PDA

View Full Version : How to run combat as a DM that is not TPK nor devoid of danger?



guileus
2018-05-13, 10:10 AM
When DMing I'm sometimes a bit torn when running combats: I don't want to play 100% to kill (using all the strategy, dirty tricks etc) with the NPCs or monsters, because of a couple of reasons. First, it sometimes doesn't make sense with dumb monsters developing very complex tactics. Second, it kind of fosters the "DM vs. players" mentality which I don't like. I like them succeeding and I don't want it to turn into a miniature wargame where we try to "win". Third, sometimes I feel that with some players, even though they would accept a death if they ran a string of fumbles or did something very stupid, killing them off in a very conscious way would kind of make it not fun for them, because they are attached to their characters. These latter two reasons are very metagamey, I know.
So for example NPCs or monsters don't sometimes "focus" on a PC, attacking all at once, even though tactically that would make the most sense (in order to take out a foe and not have to withstand his attacks).
That being said, presenting a challenge to the PCs is very important because if they don't feel in danger, things start to become a bit dull. And in one of my last games, a player even complained it seemed dumb for this huge ogre not to focus his full attack (which would do 1/2 of the HP of the toughest PC, in a single attack) at one of them.

The way I usually run it is throwing a dice and splitting the attacks for characters like that. Am I pulling punches? Should I only do that with different creatures (ie. roll a dice to see whih PC is attacked by each troll, but then each troll is fully committed to that PC)? How do yo guys run combat? What level of danger? How likely is death in those games and how do you balance having enough danger to make it interesting with the lack of attachment you end up feeling for a character that gets killed every two sessions?

PanosIs
2018-05-13, 10:13 AM
What I like to do is determine the tactics beforehand, and then tune the difficulty of the combat according to that. I find it much more pleasing for me as a DM, to have weaker monsters that have to use better tactics than to have to underplay more powerful adversaries.

GloatingSwine
2018-05-13, 10:17 AM
The party shouldn't feel like they're in danger in every combat, or even most combats to be honest.

They're adventurers, this is their day job.

Design encounters on the basis that they will drain some of the party's resources (and adventures so they don't have a five minute adventuring day), the players will start to feel the tension as their resources get low.

(Just make it reasonably obvious when they're going to run into a "boss" encounter and should pull the stops out).

guileus
2018-05-13, 10:21 AM
Thanks guys, what you say makes sense. But how do you determine who to attack in each combat? I'm always worried if I don't randomize it will feel like I'm being cheap trying to take someone down. But then randomizing sometimes feels stupid or the opposite of strategic.

Pleh
2018-05-13, 10:27 AM
I like to start with the goblin encounter. It's basically devoid of danger, but dangerous enough to show me how the players will tend to handle combat. They get to have fun tearing mooks to pieces and I get a picture of what they want to do with their characters. Future encounters are calibrated to challenge their chosen playstyle while leaving plenty of room for success.

PanosIs
2018-05-13, 10:38 AM
Thanks guys, what you say makes sense. But how do you determine who to attack in each combat? I'm always worried if I don't randomize it will feel like I'm being cheap trying to take someone down. But then randomizing sometimes feels stupid or the opposite of strategic.

Attack the one it makes more sense to attack from the adversaries point of view. This will often lead to focusing fire, as that is often the best choice, but you can balance encounters about that.

Adding style to the way monsters fight is a good way to makes fights interesting. (ie. the giants focus the dwarf on behalf of racial hatred, the enemy duelist attempts to get an one-on-one duel with the fighter of the party etc etc.)

Again, I think it's wrong to underplay enemies, and it's much better to have a fight that's close even with using strategy. And your players will learn to play around often used tactics such as focusing the weak backliners, as most RPGs (I feel this is about D&D, might be wrong though), have counterplay available to that kind of thing.

GloatingSwine
2018-05-13, 11:58 AM
The other thing to think about is "who do these enemies usually fight".

Like if you want an encounter where the players fight some goblins, who do goblins usually fight? Do they raid ill-prepared villagers? Do they fight other goblin tribes? Are they an army that usually fights other armies? It's probably not wandering squads of adventurers. The average goblin meets adventurers like sentences meet a full stop.

Especially at low levels adventurers should be fighting enemies that don't co-ordinate very well and use tactics designed to counter adventuring parties because they don't fight adventuring parties very often. (Once in a lifetime, literally).

They don't have an opportunity to develop those tactics. An enterprising gobbo might make a break for the one in the robe at the back, but not because he knows low level wizards are squishy, just because he's managed to get out of the frontline fight and sees a target of opportunity.

At higher levels when players encounter things like other, more eviller, adventuring parties or bigger cannier monsters that are likely to have encountered adventurers trying to nick their stuff and defended themselves successfully then start thinking about specific tactics they might use.

Kaptin Keen
2018-05-13, 12:10 PM
(Once in a lifetime, literally).

Actually, there might be any number of failed adventuring parties in the ground, outside goblin lairs, each with a little crudely written sign hung on a staff or sword, reading:


These adventurers failed - do you really think you're better than them?

or


These guys had fireballs and magic swords. Just sayin'.

or


Here lie some dead adventurers. Don't be like them. Be smart. Go away.

Seto
2018-05-13, 12:32 PM
This article by the Angry DM (http://theangrygm.com/death-sucks/) should resonate with you. He discusses character death. If you want to avoid killing off beloved characters, you can simply decide that when they fall to negative HP, it means that they're out of the fight and left for dead, but not actually dead. (Like in videogames, where dying means you respawn at the save point). In that case, you should feel free to make fights very difficult, so challenge is maintained. Or if it breaks immersion, even let the player choose whether they're ready for their character to die. Or if you think death shouldn't be cheapened, then you and your players should accept the full impact of it.

To address your question more directly, I think what you're doing (splitting attacks, throwing dice) makes sense for unintelligent or not very intelligent creatures. As others have said, ask yourself what character the NPCs would want to attack. I recently played in a boss fight where the boss (a huge Gnoll) opted to charge at me first and all but knocked me out in one turn, but I don't feel unfairly targeted because after all, I was wearing leather armor made of gnoll skin and teeth. Similarly, intelligent foes should have a strategy, and be able to determine what character is the most dangerous to them, and focus on that character first.
On the other hand, if characters are in negative HPs and bleeding out... Intelligent enemies could coup de grâce them, but it takes time, provokes AoOs for no immediate benefit, so they're better off attacking whoever's left standing.
As long as you're not one-shotting characters and they have the option to escape, I'd say it's fine. If they start feeling dangerously close to death, they can retreat or at the very least take defensive measures instead of continuing to fight on the front lines.

GloatingSwine
2018-05-13, 12:45 PM
Actually, there might be any number of failed adventuring parties in the ground, outside goblin lairs, each with a little crudely written sign hung on a staff or sword, reading:


Unlikely, on account of how some other adventurers would have come along and said "Hey, free sword!" and nicked it. Maybe reading the sign, maybe not.

Kaptin Keen
2018-05-13, 01:00 PM
Unlikely, on account of how some other adventurers would have come along and said "Hey, free sword!" and nicked it. Maybe reading the sign, maybe not.

Most likely not, actually. But then they'd wander into the goblin cave - without warning - and get slaughtered, adding yet another grave. Helping to outfit and level up the goblins while we're at it.

Darth Ultron
2018-05-13, 01:54 PM
If you might think an combat or adventitious encounter is devoid of danger, you might must want to skip even having it. Sure you can have lots of 'encounters' where the Pcs like talk to a farmer....but anything other then that should be dangerous.

If you plan to have some goofy goblins attack that are no danger...why even bother? Do you really want to waste time in the game?

What you really want is all such encounters to be dangerous....but for the players to feel they can handle most of what the players encounter.

So the goblins are dangerous, but the players can handle the danger. But for the DM to remove all danger, and the players know this, the game just becomes fluff.

In general, most foes that are 'monsters' will fight to the death. Others might not...but if the PCs are slaughtering everyone, that does tend to make people fight back.

And it does not take all that much 'smarts' to fight smart...it is much more 'street smarts' then 'I have a degree on my wall that says I'm smart".

tensai_oni
2018-05-13, 02:22 PM
Why are the players and the NPCs fighting? This is a question you should be always asking yourself.

A fight where the enemies attack because they're the enemies and that's what monsters in DnD do, is boring. Start introducing goals in your encounters.

Maybe have the opponents try to steal something, grab a piece of treasure and retreat - the fight becomes about preventing them from doing that.

Maybe the opponents are trying to reach a lever that will close off the door to their lair, which the player characters are out to raid. Once again, preventing them from doing that is the party's goal.

Or maybe they took hostages, and the players need to stop them from getting hurt.

If there are objectives, goals that aren't just "kill the other side before they can kill us", the fights become much more enjoyable and the players feel there's a challenge, because a clear objective is right before their noses, with a clear fail state that the opponents are aiming to reach for (even if in actuality, they're not very likely to do it).

redwizard007
2018-05-13, 04:24 PM
Individuals are unlikely to disengage an enemy before the enemy falls unless absolutely necessary.

Splitting attacks between multiple foes is sub-optimal, but can be used as a way to determine which Target to focus on if undecided. This is unlikely to last more than one round.

Unintelligent beasts are the exception to the above, and will turn to attack whoever hit them hard last (in melee only.)


Animals attack PCs the same way they hunt prey.

Chaotic groups tend towards mass individual combat.

Lawful groups tend to use unit based tactics.

More intelligent foes will use more complicated strategies.

More experienced foes will use more successful strategies.

All of the above have exceptions, but can simplify your decision making process.

Corneel
2018-05-13, 04:42 PM
When things get really tight leave the players time to discuss their strategies, even if that is not "realistic". They might just surprise you with what they come up with and the result might be properly heroesque.

Mr Beer
2018-05-13, 06:18 PM
So first off, not every single encounter has to be a deathmatch, in fact it's much better if the characters can hulk smash a lot of combats so when things get tricky, they feel how precarious this fight is.

Second, tactics vary by monster type, from zombies that just shamble over mindlessly, through experienced warriors like orcs and soldiers and then rival adventurers, evil wizards etc. at the far end. Some fights require good tactics by the GM, others not so much. If you're going to go hard in trying to win, you should probably dial down the raw lethality of the encounter - if it's already finely balanced, lethal GM intentions are more likely to TPK.

Third, not every defeat has to result in the monsters just killing everyone and eating the bodies. They can capture them for ransom or slavery for example, or just loot them and leave them in the wilderness. Lots of good adventure possibilities here.

Fourth you can deus ex machina to stop TPKs, in D&D at least gods often take a personal interest in adventurers so there's some justification for occasional divine intervention. Also, help can come with a price, yes another adventuring party saved your asses from the dragon but guess who is demanding most of the loot (and has the firepower to back it up)?

