabby]

Well I am not totally heartless. Loot on the way in includes a teleport scroll, so they do have a tool to get out of there. I also included some windows so judicious application of the fly spell will help. Now the traps, wall spells and special abilities of the bad guy might make escape harder - but I think a desperately try and retreat without losing more than a couple of party members will still be a fun fight.

Between inexperience and being soft my campaign sold as tough and dangerous really hasn't been. The DMG kind of lowballs what PCs can cope with, I underestimated the additional advantage players get from magic items and positioning for a while. Furthermore, the power level of the PCs ramps up with level faster than I expected - I was always playing catch-up. I was trying to be tough but generally didn't have the ruthlessness nor the willingness to go over the top that would kill players. I worry that it may be just a little bit of a shock even though we talked about lethality at the start.

[Sigreid]

Well I am not totally heartless. Loot on the way in includes a teleport scroll, so they do have a tool to get out of there. I also included some windows so judicious application of the fly spell will help. Now the traps, wall spells and special abilities of the bad guy might make escape harder - but I think a desperately try and retreat without losing more than a couple of party members will still be a fun fight.

Between inexperience and being soft my campaign sold as tough and dangerous really hasn't been. The DMG kind of lowballs what PCs can cope with, I underestimated the additional advantage players get from magic items and positioning for a while. Furthermore, the power level of the PCs ramps up with level faster than I expected - I was always playing catch-up. I was trying to be tough but generally didn't have the ruthlessness nor the willingness to go over the top that would kill players. I worry that it may be just a little bit of a shock even though we talked about lethality at the start.

The truth is (in my experience) that the guidelines are designed to give new-ish players the illusion of risk until the later battles where their resources may be running lower. Smarter players will have an easier time.

[MrStabby]

As a slight tangent (if I opened the discussion does it make it more forgivable?) - I tend to think of an easy/medium/hard encounter structure.

An easy encounter is not always "easy" in the DMG sense, and it is only easy in context. It is an encounter, however challenging that doesn't change party plans. If the party wants to delve into a a dungeon, does so and encounters a hydra and finds it tough, it may still be "easy" in my eyes if this doesn't cause the party to change plans. Ok they may use up a lot of resources and need to rest, which is where context comes in. If they can rest without penalty it is "easy" in my eyes even if it took a whole load of resources and 12 rounds to defeat. If they can't rest there - either through danger or time pressure - then the encounter likely changed their approach and the out of combat decisions they make - forcing a retreat.

A medium encounter is the encounter that forces a change. It may be retreat, it may be to crack open limited use items, to go get help to find another way round or whatever... just an encounter that challenges assumptions about the future.

A hard encounter is the real campaign shaking encounter. It forces a more strategic level rethink. A faction being too powerful to fight, the world moving on whilst you side-quest to resurrect half the party, a change of perspective due to rolling up new characters, death of the NPCs you were trying to rescue, destruction of the city/kingdom/plane. The thing that the party will go to almost any lengths to overcome so will really be taxing the party.

The consequences of this are that easy encounters generally have an effect within the same day - mainly through resource usage, HP etc. They can be draining and make subsequent encounters harder but after a long rest it is as if they didn't happen. Medium encounters have impacts that will last beyond the day end and might require some catching up or clever out of combat activities to make right. Hard encounters are the points at which the course of the campaign can change.

My rough aim is that most encounters should be "easy" in this sense. Here I mean most encounters that actually happen, not most prospective encounters - players should take steps to avoid things so tough that the reward isn't worth the risk. Some of these might tip into "medium" unless they are handled well, e.g. the party can generally cope with lowish risk but if they mishandle it they will be too low on resources to push on. Medium encounters are about one every couple of days i.e. one per 14 encounters - keep the PCs having contingency plans and to give circumstances where there is a reward for really high performance. "Hard" encounters are something I aim to make pretty rare and tend to open or close plot arcs. They come as often as they need but they generally take about a week to two months character time between them.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

Escape routes are a must. I don't use miracle saves unless there's a weird circumstance like bad luck rolling that's causing the tpk. Player deaths aren't a bad thing - they are just a part of the game and a much more frequent part of the game for players who don't research

[Snails]

This time is a bit different. My PCs have picked up a couple of pieces of evidence of someone being a bit suspicious. Their reaction has been to just dive in - no research, no scoping out, no reason to believe it is a level appropriate challenge. They have been homing in, unknown to them, on the campaign BBEG.