Lastly you can fudge dice rolls if you think it's kind of unfair that a particular character got killed by an unlucky roll. You can't do this if you typically roll in the open and you can't do it too often or it becomes obvious.

Mr Beer
2018-05-13, 06:21 PM
When things get really tight leave the players time to discuss their strategies, even if that is not "realistic". They might just surprise you with what they come up with and the result might be properly heroesque.

Yep this is good. On that note, try to use the Rule Of Cool when it comes to heroes trying to save the party from destruction. 'Yes and then...' is better than 'No you can't'.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-13, 07:48 PM
One thing to note is that perceived difficulty is very different from actual difficulty, but perceived difficulty is what matters for tension. So even if you know that there really isn't a significant threat, the players might not know that.

Another thing is to know your players--are they strongly motivated by overcoming desperate challenges? If so, push them. If not, don't worry about it. Don't make things always a cake walk, but focus more on providing good story reasons, flavor, and whatever else they find most interesting.

NichG
2018-05-13, 09:38 PM
A given system may or may not make this possible, so I tend to try to address this at the system design level rather than at the DMing level.

One way to have a feeling of tension is to have a system in which the consequences of incorrect actions are very severe, but where it's very easy to determine that something is going to be an incorrect action. For example, in chess, you might make a lot of moves without being forced to sacrifice a piece, but you're always aware of the pieces that you could lose if you ignored a threat or failed to respond. Similarly in Go, there's a concept of forcing moves - the consequences of following the other player's lead and responding to threat is a gradual erosion of opportunity or advantage, but the consequence of ignoring threat or responding incorrectly is much larger.

The issue can be that this relies a lot on player experience. A newbie to Go just won't recognize that some threats are in fact threats, and will suddenly have the game collapse on them. Even in something like D&D, new players might not read the cues and get squashed - for example, the party's rogue being too excited by the prospect of sneak attack and letting a dragon get to make a full attack on them.

So the trick would be to become very good at telegraph (legitimate) threat, and to ramp up over the course of a campaign such that players learn when something will kill their characters if they treat it lightly, versus when they can legitimately risk it. At the same time, you have to be very, very consistent about these things - you have to commit to never having a hidden gotcha when such things are in play even if 'it would make sense' for it to be there, because that's just going to leave you with paranoid risk-averse players. Chess where, rarely and randomly, the opponent might get to take two moves in a row becomes very hard to forecast.

Another way to do it, this more at the system design level, is to have combats where there are a wide variety of stakes and outcomes in a single fight. A simple example is a fight in which the PCs are trying to protect a group of NPCs. In that case, you can easily threaten the PCs' ability to succeed without threatening a TPK. The issue is that, without system-level support, these tend to be one-off gimmick encounters rather than a consistent feature of the campaign. Systems where dying is hard but being disabled or taking long-term consequences is easy provide a more steady source of tension of this nature - 7th Sea for example requires a character to specifically take an action to coup-de-gras a downed foe in order for there to be any deaths in the fight (brute squads aside). If the context is such that hanging around after downing an enemy would be high risk (lots of fights on the run or fights in public spaces, for example), you can have situations where even if the party fails, it's not a TPK.

That said, full fails have to be really rare or the game tends to lose momentum. Recovering from a failure and dealing with lost ground is exhausting, so two in a row will kill a campaign as easily as a TPK. I'd say you might be able to afford one or two over the entire course of the campaign (still, that's more than you can afford TPKs). Partial success/partial failure is a much more sustainable practice.

Psyren
2018-05-14, 12:31 AM
It's focused on one specific system (Pathfinder 1.0, to be precise) but the "GM's Guide to Challenging Encounters" in my sig has some pretty good advice.

Psikerlord
2018-05-14, 01:11 AM
I recommened introducing a transparent retreat rule/mechanic (perhaps similar to OD&D) , and/or modifying the existing chase rules so they allow retreat from enemies with equal or greater speed. Then you can use whatever enemies you want, including wildly powerful ones, and if the PCs dont retreat when in real danger, it's on them.

Lapak
2018-05-14, 08:25 AM
I recommened introducing a transparent retreat rule/mechanic (perhaps similar to OD&D) , and/or modifying the existing chase rules so they allow retreat from enemies with equal or greater speed. Then you can use whatever enemies you want, including wildly powerful ones, and if the PCs dont retreat when in real danger, it's on them.I was going to suggest something like this for both the PCs and their opponents - start making fewer combats run as a fight to the last man. This actually ties in with running enemies intelligently - pretty much as soon as the tide turns decisively against them, most enemies should be looking to escape combat.

If most combats against living opponents end in a rout rather than a slaughter, the PCs are more likely to try it themselves if things turn against them - when the die rolls all go bad, or a foe gets in a lucky hit that one-shots the wizard, or whatever, they are more likely to believe that escape is possible if they have been on the other end a bunch of times.

Firest Kathon
2018-05-14, 08:40 AM
One way to achieve this is that the danger in the combat is not (character) death, but something else. Others have touched upon it in this thread - the opponents could be out to capture someone, steal something, kill NPCs, reach some point, finish some ritual etc. In addition to not risking TPKs, it allows for many different tactics (e.g. sneaky approach vs. frontal assault), plus the PCs have the option to retreat at the cost of letting the opponents achieve their objective (while giving the opponents a good reason to not chase the PCs).

Pelle
2018-05-14, 08:40 AM
It might help to not design every encounter to be balanced, but rather just design open scenarios and let the players decide on how to approach them. If the players can't be certain how challenging every combat will be in advance, they can feel more tense than they really are and you don't have to pull your punches. And if the players are clever, most fights will really be on the easy side. Just make sure the players know they are responsible, otherwise it may backfire...

kyoryu
2018-05-14, 11:04 AM
I recommened introducing a transparent retreat rule/mechanic (perhaps similar to OD&D) , and/or modifying the existing chase rules so they allow retreat from enemies with equal or greater speed. Then you can use whatever enemies you want, including wildly powerful ones, and if the PCs dont retreat when in real danger, it's on them.


One way to achieve this is that the danger in the combat is not (character) death, but something else. Others have touched upon it in this thread - the opponents could be out to capture someone, steal something, kill NPCs, reach some point, finish some ritual etc. In addition to not risking TPKs, it allows for many different tactics (e.g. sneaky approach vs. frontal assault), plus the PCs have the option to retreat at the cost of letting the opponents achieve their objective (while giving the opponents a good reason to not chase the PCs).

This is the best answer.

Also, read this. While it's about movies, it deals with the same fundamental issue: How can you have a fight when you know the protagonists will win (because it's 20 minutes into the movie)?

https://io9.gizmodo.com/why-you-should-never-write-action-scenes-into-your-tent-511712234

Also, once you have stakes in place, there's less inherent desire for the enemies to chase. After all, they've got other things to do at that point.

Segev
2018-05-14, 12:20 PM
Consider why the enemies are fighting. If the players picked the fight, what were the enemies doing that made the players want it? If the enemies picked it, why did they pick it?

While "I want to kill them!" can be a motive for a battle, that usually isn't what provokes it. Animalistic predators are after food; they will go for the easiest meal, then drag it off and try to avoid further battle. Bandits want loot. If they're attacking the adventurers, then they think the adventurers are guarding/carrying something worth stealing compared to the apparent risk of taking on this party. But still, they'll want their loot, not the party's lives. Assassins will have particular targets; this might be a classic "escort mission." Guards are protecting something; if the PCs are after it, the guards may well fight to the death, but at the same time, the PCs' goal is to get the item(s), not kill the guards, if the PCs are smart about it.

Have victory conditions for the enemies that don't require the PCs to die. Losing "stuff" or even allies is a loss. The threat need not be to the PCs' lives and limbs, but to their possessions or their goals.

kyoryu
2018-05-14, 12:38 PM
Have victory conditions for the enemies that don't require the PCs to die. Losing "stuff" or even allies is a loss. The threat need not be to the PCs' lives and limbs, but to their possessions or their goals.

While "lesser" stakes like that might seem like they rob the game of drama, in my experience the exact opposite is true.

Because nobody wants to TPK. Most people figure out pretty quickly that a TPK is an incredibly rare event, and so most of hte time the actual danger you're in is fairly illusory.

BUT. Having the bad guys get away with the MacGuffin? That's believable. Having them abduct or kill a key NPC? That's believable.

Then follow up on those stakes. Have the PCs lose on occasion (well, put them in situations where it's possible, and allow it to happen. Don't manipulate the system to force a loss).

Once players realize that they can lose, it's amazing how the tension ratchets up instantly.

JoeJ
2018-05-14, 02:54 PM
The next battle you run, have the bad guys flee as soon as it's clear they're losing. If the PC's chase them, pull out the chase rules for whatever game you're playing and play out a fun, cinematic chase. Don't fudge things to let the PCs catch them; if the bad guys get away, then they get away. Start doing that regularly and you'll show (which is almost always better than telling) the players that they can run away too if they're losing.

Psikerlord
2018-05-15, 03:45 AM
I was going to suggest something like this for both the PCs and their opponents - start making fewer combats run as a fight to the last man. This actually ties in with running enemies intelligently - pretty much as soon as the tide turns decisively against them, most enemies should be looking to escape combat.

If most combats against living opponents end in a rout rather than a slaughter, the PCs are more likely to try it themselves if things turn against them - when the die rolls all go bad, or a foe gets in a lucky hit that one-shots the wizard, or whatever, they are more likely to believe that escape is possible if they have been on the other end a bunch of times.

I didnt think about enemies but yes good point - if the players see their foes retreat, it normalizes it and players will be quick to adopt retreat when they need to

Kardwill
2018-05-15, 10:04 AM
Why are the players and the NPCs fighting? This is a question you should be always asking yourself.

A fight where the enemies attack because they're the enemies and that's what monsters in DnD do, is boring. Start introducing goals in your encounters.


This has been said multiple times already in the tread, but bears repeating because it's a very good point : If there are conditions to winning or losing different from "butchering the other side", then your party losing a fight won't mean a TPK.
Fighting ninja to the death is boring : either they die (scratch another one, yawn), or you die (and it's game over). Fighting ninja that are trying to murder the queen is better. (or preventing cultists from finishing their ritual, or fighting your way through a superior enemy blocking a Portal, or trying to prevent the cowardly governor from fleeing, or defending the village from marauding goblins, or fighting said goblins while you are evacuating the children from a flaming orphanage, or proving your strength to that Ogre clan so that they will agree to negociate as equals, or...)

If there is a way to lose the fight and suffer consequences, the fight will be more tense that just another cage-fight against a roughly nearly-equal-but-not-quite enemy.

RPG combats don't have to be just a mini tactical-wargame. They are action scenes, so let's make them thrilling : With the possibility of losing without dying, with pacing, time limits and unforeseen events, with interesting arenas, with objectives to accomplish that the non-combatants in the group will be able to pursue, with dilemmas (the golem is attacking the mad scientist. Do we try to save him from his own creation, or do we use this opportunity to regroup?)...

Segev
2018-05-15, 10:46 AM
If there is a way to lose the fight and suffer consequences, the fight will be more tense that just another cage-fight [to the death].

This is a point that bears emphasis. The reason fights to the death are actually less thrilling than fights with non-lethal but still bad consequences is that we're pretty much, as consumers of fiction, sophisticated enough to know that we're not going to kill the party off. We're not watching the end of the story. I can count on one hand the number of stories I've read that ended with just--death. Story over. (Off the top of my head, I can think of exactly one, and it was surprisingly good...but the ending WAS unsatisfying.)

Introduce a lose condition that is meaningful, but after which the story can continue, and suddenly nobody is confident that the outcome will be positive for Our Heroes. By lowering the personal stakes to something below "death," the narrative possibility of loss becomes much more realistic, and thus the tension is allowed to ratchet right back up.

kyoryu
2018-05-15, 11:35 AM
Introduce a lose condition that is meaningful, but after which the story can continue, and suddenly nobody is confident that the outcome will be positive for Our Heroes. By lowering the personal stakes to something below "death," the narrative possibility of loss becomes much more realistic, and thus the tension is allowed to ratchet right back up.

Tension = consequences * chance that they'll actually occur

guileus
2018-05-15, 12:54 PM
Very good ideas, thanks.

I'm actually going to use them in the next game. The PCs have come back to the capital town of the barony they rule only to find it devastated by the attack of a huge monster, who was barely repelled by some guards and knights. Meanwhile, using the distraction of the attack, a group of mercenaries that the PCs used to employ (but about who I had been dropping hints, implying that they were nothing like honorable knights, and more in it for the money, kind of dodgy) broke into their city hall and stole a series of powerful magical artifacts they had stored, while the baron PC's wife locked herself in so that she could not be harmed.

When I was narrating all of that, in the voice of their counselor, I liked the fact that the player who plays the baron for a moment thought that the counselor was going to tell him his wife had been abused by the mercenaries. She had not, but to see a player get livid for a moment thinking about something happening to a related NPC is cool, it means he is into the game.

Anyway, the next game we play the'll have to face the choice: either go after the monster to kill it, but risk having the mercenaries run away and sell the artifacts, or go after the mercenaries to kill them and retrieve the artifacts, but risk the monster attacking their town again. I'm pretty sure they're going after the mercenaries. I've created them as a sort of "anti-adventuring party", four NPCs with PC levels, 3 of them the same level as the PCs and one a level higher. So it's going to be tough, but I don't want them to be killed if they lose: it just will mean they will lose the artifacts since they will be sold to a bidder. It's a consequence that, together with the humiliation of being betrayed, I think will make the combat exciting enough.

So, two questions:
1) Is it overpowering to have four 6 level PCs go after three 6 level and one 7th level NPC? IIRC NPCs with PC levels are actually a CR=their level-1 so it should be a "Very difficult" but not impossible fight, right? It's the grand finale of the module so it makes sense it's difficult.

2) How to justify the NPCs not mercy killing them if they go down during combat? Or should I just drop hints of "hey guys, seems like they're beating you, you know you can flee, right?". Of course I'm not sure they will be beaten, part of the excitement of the game is that not even I as a DM know how it will turn out...

kyoryu
2018-05-15, 01:14 PM
Anyway, the next game we play the'll have to face the choice: either go after the monster to kill it, but risk having the mercenaries run away and sell the artifacts, or go after the mercenaries to kill them and retrieve the artifacts, but risk the monster attacking their town again. I'm pretty sure they're going after the mercenaries. I've created them as a sort of "anti-adventuring party", four NPCs with PC levels, 3 of them the same level as the PCs and one a level higher. So it's going to be tough, but I don't want them to be killed if they lose: it just will mean they will lose the artifacts since they will be sold to a bidder. It's a consequence that, together with the humiliation of being betrayed, I think will make the combat exciting enough.

Make sure it's clear what the adventuring party is after. There should be no doubt in the PCs minds that the bad guys are after the treasure, not to kill the PCs.


So, two questions:
1) Is it overpowering to have four 6 level PCs go after three 6 level and one 7th level NPC? IIRC NPCs with PC levels are actually a CR=their level-1 so it should be a "Very difficult" but not impossible fight, right? It's the grand finale of the module so it makes sense it's difficult.

It's tough, but possible. It might be slanted against the PCs, but that's okay.


2) How to justify the NPCs not mercy killing them if they go down during combat? Or should I just drop hints of "hey guys, seems like they're beating you, you know you can flee, right?". Of course I'm not sure they will be beaten, part of the excitement of the game is that not even I as a DM know how it will turn out...

Why would they? Why waste time on unconscious opponents when you can take out the guy that's actively stabbing you?

And, yes, explicitly telling them "uh, you know you can flee, right?" is a good idea. Especially if they're used to "kill or be killed".

When I run Fate for new players (where running away/Conceding is actively a part of play) I often set the players against a fight that they will likely lose to introduce the mechanic and to stick it in the minds of the players as something that's possible.

RazorChain
2018-05-15, 04:30 PM
Tension = consequences * chance that they'll actually occur

Or we can just use risk assessment

Risk = Probability * Loss

So if you have Death as the ultimate Loss but miniscule Probability the Risk isn't high. But if you put in another type of Loss with high Probability the Risk will actually increase

kyoryu
2018-05-15, 05:37 PM
Or we can just use risk assessment

Risk = Probability * Loss

So if you have Death as the ultimate Loss but miniscule Probability the Risk isn't high. But if you put in another type of Loss with high Probability the Risk will actually increase

Yup!

I typically run games with non-TPK loss but high probability (you probably "fail" at least one scene per session). My players (at the time), when asked if I ran games in easy mode laughed in my face.

Corneel
2018-05-15, 05:47 PM
Tension = consequences * chance that they'll actually occur
Counterpoint:
I once, as a DM had my party of PCs recruited to root out a necromancer. As they gradually approached his tower I started to describe the changes in the landscape and nature, as they deadened more and more. No birdsong, less and less plant life as they moved on, and in the end the crunching sound as they marched over the bodies of dead insects. The whole thing took several minutes, but there was no direct threat and certainly no combat. However it ramped up the tension and the players told me afterwards that at no other point they have felt as "scared" as during that scene. So how do you fit that in your formula?

JoeJ
2018-05-15, 05:50 PM
Yup!

I typically run games with non-TPK loss but high probability (you probably "fail" at least one scene per session). My players (at the time), when asked if I ran games in easy mode laughed in my face.

Yeah, not all games have the win-or-die thinking that characterizes a lot (although by no means all) of D&D. In superhero games it's usually expected that the PCs will lose the early fights, then come from behind and triumph at the climax. And having the entire group get captured and have to escape from some sort of fiendish death trap after listening to the BBEG monolog about his unstoppable evil plan is a standard trope.

RazorChain
2018-05-15, 06:04 PM
Counterpoint:
I once, as a DM had my party of PCs recruited to root out a necromancer. As they gradually approached his tower I started to describe the changes in the landscape and nature, as they deadened more and more. No birdsong, less and less plant life as they moved on, and in the end the crunching sound as they marched over the bodies of dead insects. The whole thing took several minutes, but there was no direct threat and certainly no combat. However it ramped up the tension and the players told me afterwards that at no other point they have felt as "scared" as during that scene. So how do you fit that in your formula?

The formula is about combat or conflict. You are setting a scene or mood of the scene.

Not in the remotest do all scenes have win/lose conditions

Darth Ultron
2018-05-15, 07:32 PM
So, two questions:
1) Is it overpowering to have four 6 level PCs go after three 6 level and one 7th level NPC? IIRC NPCs with PC levels are actually a CR=their level-1 so it should be a "Very difficult" but not impossible fight, right? It's the grand finale of the module so it makes sense it's difficult.

2) How to justify the NPCs not mercy killing them if they go down during combat? Or should I just drop hints of "hey guys, seems like they're beating you, you know you can flee, right?". Of course I'm not sure they will be beaten, part of the excitement of the game is that not even I as a DM know how it will turn out...

1)It is Very Difficult, so it is fine. Though the whole CR thing does break down fast....is a 7th level fighter and a 7th level wizard the same? Or how about two 7th level fighters: one an archer and one a melee fighter....well the archer sure will be deadly at like 100 feet...but 5 feet, not so much.

2)Well, why would they mercy kill them? That is a more good act...are the foes good guys. Evil folks might just let them bleed and die. Or just not care. Or just not bother.

Kardwill
2018-05-16, 05:04 AM
2) How to justify the NPCs not mercy killing them if they go down during combat? Or should I just drop hints of "hey guys, seems like they're beating you, you know you can flee, right?". Of course I'm not sure they will be beaten, part of the excitement of the game is that not even I as a DM know how it will turn out...

To ransom them
To take one of them hostage as a collateral (and now, behave, or else...)
Because they don't want to be "those guys who killed a local nobleman"
Because they actually like/respect/want to taunt the PCs
Because it's not convenient to do so (they got separated, the hero fell off a cliff, reinforcements are coming)
Because they are already down, so why bother, right?
Because they are on a time limit ("ignore them and come, Hans! The portal is closing")
Because the losing side had an escape plan?
Because the last hero standing is still dangerous, so why risk it?
Because they thought they were dead.

Also note that in many games, 0 HP means out of the fight, but it doesn't have to mean "on the ground and bleeding fast". It can also mean "stunned", "captured", "fell off a cliff", "too tired to fight". Or even simply "wounded". You know, a REAL wound (broken arm, punctured lung, bleeding out...), the kind of stuff that will put you out of any fight but might allow you to crawl to safety or to surrender.

Quertus
2018-05-16, 07:50 AM
How to avoid a TPK: focus on and kill one character. Then the party retreats, preferably via contingent teleport. (Necrons for the win!)

How to avoid the downsides of character death: resurrection. Revivify comes online early in 3e, as could party funds for scrolls.

Alternately, have a party of trolls. Just because you drop, doesn't mean you're dead.

Or, just use combat as a timer, or a delay, while the real tension is elsewhere. Can anyone make it to the cabin before the plane crashes with all these zombies in the way?