Please take this with a grain of salt...

The concept of X being not level appropriate now but will be much later is very metagamey, and does not make much sense within the story without a lot of clear hints.

Your PCs are being heroic, by being clever enough to perceive a problem and attempting to take responsibility in a swashbuckling kind of way. Is that good or bad, in your eyes, as a DM? Are they supposed to be "smarter" in some other particular way? Does everyone at the table have a similar understanding on what is "good playing" and "good roleplaying"?

A lot of adventures and campaigns are closer to being on rails than we like to acknowledge, where not minding the trail of bread crumbs will be punished.

So, I have no opinion on whether you are doing anything wrong. It could be a dramatic attention getting event for a PC or two to die, motivating the eventual sweet revenge over the long term.

I do agree with the various advice about having a "lucky coincidence" that BBEG is distracted or there is a convenient escape route. You do not need to outright avoid killing PCs. But it would be good "story logic" for the BBEG to demonstrate his/her overwhelming prowess before the PCs find themselves committed to a life or death fight, and no opportunity to reconsider.

[Honest Tiefling]

A lot of adventures and campaigns are closer to being on rails than we like to acknowledge, where not minding the trail of bread crumbs will be punished.

I'd like to offer an alternative: The characters THOUGHT they were on rails and acted accordingly. Yeah, I don't know about the rest of you, but I've had moments of players getting confused or doing things that weren't so helpful to a longer life span due to player expectations. They thought that since there were hints, that was where the story went, so let's do that. That's a hard habit to break, really.

[MrStabby]

Please take this with a grain of salt...

The concept of X being not level appropriate now but will be much later is very metagamey, and does not make much sense within the story without a lot of clear hints.

Yeah, it is a bit metagamey but I don't mind this one too much. It seems kind of the best of a bad set of options. Either the world scales with you, so everything is automatically your level or there are things that you can never reach/challenge which puts a lot of things outside of potential interaction or you have the big things in the world but that you have to prepare, train and test yourself before you can fight them.






Your PCs are being heroic, by being clever enough to perceive a problem and attempting to take responsibility in a swashbuckling kind of way. Is that good or bad, in your eyes, as a DM? Are they supposed to be "smarter" in some other particular way? Does everyone at the table have a similar understanding on what is "good playing" and "good roleplaying"?

Well this would generally be good, however it seems to be a massive overreaction and just going full murderhobo. Observing something unusual is great and I love that my players did that. Slightly shocked that their mode of investigation is to slaughter the guards and move room to room through the castle killing and looting till they find the cause of the odd occurrences. Again not a problem with players opting for a full frontal assault when they know what they are doing but the group is constantly asking themselves why they are there. They are going with "well he has obviously prepared these areas so we are supposed to go here and he statted the guards so we are probably supposed to fight them - we just don't know why" as a somewhat mettagamey chain of reasoning.




A lot of adventures and campaigns are closer to being on rails than we like to acknowledge, where not minding the trail of bread crumbs will be punished.

So, I have no opinion on whether you are doing anything wrong. It could be a dramatic attention getting event for a PC or two to die, motivating the eventual sweet revenge over the long term.

My style is to have some rails, but only at the highest level. Start the campaign at a point and have enough of a threat that the PCs are forced to engage with it for the sake of the gameworld. If they go off and become Llama farmers that is fine, but then the things they wont be stopping will happen. Usually this will follow the format of a final showdown at the end and some henchmen along the way - but who the party engages with and how is up to the players. This is why there is the imminent danger to the party - they can just attack a building at the first sign of something strange.




I do agree with the various advice about having a "lucky coincidence" that BBEG is distracted or there is a convenient escape route. You do not need to outright avoid killing PCs. But it would be good "story logic" for the BBEG to demonstrate his/her overwhelming prowess before the PCs find themselves committed to a life or death fight, and no opportunity to reconsider.

I am not such a fan of the story logic here, the bad guy is a shapeshifter undercover and a demonstration of might would blow their cover - I see them willing to blow their cover to survive but there is quite some advantage to them to hiding their power.


I'd like to offer an alternative: The characters THOUGHT they were on rails and acted accordingly. Yeah, I don't know about the rest of you, but I've had moments of players getting confused or doing things that weren't so helpful to a longer life span due to player expectations. They thought that since there were hints, that was where the story went, so let's do that. That's a hard habit to break, really.