Thanks guys, what you say makes sense. But how do you determine who to attack in each combat? I'm always worried if I don't randomize it will feel like I'm being cheap trying to take someone down. But then randomizing sometimes feels stupid or the opposite of strategic.

Roleplay the opposition. Do what they would do. Anything else cheapens the experience.

RazorChain
2018-05-16, 10:35 PM
Or you could just use a system where combat has an element of danger to it at all times. Where the PC's don't have a bloated HP pillow to cushion them from harm.


I kinda find the sentiment funny that combat shouldn't be dangerous most of the time because you are playing adventurers and this is their day job.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-17, 09:41 AM
Or you could just use a system where combat has an element of danger to it at all times. Where the PC's don't have a bloated HP pillow to cushion them from harm.


I kinda find the sentiment funny that combat shouldn't be dangerous most of the time because you are playing adventurers and this is their day job.

Not everyone wants real danger. Most people I've played with want the appearance of danger. They play for many other reasons, which are just as valid.

Segev
2018-05-17, 09:43 AM
Or you could just use a system where combat has an element of danger to it at all times. Where the PC's don't have a bloated HP pillow to cushion them from harm.


I kinda find the sentiment funny that combat shouldn't be dangerous most of the time because you are playing adventurers and this is their day job.

This approach actually only exacerbates the problem. At best, it makes extremely cautious characters who avoid combat at all costs unless they have it rigged to the point of a curb-stomp (a good simulation of real life, actually, unless the GM doesn't play the NPCs/monsters that way because he's less invested in their survival). More commonly, it leads to a dramatic turn-over and ever-more extreme attempts to munchkin combat monster PCs to survive the horribly lethal combat system.

Or it results in the GM softballing even more.

This is because the problem is not players being too gung-ho, but the consequences of PCs dying. The solution therefore isn't to make players fear PC death more; they already fear it well enough. The issue is that the GM tends to, as well. Because PC death can be death to a game. (It isn't always; it depends on the game and the group. But to pretend that it's "wrong" to play a game where this is true is foolish.)

The death of a PC ends any story that that PC was telling. At best, related threads can be picked up by the others and/or a new PC related to the old one. But it still ends a storyline, often with resolutions of plot hooks left at loose ends. The death of too many PCs (up to and including the TPK mentioned by the thread topic) can straight-up end a campaign.

Therefore, a DM is gunshy about executing it. And, since he is, if the only tension source is the threat of death to PCs? The fact that we all know it isn't going to happen removes that tension. It's like watching a TV series: it's always more tense if the question is over whether the bad guy will kill the character introduced this episode or not, because the character could be a new recurring character or could just be canon fodder to show the villain's evil. Make it a main ensemble member that's under threat? All the tension is "how will he get out of it?" rather than "will he get out of it?"

Introducing those "expendable" goals - things which, if lost, are disappointing/bad, do make the game going forward harder, do have unwanted consequences - means that there now are stakes that aren't holding the game hostage (and thus guaranteeing the GM won't pull the trigger on them).

Kardwill
2018-05-17, 10:34 AM
Introducing those "expendable" goals - things which, if lost, are disappointing/bad, do make the game going forward harder, do have unwanted consequences - means that there now are stakes that aren't holding the game hostage (and thus guaranteeing the GM won't pull the trigger on them).

For the same reason, a world-destroying threat (that would in practice destroy the campaign and the entire game-world, or at least game premise) often actually feels less threatening than something that would destroy the hometown of the characters : Players know most GMs don't want to "kill a game", but a town, a tavern, a friend, a title, a paladin order, a ship, or intangible things like a reputation? Then there is something to lose, and that bastard behind the GM screen might be vicious enough to take it away if you fail.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-17, 10:44 AM
For the same reason, a world-destroying threat (that would in practice destroy the campaign and the entire game-world, or at least game premise) often actually feels less threatening than something that would destroy the hometown of the characters : Players know most GMs don't want to "kill a game", but a town, a tavern, a friend, a title, a paladin order, a ship, or intangible things like a reputation? Then there is something to lose, and that bastard behind the GM screen might be vicious enough to take it away if you fail.

I've had really good results with minor "narrative hooks" that are specific to the group in question:

* Boss dominates a NPC they really like. I've never seen people get so creative in coming up with ways to obliterate that boss after that.

* Descriptions of narrative behaviors--
** One BBEG was trying to create a harem of genetically-twisted people. The party (two female players) really didn't like that, especially when he tried to capture them for that purpose.
** A different cult (in a different group) that was performing human sacrifice, eating the remains, and feeding them to the remaining prisoners. A party of noble-minded people went...ballistic...about that one.

Things like this have been much more effective than "the world's going to burn" or "here's a really tough fight" at keeping players on their toes and getting them involved. For players that aren't there for mechanical challenges, involvement in the world is a key factor.

RazorChain
2018-05-17, 11:26 AM
This approach actually only exacerbates the problem. At best, it makes extremely cautious characters who avoid combat at all costs unless they have it rigged to the point of a curb-stomp (a good simulation of real life, actually, unless the GM doesn't play the NPCs/monsters that way because he's less invested in their survival). More commonly, it leads to a dramatic turn-over and ever-more extreme attempts to munchkin combat monster PCs to survive the horribly lethal combat system.

Or it results in the GM softballing even more.

This is because the problem is not players being too gung-ho, but the consequences of PCs dying. The solution therefore isn't to make players fear PC death more; they already fear it well enough. The issue is that the GM tends to, as well. Because PC death can be death to a game. (It isn't always; it depends on the game and the group. But to pretend that it's "wrong" to play a game where this is true is foolish.)

The death of a PC ends any story that that PC was telling. At best, related threads can be picked up by the others and/or a new PC related to the old one. But it still ends a storyline, often with resolutions of plot hooks left at loose ends. The death of too many PCs (up to and including the TPK mentioned by the thread topic) can straight-up end a campaign.

Therefore, a DM is gunshy about executing it. And, since he is, if the only tension source is the threat of death to PCs? The fact that we all know it isn't going to happen removes that tension. It's like watching a TV series: it's always more tense if the question is over whether the bad guy will kill the character introduced this episode or not, because the character could be a new recurring character or could just be canon fodder to show the villain's evil. Make it a main ensemble member that's under threat? All the tension is "how will he get out of it?" rather than "will he get out of it?"

Introducing those "expendable" goals - things which, if lost, are disappointing/bad, do make the game going forward harder, do have unwanted consequences - means that there now are stakes that aren't holding the game hostage (and thus guaranteeing the GM won't pull the trigger on them).


There are lot of systems that always have the element of chance that you can die. GURPS, Boothill, Cyberpunk, RuneQuest have this to name a few.

Gurps just has this as a default. Somebody getting a decent critical hit or just hitting your brain on the random hit location can make for a bad day and then the player fails his Health roll and his PC dies. The probability is really low but even then the players are aware of this so just entering combat is dangerous and yes this leads to the players trying to have tactical advantage, use ambushes or clever tactics to mitigate the chance of them dying.

Runequest just has a low HP pool and it's easy to get crippling injuries, so wear armor.

Cyberpunk had 1 against 10 to get a headshot and headshots were really deadly, especially if you weren't wearing helmet at all times.

Boothill had probably the highest mortality rating in a game I've ever played. On a body hit you had 1 against 6 to die and on a headshot it was 1 against 3. Brian Blume was really hardcore in throwing characters into the grinder it seems.

Quertus
2018-05-17, 03:33 PM
Cyberpunk had 1 against 10 to get a headshot and headshots were really deadly, especially if you weren't wearing helmet at all times.

IIRC, I not only wore a helmet, I wore an armored trenchcoat*, and, in combat, always covered my face with my arm (utilizing their stacking armor rules), while screaming my battle cry of "Not the face! Not the face!"**,***

* autocorrect had that at "annoyed turncoat", which would also be fun to wear, IMO.
** what can I say, I had to. My best friend had a character who legitimately got to use the battle cry of "spoon!"
*** while using, um, whatchamacallit, sight link to my gun (smartlink?) to make precision kills.

RazorChain
2018-05-17, 06:16 PM
IIRC, I not only wore a helmet, I wore an armored trenchcoat*, and, in combat, always covered my face with my arm (utilizing their stacking armor rules), while screaming my battle cry of "Not the face! Not the face!"**,***

* autocorrect had that at "annoyed turncoat", which would also be fun to wear, IMO.
** what can I say, I had to. My best friend had a character who legitimately got to use the battle cry of "spoon!"
*** while using, um, whatchamacallit, sight link to my gun (smartlink?) to make precision kills.

Smartlink with a guncam I'd think. Well you could have stacked more armour with a cowl and skinweave and glued your TraumaTeam card to you forehead

Psikerlord
2018-05-17, 08:41 PM
Alternately, have a party of trolls. Just because you drop, doesn't mean you're dead.


Haha funnily enough, that is exactly how the PCs play in 5e if you have healing word available.

Psikerlord
2018-05-17, 08:43 PM
Or you could just use a system where combat has an element of danger to it at all times. Where the PC's don't have a bloated HP pillow to cushion them from harm.


I kinda find the sentiment funny that combat shouldn't be dangerous most of the time because you are playing adventurers and this is their day job.

100% agree. Standard 5e is far too forgiving, it has lost that danger element that early editions had, for the worse imo. Happily though I think warhammer 4e is about to appear.

Psikerlord
2018-05-17, 08:50 PM
This approach actually only exacerbates the problem. At best, it makes extremely cautious characters who avoid combat at all costs unless they have it rigged to the point of a curb-stomp (a good simulation of real life, actually, unless the GM doesn't play the NPCs/monsters that way because he's less invested in their survival). More commonly, it leads to a dramatic turn-over and ever-more extreme attempts to munchkin combat monster PCs to survive the horribly lethal combat system.

Or it results in the GM softballing even more.

This is because the problem is not players being too gung-ho, but the consequences of PCs dying. The solution therefore isn't to make players fear PC death more; they already fear it well enough. The issue is that the GM tends to, as well. Because PC death can be death to a game. (It isn't always; it depends on the game and the group. But to pretend that it's "wrong" to play a game where this is true is foolish.)

The death of a PC ends any story that that PC was telling. At best, related threads can be picked up by the others and/or a new PC related to the old one. But it still ends a storyline, often with resolutions of plot hooks left at loose ends. The death of too many PCs (up to and including the TPK mentioned by the thread topic) can straight-up end a campaign.

Therefore, a DM is gunshy about executing it. And, since he is, if the only tension source is the threat of death to PCs? The fact that we all know it isn't going to happen removes that tension. It's like watching a TV series: it's always more tense if the question is over whether the bad guy will kill the character introduced this episode or not, because the character could be a new recurring character or could just be canon fodder to show the villain's evil. Make it a main ensemble member that's under threat? All the tension is "how will he get out of it?" rather than "will he get out of it?"

Introducing those "expendable" goals - things which, if lost, are disappointing/bad, do make the game going forward harder, do have unwanted consequences - means that there now are stakes that aren't holding the game hostage (and thus guaranteeing the GM won't pull the trigger on them).
Your comment touches on The Problem with Story. I mean to write a blog post about it at some point. When the GM values story > game, you get = boring (for me, anyway). I want a game where you have to genuinely earn at least some of your victories. That then becomes the story. Not the other way round, where we know everyone survives up front, and the only question is how they survive. Or at least, that's how I want my dnd to run. There are better game systems for story oriented campaigns. It's the difference between game of thrones and xena warrior princess.

kyoryu
2018-05-17, 09:06 PM
Your comment touches on The Problem with Story. I mean to write a blog post about it at some point. When the GM values story > game, you get = boring (for me, anyway). I want a game where you have to genuinely earn at least some of your victories. That then becomes the story. Not the other way round, where we know everyone survives up front, and the only question is how they survive. Or at least, that's how I want my dnd to run. There are better game systems for story oriented campaigns. It's the difference between game of thrones and xena warrior princess.

There's no problem with valuing story.

There's often a huge problem with the GM valuing their story. The story is what happens, not what the GM planned.

Quertus
2018-05-18, 01:25 PM
Your comment touches on The Problem with Story. I mean to write a blog post about it at some point. When the GM values story > game, you get = boring (for me, anyway). I want a game where you have to genuinely earn at least some of your victories. That then becomes the story. Not the other way round, where we know everyone survives up front, and the only question is how they survive. Or at least, that's how I want my dnd to run. There are better game systems for story oriented campaigns. It's the difference between game of thrones and xena warrior princess.


There's no problem with valuing story.

There's often a huge problem with the GM valuing their story. The story is what happens, not what the GM planned.

Ok, before I say that I wholeheartedly, 100+% agree with the sentiment expressed by Psikerlord, would kyoryu care to explain the distinction of a GM who cares about story, but not their story, and how that doesn't **** over game / tension / the feeling of earning your victories (and defeats)?

Segev
2018-05-18, 01:54 PM
There are lot of systems that always have the element of chance that you can die. GURPS, Boothill, Cyberpunk, RuneQuest have this to name a few.

Gurps just has this as a default. Somebody getting a decent critical hit or just hitting your brain on the random hit location can make for a bad day and then the player fails his Health roll and his PC dies. The probability is really low but even then the players are aware of this so just entering combat is dangerous and yes this leads to the players trying to have tactical advantage, use ambushes or clever tactics to mitigate the chance of them dying.

Runequest just has a low HP pool and it's easy to get crippling injuries, so wear armor.

Cyberpunk had 1 against 10 to get a headshot and headshots were really deadly, especially if you weren't wearing helmet at all times.

Boothill had probably the highest mortality rating in a game I've ever played. On a body hit you had 1 against 6 to die and on a headshot it was 1 against 3. Brian Blume was really hardcore in throwing characters into the grinder it seems.True, but a bit tangential to what I'm saying. I am not saying "lethality doesn't exist." I'm saying that having lethality be high is dangerous, and exacerbates the problem the OP was asking for help solving.

If you want danger that feels real, but don't want to run a meatgrinder where PCs are disposably interchangeable, you need to have a means of keeping death rare enough that it's honestly a big deal while still making encounters where death is highly unlikely to happen have something for the PCs to lose without any PCs dying.

This is entirely tangential to whether or not the system you're running in is highly lethal.


Your comment touches on The Problem with Story. I mean to write a blog post about it at some point. When the GM values story > game, you get = boring (for me, anyway). I want a game where you have to genuinely earn at least some of your victories. That then becomes the story. Not the other way round, where we know everyone survives up front, and the only question is how they survive. Or at least, that's how I want my dnd to run. There are better game systems for story oriented campaigns. It's the difference between game of thrones and xena warrior princess.
Eh, yes and no. What I'm going for has less to do with "the problem of story" as you put it, and more with investment in characters. Do you want your players to care that Bob the Cleave Path Fighter just died? Do you want Rob the Cleave Path Fighter to be a different character in practice, with both he and his sadly deceased predecessor Bob highly invested-in by the player? Then you need death to be rare enough that they don't just get blasé about the fact that they just need a passel of clones on hand to keep playing the game.

Now, maybe you just want to do a dungeon crawl with characters-as-game-pieces, and that's fine. But there is also nothing wrong with wanting more RP in your G. But for that, you need at least some time to actually PLAY the character you've lovingly crafted.

Conversely, however, if the only tension comes from fear that Bob the Cleave Path Fighter might die in battle, then if the GM has orchestrated the game so that Bob's death is not likely (in order to preserve investment in the character), the tension just isn't there.

So the OP is asking for ways to make it challenging without making it a TPK, and the answer is having goals for each fight. Goals other than "kill the other side." Killing the other side is one potential solution to the goal, but there should be other ways. And the enemies should also not need to kill the PCs to get what they want. At least, not inherently need to. Maybe the PCs will fight to the death and can force the issue, but the goal itself should be something that, in theory, could be accomplished while PCs remained alive and conscious. The bad guys just have to get away from the now-vengeful PCs.

Having these goals that the players and PCs care about but which aren't their own lives means the DM is free to let the PCs risk losing while not ending the game.

kyoryu
2018-05-18, 02:52 PM
Ok, before I say that I wholeheartedly, 100+% agree with the sentiment expressed by Psikerlord, would kyoryu care to explain the distinction of a GM who cares about story, but not their story, and how that doesn't **** over game / tension / the feeling of earning your victories (and defeats)?

The issue with the GM being attached to "their story" is that they have an investment in it going to its conclusion, and therefore they will push things towards their desired ends, limiting stakes. It's very similar to railroading in that way - since the GM needs them to win, they'll win, and therefore there are no real stakes.

On the other hand, I run "story" based games. Those games are usually based around some kind of dramatic question - "will the players stop the kaiju from attacking the town before UNEPIC just drops on the town?" Now the cool thing here is that I try to leave the question believable either way, and don't really have an assumed outcome. Yes, the players can lose. The question *will* get answered, one way or the other. It may not be what the players wanted.

Since each scene *also* has a story question associated with it (will the players be able to convince the UNEPIC agents to not put the sherriff in custody? Will the players be able to convince the panicked townspeople to evacuate?) there's a lot of ways things can play out. Since each of these questions ideally has an answer that's not "TPK" if it goes the wrong way, then in each case the result is dependent on the actions of the players.

Thus, tension.

Ultimately, it's the difference between "The players must get the Amulet of Amuling from the Dungeon of Despair to prevent the Wily Wizard from turning Princess Perky into a demon" and "will the players get the Amulet of Amuling from the Dungeon of Despair before the Wily Wizard turns Princess Perky into a demon?"

Psikerlord
2018-05-18, 06:34 PM
There's no problem with valuing story.

There's often a huge problem with the GM valuing their story. The story is what happens, not what the GM planned.

100% agree.

Psikerlord
2018-05-18, 06:44 PM
Eh, yes and no. What I'm going for has less to do with "the problem of story" as you put it, and more with investment in characters. Do you want your players to care that Bob the Cleave Path Fighter just died? Do you want Rob the Cleave Path Fighter to be a different character in practice, with both he and his sadly deceased predecessor Bob highly invested-in by the player? Then you need death to be rare enough that they don't just get blasé about the fact that they just need a passel of clones on hand to keep playing the game.

Totally agree. I dont like too much death - and particularly with such frequency that players resort to Bob 1, Bob 2, brother of Bob 3, etc. That is just as bad as no PC deaths - it makes risk of death inconsequential, just in a different way. So, for example, I am not a fan of auto dead at zero hp as appears in very early dnd - for me it is just too risky (although I prefer too risky to little/no risk of default 5e).

My preference is actually rare death (to allow for PC development/attachment), but moderate frequency of lingering injuries to demonstrate the danger/price of battle. But there must be a substantial, genuine risk of death/injury for most combats (excluding those where the PCs clearly outclass their enemies). Earning my victories is a big part of the fun for me.

JoeJ
2018-05-18, 07:54 PM
My preference is actually rare death (to allow for PC development/attachment), but moderate frequency of lingering injuries to demonstrate the danger/price of battle. But there must be a substantial, genuine risk of death/injury for most combats (excluding those where the PCs clearly outclass their enemies). Earning my victories is a big part of the fun for me.

What do you consider a substantial risk? Is it 10%, so you'd expect 1 PC dies out of every 10 who fight? Or 1 in 20? 1 in 5? D&D expects the PCs to be able to handle 6-8 medium encounters per day, which for a party of 4 is 24-32 chances to die, so even a 1% chance of getting killed is pretty high.

Darth Ultron
2018-05-18, 07:58 PM
. The solution therefore isn't to make players fear PC death more; they already fear it well enough.

I find this is not even close to true. A great many players (and too many DMs) think of character death as a silly thing that will never happen. It is very typical of anyone in the geek culture that likes the cartoons, Disney stuff and other Kidz Safe Stuff. And, of course, video gamers, where death does not matter.

Take like a not so wise player that has their character alone attack 12 goblins. On round 3, the poor character is down to just three hit points. But the character has a potion of healing in their back pack...so what happens?

A lot of games will ''freeze time'' or otherwise allow the character a ''free' action, while the goblins just watch. So the character can heal up...and not die.

But better games the goblins will, of course, attack...and likely kill, the character that stupidly lets down their guard to drink a potion while surrounded by foes.



It's like watching a TV series: it's always more tense if the question is over whether the bad guy will kill the character introduced this episode or not, because the character could be a new recurring character or could just be canon fodder to show the villain's evil. Make it a main ensemble member that's under threat? All the tension is "how will he get out of it?" rather than "will he get out of it?"

Though this is what makes most TV bad: You know the main characters won't die. If you watch the show with the meta knowledge, it does ruin the whole show....even more so as the show will ''pretend'' the main characters are in ''real'' danger. Even shows with real character death will mostly have such death at set times, like mid season and season finales.

RazorChain
2018-05-18, 10:12 PM
True, but a bit tangential to what I'm saying. I am not saying "lethality doesn't exist." I'm saying that having lethality be high is dangerous, and exacerbates the problem the OP was asking for help solving.

If you want danger that feels real, but don't want to run a meatgrinder where PCs are disposably interchangeable, you need to have a means of keeping death rare enough that it's honestly a big deal while still making encounters where death is highly unlikely to happen have something for the PCs to lose without any PCs dying.

This is entirely tangential to whether or not the system you're running in is highly lethal.