I think this pretty much describes the situation. This is probably a consequence of putting in-character time pressure on the party. It prompts them to action over contemplation and evidence gathering.

[Glorthindel]

Perhaps a clearly out-of-level "minor" encounter would work as a clue. The problem with human guards is they are pretty-much level-appropriate from 1 to 20, so are not likely to raise a red flag, even if they are tough. Now a pet monster that would be inappropriate to them even as an end boss would likely raise some concerns they are somewhere they shouldn't be.

My DM once did this - we stumbled on a fortress of the BBEG by pure accident and went dungeon-crawling. As we took out the gnolls guarding the gate, we saw a bunch more leaving the keep to come towards us lead by a Minotaur with a pet Gorgon (the DnD metal-bull, not the medusa) on a leash. Needless to say, at our level (I think we were 3) we all had a "what the ****, we can't handle that!" moment and ran like hell.

[MrStabby]

Perhaps a clearly out-of-level "minor" encounter would work as a clue. The problem with human guards is they are pretty-much level-appropriate from 1 to 20, so are not likely to raise a red flag, even if they are tough. Now a pet monster that would be inappropriate to them even as an end boss would likely raise some concerns they are somewhere they shouldn't be.

My DM once did this - we stumbled on a fortress of the BBEG by pure accident and went dungeon-crawling. As we took out the gnolls guarding the gate, we saw a bunch more leaving the keep to come towards us lead by a Minotaur with a pet Gorgon (the DnD metal-bull, not the medusa) on a leash. Needless to say, at our level (I think we were 3) we all had a "what the ****, we can't handle that!" moment and ran like hell.

This kind of runs into a bit of trouble with the undercover thing. Having a super-powerful pet would undermine him fitting in. I might manage something with traps or similar or for the party to come across some kind of high level magic experiment cunningly hidden away or a very powerful trap. The problem with the former is that it would require some good investigation (it has to be sufficiently hidden that other people haven't found it). A trap might announce itself but a demonstration of power from the trap is also the kind of thing that can take away half the party's hitpoints (and has to demonstrate scary power). This kind of seems like the players might find it a bit cheap.

I don't mind if the players push ahead and run into a lot of problems, I don't mind character death. I just want the party - looking back at the encounter - to think it was fair.

[Naez]

In most cases 2 levels isn't very significant unless we're talking under level 5.

The entire time I've DMed I've only ever killed 1 PC. But this is due to a combination of factors.

I always let them know I will be attempting to kill them. So they rarely walk into a situation unprepared.

I play with all experienced players with maybe 1 newer player but they're​ smart enough to defer to the experienced players when they say "you don't want to do that".

I've been lucky enough to get players who actually invest in their characters so death is a big deal and they don't have the "whatever I can just roll another " mindset.

In general when approaching a bbeg guards and traps at the entrances to the lair are about as dangerous as the bbeg themselves, if not actually harder (this is usually due to action economy). And because you're at an entrance you have an escape right there if you don't think you can handle it.

[FreddyNoNose]

The nerve of players feeling empathy about a fictional character. I've heard rumors some guy got all teary about a character who only appeared in one serial of an old Doctor Who episode. The character was a coward, but in the end finally found courage to fight off the BBEG to save everyone else but died along with him as they both fell down an elevator shaft, or lift shaft considering it's a British show.

Go figure.

Feeling for your character is one thing. Having to have a glorious death is something way different. It might be a generational difference. You take your chances going out to adventure and bad things can happen.

A man that Fortune’s buffets and rewards Hast ta'en with equal thanks.

[Pex]

Feeling for your character is one thing. Having to have a glorious death is something way different. It might be a generational difference. You take your chances going out to adventure and bad things can happen.

A man that Fortune’s buffets and rewards Hast ta'en with equal thanks.

You're really going to urinate on my original example of a player who's moving away so he and the DM decide to have his character go out in a blaze of glory as a way to say goodbye?

[FreddyNoNose]

You're really going to urinate on my original example of a player who's moving away so he and the DM decide to have his character go out in a blaze of glory as a way to say goodbye?

I was talking in generalities. AKA, generally. Perhaps there are exceptions. Killing the character off because someone is leaving may be overkill in an off itself. Can't the character become an NPC in the game? People get way too emotional over stuff like this.