IME players who participate in lethal games approach combat differently. If the OP is running 5e where you have a conga line of fights to fill out the adventure day then that is just going to pose a problem in it's own right. Then it just boils down to fighting for figthing's sake. I had lot of fun clearing out dungeons 30 years ago but it doesn't appeal to me longer but it doesn't mean it doesn't appeal to other people.

If you participate in a game where there is a chance of dying in combat, just any combat , then you will try to stack things in your favor and mitigate the chance of dying.

I've been running a campaign for 2 years where there only one PC has died. There are consequences to fights and the PC try to avoid unecessary fighting. The mage has a limp (half move) the next 6 days, the two hander fighter she's still missing her hand but luckily got her hands on a Hydra Potion that can regrow limbs, now it's only 18 days 'till she can use her zwei hander again.

It takes serious contemplation if they are going to commit to a fight when they are wounded, last session they did so to save an ally and they only succeeded because they used clever tactics and the element of suprise.

There has already been pointed out the perception of danger. PhoenixPhyre has already covered that and I agree, you can get a large milage out of that but as players become more experienced and jaded this becomes harder, which is one of the reason I don't have anything that resembles the monster manual...the first book that ends in the trash and I make my own monster statblocks. Fear the unknown.

Another poster covered that you have to examine this on a system basis which I also agree on. If I run D&D I have to do things differently than if I run Cyberpunk or CoC.

All good combat encounters should pose a question. This has been covered extensively in puting in win/lose conditions

So I just propose another solution. Run combat with real danger to the PCs.

Psikerlord
2018-05-18, 10:35 PM
What do you consider a substantial risk? Is it 10%, so you'd expect 1 PC dies out of every 10 who fight? Or 1 in 20? 1 in 5? D&D expects the PCs to be able to handle 6-8 medium encounters per day, which for a party of 4 is 24-32 chances to die, so even a 1% chance of getting killed is pretty high.

I cant put a number on it. I just know it's more than none, which 5e tends to produce, and less than OD&D which kills a PC nearly every adventure. Something in between. I use modified rules to do away with the 6-8 enc/day regime, it's quite broken for any adventure outside of a large dungeon.

Darth Ultron
2018-05-19, 02:25 PM
IME players who participate in lethal games approach combat differently. Then it just boils down to fighting for figthing's sake. I had lot of fun clearing out dungeons 30 years ago but it doesn't appeal to me longer but it doesn't mean it doesn't appeal to other people.

If you participate in a game where there is a chance of dying in combat, just any combat , then you will try to stack things in your favor and mitigate the chance of dying.

Good players do approach combat in a lethal game game differently. First off, they tend to avoid combat, unless there is a good reason for it. It's a big change from the typical immature murderhobo type player.

Secondly, good players tend to play attention more. They know that if they miss an important detail, it can kill their character.

Third, it makes players keep tabs on things more. So you won't have the silly thing when on like round five of a combat the player saying ''Oh, silly me, I forgots to add the plus to my ac from X" and the silly DM that just says ''ok, whatever, just give your character like 100 extra hit points''. As it will be more like the player will say they ''forgot'' something and the DM will be like ''too bad..the orc hits for 20 damage and kills your character."

Segev
2018-05-21, 03:02 PM
I find this is not even close to true. A great many players (and too many DMs) think of character death as a silly thing that will never happen. It is very typical of anyone in the geek culture that likes the cartoons, Disney stuff and other Kidz Safe Stuff. And, of course, video gamers, where death does not matter.

Take like a not so wise player that has their character alone attack 12 goblins. On round 3, the poor character is down to just three hit points. But the character has a potion of healing in their back pack...so what happens?

A lot of games will ''freeze time'' or otherwise allow the character a ''free' action, while the goblins just watch. So the character can heal up...and not die.

But better games the goblins will, of course, attack...and likely kill, the character that stupidly lets down their guard to drink a potion while surrounded by foes.You miss my point. If death is on the table and players know it, they will fear it well enough. If it isn't, then of course they won't. But if you have nothing but "loss equals death" as a lose condition, then players will either grow blasé about Bob #37 dying and moving on to Bob #38, or they will grow disgusted with the "killer GM" who pits them against disposable NPCs over and over again to cow them into never fighting. Because if all you can do to challenge your players is threaten their PCs with death, then the game will swiftly become unsatisfying.

The point I was making wasn't to pull punches, but to make retreat an option, and to make victory not (necessarily) require either side to get a kill. Allow PCs to escape, and have NPCs which flee when battles are going against them. Have goals that NPCs are after which will end the fight if they get them, because they don't care enough to stay and fight anymore. Have goals for the PCs which, if the PCs achieve them, allow them to win without having to kill all the enemies.

This actually lets you increase lethality, because the challenge isn't to kill-or-be-killed, but rather to accomplish a particular goal. That goal may be accomplished with a carefully-planned fight, or by means designed to avoid the fight entirely. And it can be FAILED without the players' characters dying, necessarily. Thus, players can feel tension without necessarily feeling like their PCs are about to die. They can fear loss without fearing loss-of-character.



Though this is what makes most TV bad: You know the main characters won't die. If you watch the show with the meta knowledge, it does ruin the whole show....even more so as the show will ''pretend'' the main characters are in ''real'' danger. Even shows with real character death will mostly have such death at set times, like mid season and season finales.It is bad when the show relies on threat-of-death to the character, at least. But when the show's tension arises from a threat to something that the writers can afford to pull the trigger on? Then, suddenly, the tension is back and quite real.


Good players do approach combat in a lethal game game differently. First off, they tend to avoid combat, unless there is a good reason for it. It's a big change from the typical immature murderhobo type player.
A lot of this is on the GM. There are many GMs who don't know any way to challenge PCs other than combat, and don't conceive of combat as being won or lost by anything but one side or t'other being wiped out. It won't matter how "good" the players are, then; they can't win without getting in fights and killing everything.

A good GM who knows better how to challenge parties will come up with challenges built around the goals of the NPCs, and how those goals conflict with the goals of the PCs. When one side achieves a goal mutually exclusive with the other side's goal(s), that side has won the fight, even if not everybody on the losing side is dead.

Players learn how to play the GM's game. So if players are learning bad lessons, the GM should first examine what lessons he's teaching them. It isn't guaranteed to be his fault, but a lot of the time, he'll find that he's doing something to encourage bad habits and thought patterns.

Darth Ultron
2018-05-21, 07:33 PM
The point I was making wasn't to pull punches, but to make retreat an option, and to make victory not (necessarily) require either side to get a kill.

Sadly, many games only focus on pure combat....and only vaguely mention doing things some ''other'' way.



A lot of this is on the GM. There are many GMs who don't know any way to challenge PCs other than combat, and don't conceive of combat as being won or lost by anything but one side or t'other being wiped out. It won't matter how "good" the players are, then; they can't win without getting in fights and killing everything.

Agreed a lot of this is on the DM, though don't forget the big problem of the players being murderhobobs. And, as said above, the game rules too.

WindStruck
2018-05-21, 09:55 PM
I think you should always have the monsters behave intelligently if it seems called for. For example, decent int scores or should be known for their tactics. Exceptionally smart monsters should have plans and backup plans unless caught with their pants down.

If, when taking good monster strategy into account, the monsters would then be too hard... well, that's the point when you scale it down and make the encounter easier. But the opponents should never be holding that idiot ball unless there is some good reason (arrogance, bias, oversight, etc).

Tvtyrant
2018-05-21, 10:46 PM
When DMing I'm sometimes a bit torn when running combats: I don't want to play 100% to kill (using all the strategy, dirty tricks etc) with the NPCs or monsters, because of a couple of reasons. First, it sometimes doesn't make sense with dumb monsters developing very complex tactics. Second, it kind of fosters the "DM vs. players" mentality which I don't like. I like them succeeding and I don't want it to turn into a miniature wargame where we try to "win". Third, sometimes I feel that with some players, even though they would accept a death if they ran a string of fumbles or did something very stupid, killing them off in a very conscious way would kind of make it not fun for them, because they are attached to their characters. These latter two reasons are very metagamey, I know.
So for example NPCs or monsters don't sometimes "focus" on a PC, attacking all at once, even though tactically that would make the most sense (in order to take out a foe and not have to withstand his attacks).
That being said, presenting a challenge to the PCs is very important because if they don't feel in danger, things start to become a bit dull. And in one of my last games, a player even complained it seemed dumb for this huge ogre not to focus his full attack (which would do 1/2 of the HP of the toughest PC, in a single attack) at one of them.

The way I usually run it is throwing a dice and splitting the attacks for characters like that. Am I pulling punches? Should I only do that with different creatures (ie. roll a dice to see whih PC is attacked by each troll, but then each troll is fully committed to that PC)? How do yo guys run combat? What level of danger? How likely is death in those games and how do you balance having enough danger to make it interesting with the lack of attachment you end up feeling for a character that gets killed every two sessions?

I use a custom system on the D20 chassis. HP loss can never kill you, but if you drop below 0 HP you roll on the major wound table. Wounds do long term damage that takes weeks or high level magic (regenerate) to heal, and can have permanent (without regenerate) effects like losing an eye/hand.

A Coup De Grace can be lethal, but most combatants are ignored once they drop below 0 (and it takes a heal check to revive them, no CLWs). Unless they get carried off by slavers/bandits/a predator, where they focus on getting away with downed characters.

Now combat can be much more vicious, since dying isn't usually on the table without TPK, but there are consequences to getting dropped.

Quertus
2018-05-21, 11:31 PM
I use a custom system on the D20 chassis. HP loss can never kill you, but if you drop below 0 HP you roll on the major wound table. Wounds do long term damage that takes weeks or high level magic (regenerate) to heal, and can have permanent (without regenerate) effects like losing an eye/hand.

A Coup De Grace can be lethal, but most combatants are ignored once they drop below 0 (and it takes a heal check to revive them, no CLWs). Unless they get carried off by slavers/bandits/a predator, where they focus on getting away with downed characters.

Now combat can be much more vicious, since dying isn't usually on the table without TPK, but there are consequences to getting dropped.

How have you found this to affect player behavior? Do they, for example, tend to shy away from tank roles? Try to find ways to avoid combat? Take cover / run away when low on health? And how well did whatever changes you saw match your expectations?

Tvtyrant
2018-05-22, 02:13 AM
How have you found this to affect player behavior? Do they, for example, tend to shy away from tank roles? Try to find ways to avoid combat? Take cover / run away when low on health? And how well did whatever changes you saw match your expectations?

Players become more hesitant about combat, they tend to favor running if surprised and surprising opponents if they are going to have a big fight. Much more paranoia and stealth involved.

Tank roles stayed about as popular, but the idea that protracted fights were a good idea became less so. The tanks just want to get hurt the least.

Well the group started out being willing to jump into any engagement, and by the end of the last campaign would flee from opponents who got the drop on them fairly consistently. There was an Orc Deathknight that they fled from for literally three sessions in the middle of the campaign.

Segev
2018-05-22, 01:40 PM
Sadly, many games only focus on pure combat....and only vaguely mention doing things some ''other'' way.

Even in games where combat is the primary means of solving a problem, that doesn't mean that the death of the other side needs to be a prerequisite to the combat achieving your goals.

Let's say you're playing a game of full-contact, lethal-allowed capture the flag. Whoever gets the other side's flag will be given three wishes by the bored Efreeti Noble who instantiated the encounter.

Fighting the enemies is a good way to disable, distract, or remove them from your path, but you can also sneak around, take advantage of distractions, or simply run and try to avoid getting caught. Get the flag, and you win.

This is a good model for other, more serious challenges. Bandits attacking the caravan the party is guarding want to steal goods. Maybe livestock, maybe take prisoners to sell as slaves, depends. The player characters want to protect the caravan from as much harm as possible.

Anything the bandits escape with is a partial loss to the party. The bandits may well try to kill some PCs, and the PCs might well try to kill bandits, but if bandits sweep in to grab stuff, and then retreat, that's still a win for the bandits and a partial loss for the PCs. If the bandits get hit hard by the PCs and flee, they lost, but didn't die (assuming the PCs fail to catch them). Heck, depending on the PCs and players controlling them, the players may feel the bandits getting away is a loss. But in truth, the goal they had is achieved: the caravan is protected.

An assassin squad is here to kill the princeling that the PCs are bodyguarding. They'll happily try to disable or kill PCs to get to the princeling, but the PCs need not die for the princeling to do so, which is a loss for the PCs and a victory for the assassins.

The PCs want the Ruby Eye of the Cyclops King, which is embedded in a statue of the eponymous king in a tomb. It is guarded by carytid columns. The PCs can fight to the death, killing the columns before taking the eye or dying and thus not obtaining it. Or the PCs can fight only as long as it takes to get the eye and retreat down the tunnels that are too small for the golems to traverse. Or the PCs can find the golems too dangerous and retreat, leaving the eye.

Any scenario where they retreat with the eye is at least a victory in that sense. Even if the golems are not destroyed or even seriously damaged. Any scenario where they are forced to leave the eye - whether any of them dies or not - is a loss.

Darth Ultron
2018-05-22, 07:08 PM
Let's say you're playing a game of full-contact, lethal-allowed capture the flag. Whoever gets the other side's flag will be given three wishes by the bored Efreeti Noble who instantiated the encounter.

This is a lack of communication. One side is playing full-contact, lethal-allowed capture the flag, and the other side is playing full-contact, lethal-allowed scorched earth. So side ones goal is to capture a flag....side twos goal is to kill side one. This is typical in RPGS too...where the DM is all like ''oh you can do anything'' and the players as just stuck on "murderhobo scorched earth''.

King of Nowhere
2018-05-23, 09:59 AM
Are we discounting resurrections here? how viable/common are them? can pcs expect them regularly? And how about powerful npcs?

I play a high magic campaign where resurrection can be taken for granted above level 10. Especially if you got powerful allies, which the pcs got. I also got them all kind of defensive items and single-use teleportation. This means I also got to increase lethality of encounters a lot without this being detrimental to the game. The main victory is capturing the body of a defeated foe to loot it; killing a foe but letting his companions run away with the loot is only a minor score, as high level enemies are also counting on resurrections.

Practically every encounter presents a high danger - most enemies at this level are smart, so they can make tactical assessments; if they don't have a passable chance, possibly because the pcs got the drop on them, they don't fight, they try to flee or they surrender. If a fight does not present risk, I don't even roll dices. Fights mean danger, nobody is pulling their punches, although everyone is so stocked with defensive items and spells and escaping strategies that lethality is actually not that bad even in prolonged figthing. I have to say, this is partly an unintended consequences of the set of houserules I'm using, but I'm quite happy with where it brought fighting.
Last time I had a big fight with two high level groups, I had a protracted figth with only one death per side. The party had to retreat because they were all in bad shape, and they failed their objective of plundering the main enemy stronghold. they lost, but they are perfectly good for another go, haveing only spent some resources. Had they succeeded at chasing off the highest level enemy parties, they could have looted it and cut away support from said enemies, but the enemies would have remained around.

EDIT: regarding the "achieve ends without fighting", the pcs were actually trying to set up an ambush, and they had called in virtually anyone who owed them a favor. Had they succeeded, they would have won without rolling dice. Unknown to them, the enemies discovered their ploy, and they also tried to ambush them, by calling everyone they could call... It resulted in around 30-40 people above level 10 on each side. As a fight on that scale is unmanageable, I ruled to have the players only face off the enemy boss party, and assume all the other combatants would face each other in the background without significantly affecting the pcs battle - although the result of the pcs battle would affect the outcome of the whole fight.
Long story short, they had to fight a lot, but just as often they can talk their way out of fighting situations, and it generally pays off better in thhe long run.

Segev
2018-05-23, 11:39 AM
This is a lack of communication. One side is playing full-contact, lethal-allowed capture the flag, and the other side is playing full-contact, lethal-allowed scorched earth. So side ones goal is to capture a flag....side twos goal is to kill side one. This is typical in RPGS too...where the DM is all like ''oh you can do anything'' and the players as just stuck on "murderhobo scorched earth''.

This remains not-a-problem. If you're blaming the players for taking a scorched-earth approach, then you're failing to recognize that they've actually made their job harder than it has to be. If you're blaming the DM for taking the scorched-earth approach, then you're right, because he's the one who can enforce that the PCs lose if they don't respond in kind.

But if it's the players doing it, just have the non-player side go capture the flag and get away. There is no need for the players' characters to be killed; they still lost. Even if, when the PCs win, they do so by slaughtering everybody on the other side first.

This isn't about controlling the players' behavior. It's about creating win/loss conditions that don't require one side or the other to be destroyed completely. If the players choose to still take a scorched-earth approach, that's a valid one. Just because it's not required to wipe out every enemy piece in chess to win doesn't mean that a player who takes the time and effort to do that before checkmating the enemy king has failed at playing chess.

Likewise, though, while he's doing that, if his king is put in checkmate, it doesn't matter that he still has more pieces than his opponent; he loses.

King of Nowhere
2018-05-23, 12:09 PM
This isn't about controlling the players' behavior. It's about creating win/loss conditions that don't require one side or the other to be destroyed completely. If the players choose to still take a scorched-earth approach, that's a valid one. Just because it's not required to wipe out every enemy piece in chess to win doesn't mean that a player who takes the time and effort to do that before checkmating the enemy king has failed at playing chess.


I'd say that if the other side are likely to become recurring villains, then trying to preemptively neutralize them when given the chance is a sound strategy. Often, though, they could become potential allies, or at least potentially neutral, if the players use the minimum amount of lethal force.

I once gave my players a quest to stop a bunch of young dragons that set themselves up as tyrants in an isolated town. I expected them to fight, but instead they tried diplomacy, persuading the dragons that they couldn't have gone on like that forever without some powerful adventurer stopping them. It worked, and it not only solved the mission, but they got some dragon allies in the process

Segev
2018-05-23, 01:16 PM
I'd say that if the other side are likely to become recurring villains, then trying to preemptively neutralize them when given the chance is a sound strategy. Often, though, they could become potential allies, or at least potentially neutral, if the players use the minimum amount of lethal force.

I once gave my players a quest to stop a bunch of young dragons that set themselves up as tyrants in an isolated town. I expected them to fight, but instead they tried diplomacy, persuading the dragons that they couldn't have gone on like that forever without some powerful adventurer stopping them. It worked, and it not only solved the mission, but they got some dragon allies in the process

Cool, and well-played by your players.

My whole point is that the "kill 'em all" tactic being still possible isn't a problem. The reason for introducing goals other than that is to open other possibilities, not to prevent players from engaging in that tactic if they want to. Its primary benefit is to the DM, who doesn't want to have to kill off the PCs to have the PCs "lose" the encounter. He wants tension that comes from losing being a possibility without having to threaten a TPK.

So he gives the PCs a lose condition other than dying. Even if they all survive, if the ninja makes off with the Mask of the Mazoku they were protecting, it's a loss for them.

Quertus
2018-05-23, 06:03 PM
So, would it be fair to say that the level of tension is related to how important what's on the table is, and how much the players believe that what's on the table is actually something the GM will take?

Mordaedil
2018-05-24, 01:44 AM
Though this is what makes most TV bad: You know the main characters won't die. If you watch the show with the meta knowledge, it does ruin the whole show....even more so as the show will ''pretend'' the main characters are in ''real'' danger. Even shows with real character death will mostly have such death at set times, like mid season and season finales.
Famously bad show Game of Thrones starring main character Eddard Stark in a high stakes political spy thriller as he uncovers a plot to supplant a false lineage on the throne and the comedy hijinks of a dwarf who can't ever do anything right.

Also it has dragons or something, can't keep track.

Segev
2018-05-24, 01:01 PM
So, would it be fair to say that the level of tension is related to how important what's on the table is, and how much the players believe that what's on the table is actually something the GM will take?

I would say that is very accurate.

As long as the players care about the stakes, and are not confident that the GM views the stakes as "too big to fail," they will be concerned that they CAN lose them. This creates tension.

Darth Ultron
2018-05-24, 01:56 PM
This isn't about controlling the players' behavior.

You can use the word 'influence' or some other such softer sounding word if that makes you feel better. The effect on the players is still the same.


It really comes down to Player Immersion. The Bad Players just see the game world as cardboard cuts outs and don't care bout it at all. The Good Players, really do care about NPC Bob and his kingdom.

JNAProductions
2018-05-24, 01:58 PM
You can use the word 'influence' or some other such softer sounding word if that makes you feel better. The effect on the players is still the same.


It really comes down to Player Immersion. The Bad Players just see the game world as cardboard cuts outs and don't care bout it at all. The Good Players, really do care about NPC Bob and his kingdom.

If you refer to the people in the world as "NPC Bob" it's no wonder the players don't care.

WindStruck
2018-05-24, 02:19 PM
If you refer to the people in the world as "NPC Bob" it's no wonder the players don't care.

That's just a generic placeholder used for the sake of this thread. You should know this.

He actually does name his NPCs, and if he used one of those names, you might be confused and wonder who he is talking about.

Segev
2018-05-24, 05:03 PM
You can use the word 'influence' or some other such softer sounding word if that makes you feel better. The effect on the players is still the same.


It really comes down to Player Immersion. The Bad Players just see the game world as cardboard cuts outs and don't care bout it at all. The Good Players, really do care about NPC Bob and his kingdom.

Nope. This isn't about influencing, controlling, politely asking, or in any way changing the players' behavior. It might happen as a side-effect (for better or for worse, but hopefully for better), but that's not the purpose nor point.

The purpose is to create tension without causing the players to stop caring about their characters.

Tension is heightened by fear of the consequences of losing, and by increasing the likelihood of loss. It doesn't matter how dire the consequences if the players don't believe the GM will let them lose. Therefore, the consequences that will not end the GM's ability to run the game are more likely to happen, and thus cause more tension.

Conversely, simply being willing to be a "killer GM" is not sufficient on its own to raise tension. If death becomes "time to break out clone #3," it's no better than death not being an option the GM will resort to. A killer GM may wind up with players changing their behavior to play more cautiously, bit it won't inherently change the win/loss conditions. If the win/loss conditions are still "you win if you wipe out the enemy side" only, then fights are still inevitable. Players will just powergame harder to make sure they can win securely.

Darth Ultron
2018-05-24, 05:56 PM
Nope. This isn't about influencing, controlling, politely asking, or in any way changing the players' behavior. It might happen as a side-effect (for better or for worse, but hopefully for better), but that's not the purpose nor point.

It is about actively doing something to achieve a desired effect. As opposed to the random mess where everyone just does whatever for a while.



The purpose is to create tension without causing the players to stop caring about their characters.

Well, the simple fact is that good players will always care about their characters.



Conversely, simply being willing to be a "killer GM" is not sufficient on its own to raise tension. If death becomes "time to break out clone #3," it's no better than death not being an option the GM will resort to. A killer GM may wind up with players changing their behavior to play more cautiously, bit it won't inherently change the win/loss conditions. If the win/loss conditions are still "you win if you wipe out the enemy side" only, then fights are still inevitable. Players will just powergame harder to make sure they can win securely.

I would also note that the player that breaks out ''clone #3" is a Bad Player.

Segev
2018-05-24, 05:57 PM
It is about actively doing something to achieve a desired effect. As opposed to the random mess where everyone just does whatever for a while.



Well, the simple fact is that good players will always care about their characters.



I would also note that the player that breaks out ''clone #3" is a Bad Player.

All irrelevant to my point, and I've failed to get you to stop fixating on blaming players for not playing the way you want them to rather than focusing on the actual point of this thread, so I'll cease replying to you on this subject.

Darth Ultron
2018-05-25, 06:28 PM
All irrelevant to my point, and I've failed to get you to stop fixating on blaming players for not playing the way you want them to rather than focusing on the actual point of this thread, so I'll cease replying to you on this subject.

I don't get what is so wrong about pointing out when players are being bad players or otherwise just not gaming in a good fashion. It's not like every player is a super gaming demi god just as they can drink Mt. Dew.

I get your way is great for the casual good time. Get some people together, utterly let them do whatever they want, and no matter what just say you had fun. It's one way to run a game.

Kardwill
2018-05-28, 07:01 AM
Well, the simple fact is that good players will always care about their characters.


Well, in that case, I'm a bad player, because if I'm facing my third death in 3 games with a killer GM that plays an adversarial style, I'll stop to care about my character quite quickly. In which case I will either start playing "3rd person" (i.e. play the character in a detached style without really immersing in him, as I would play a NPC in my own games) if I'm interested in seing where the story is going, or I will drop this game and this GM and try to find a game more to my liking.

If the GM style is deadly but not relly adversarial, I can play a character and have a fun game without really caring for him/her/it. Kills in-character-immersion, but story immersion can compensate. That's the way I play horror games, for example : I don't WANT the character to die, but I know it's coming, so I won't take its well being to heart and concentrate on other stuff (having the best death scene, saving X NPC, having an impact on the overall story, respect genre conventions, those sorts of things...)

Mordaedil
2018-05-29, 06:09 AM
I don't get what is so wrong about pointing out when players are being bad players or otherwise just not gaming in a good fashion. It's not like every player is a super gaming demi god just as they can drink Mt. Dew.

I get your way is great for the casual good time. Get some people together, utterly let them do whatever they want, and no matter what just say you had fun. It's one way to run a game.

Game theory with regards to how to run games have developed a lot, I do recommend you read up on it.

The current metanarrative isn't precluded on the DM dictating everything to the players anymore, as we've spent many threads discussing. I dunno if you just use a different language for these things, but you seem to insist "that's just a normal game" whenever we start to delve into the details. So here's the thing, DM's always set up the general story beats as normal, and have NPC's that guide the players and control all of the NPC's of the world, but as in any normal game, players actions dictate reactions from these NPC's that can throw the game for a loop. Again, you acknowledge this is normal and you've accounted for these things. Sometimes though you slip up as a DM. Say you wanted to have the players travel from location A to C and on the way, they ought to meet an NPC at location B, but they can only meet this person if they travel normally.

You carelessly allowed the players earlier to buy a scroll of teleport, so they can just skip from A to C. Now you can argue that will never happen in your game, but for the sake of argument, let's say this happens because your players got the spell early via a method you were not privvy to, such as a class ability, such as a Jaunter in a party where everyone is playing a ranger with some prestige class and you just had an oversight because you didn't really consider that they'd take Jaunter. So you've made a miss. They travel from A to C. Do you allow this to have consequences or do you put the NPC at location B at location C?

Either way, you are now running a game like everyone else are describing now. It's not "casual". It's normal. It's how D&D works, you can try as you might, plan for almost everything. But sometimes players aren't going to take your hand and that's fine. Sometimes they use the McGuffin too early. Sometimes they spend months waiting for a ritual to happen. Sometimes they crash the airship that was vital to the kingdom and you had no plans on being destroyed.

If you keep going with your original plans, then your game is going to feel fake, empty and bad. Sometimes the players must mess up the best laid plans and you should let them. That is what makes the game fun and interesting.

Calthropstu
2018-05-29, 09:35 AM
I do not pull punches. I recently ran an adventure path and played my creatures as I felt they would act. It was BRUTAL. Character and important npc deaths were quite frequent. Cohorts were the worst victims.
One combat took well over 30 rounds to complete.
Only twice was there REAL threat of tpk, but every fight seemed like a serious battle for survival. Personally, that's how I feel fights should be. I don't get the point of wading into a battle with whimpy opponents you can wipe the floor with, nor do I think being a floor mop is good either.

Segev
2018-05-30, 01:35 PM
I don't get what is so wrong about pointing out when players are being bad players or otherwise just not gaming in a good fashion. It's not like every player is a super gaming demi god just as they can drink Mt. Dew.

I get your way is great for the casual good time. Get some people together, utterly let them do whatever they want, and no matter what just say you had fun. It's one way to run a game.

The issue is that it's irrelevant. It's like we were discussing baking cakes, and you decided to come in and tell us that birthday boys are inherently selfish brats who deserve to have broccoli shoved down their throats and be tricked into eating Brussels-sprout flavored ice cream.

It has nothing to do with our discussion of cake-baking, and everything to do with your personal hang-ups and need to bully, browbeat, and belittle.

You clearly do not comprehend discussion of how cake-baking in layers versus sheets is relevant, and are too focused on how no child deserves birthday cakes.


I do not pull punches. I recently ran an adventure path and played my creatures as I felt they would act. It was BRUTAL. Character and important npc deaths were quite frequent. Cohorts were the worst victims.
One combat took well over 30 rounds to complete.
Only twice was there REAL threat of tpk, but every fight seemed like a serious battle for survival. Personally, that's how I feel fights should be. I don't get the point of wading into a battle with whimpy opponents you can wipe the floor with, nor do I think being a floor mop is good either. It's not about wimpy opponents. It's about making it so that the fight doesn't hinge on the fear of death to make the fight feel like it has serious stakes.

Using the technique of having a goal for the enemies that is mutually exclusive with the goals of the players, you can actually have an overwhelmingly difficult to deal with enemy that would normally threaten a TPK and have the players have a means of defeating him by protecting their goal and staying out of his reach.

Whether they resort to stealth and theft, running fast, or attempting to break something important while dodging, the players can achieve their goal without having to kill the enemy. Similarly, whether it's assassinating a protected escort mission guest, keeping the players from getting to a macguffin, or snatching something and running off, the enemy can threaten the players' goals and achieve its own even without endangering the PCs' lives.

That's not to say you can't ever use threat-of-death, but it should be secondary, not the primary thing. Not most of the time. Make the stakes something that the players aren't going to risk feeling callous about their characters over if it is lost too often.

kyoryu
2018-05-30, 02:04 PM
It's not about wimpy opponents. It's about making it so that the fight doesn't hinge on the fear of death to make the fight feel like it has serious stakes.

In fact, not hinging the fight on fear of death allows you to use tougher opponents, since it makes the party "losing" not a campaign-ending event.

JNAProductions
2018-05-30, 02:22 PM
It's not about wimpy opponents. It's about making it so that the fight doesn't hinge on the fear of death to make the fight feel like it has serious stakes.

Using the technique of having a goal for the enemies that is mutually exclusive with the goals of the players, you can actually have an overwhelmingly difficult to deal with enemy that would normally threaten a TPK and have the players have a means of defeating him by protecting their goal and staying out of his reach.

Whether they resort to stealth and theft, running fast, or attempting to break something important while dodging, the players can achieve their goal without having to kill the enemy. Similarly, whether it's assassinating a protected escort mission guest, keeping the players from getting to a macguffin, or snatching something and running off, the enemy can threaten the players' goals and achieve its own even without endangering the PCs' lives.

That's not to say you can't ever use threat-of-death, but it should be secondary, not the primary thing. Not most of the time. Make the stakes something that the players aren't going to risk feeling callous about their characters over if it is lost too often.

Segev, you speak words of great wisdom.

kyoryu
2018-05-30, 02:43 PM
That's not to say you can't ever use threat-of-death, but it should be secondary, not the primary thing. Not most of the time. Make the stakes something that the players aren't going to risk feeling callous about their characters over if it is lost too often.

And in most cases, losing should mean "you're in it deeper now, and boy howdy!" not "the world is over" or "things are irrevocably bad and done."

In many ways, my preferred way of doing things is this:

You win: Yay! You get closer to the goal
You lose: Things get worse, but you don't necessarily backslide

In other words, on a win you're making progress. You don't lose progress on a loss, necessarily, but the situation gets worse. Ideally, the situation gets extremely bad (due to losses, etc.) by the time you're ready for the climactic scene. It's kind of like a race, rather than a tug of war.