How do you make a player back down?

[suplee215]

Hello, I recently encountered a problem with my campaign that sadly lost a person. We only had 2 people show up and they are level 2 players. As such we had a slow adventure day. The hook of it was there were Grung thieves tailing the two of them. Who decided to split up in the town and do solo stuff. Eventually one grung stole the key and broke into the inn room of 1 party member. The other guy saw the grung with a big back pack after he was done gambling. He decided to go up to the grung and ask where it came from. (Now if you ask me he was using some meta knowledge as he out of game knew the other guy was robbed but I had him roll insight to know shady things were happening). He also intimidated the grung and threatened to eat frog legs (despite me already explaining that in this society eating other sentient creatures count as cannibalism). He then had the grung's 2 partners behind him with daggers threaten him to back off. I asked him out of games several times if he wanted to do the fight and he said yes. He killed one of the grung, but the other 2 killed him. (It was in a back alley so no guards showed up). After the death the guy seemed ok making a new character and kept saying "stuff happens, it's fine" although also that he didn't think frogs were a threat. The player now left, saying he felt set up. Any advice on how to be clear the fight is over powering without just saying "if you do tis, you might die". Am I wrong to assume a player is being highly naive to think they can take on 3 creatures by themselves at lvl 2?

[Keltest]

In times like this, I find the direct route is the best. Players are, quite frankly, inclined to be dumb. I don't know what it is, but as soon as you put a character sheet in front of somebody, their brain gets deep fried. So don't hint, indicate or lead them, just tell them straight up "Ill let you do this, but if you do you will probably die." And if they want to keep doing it, well, they were warned. Its their own fault at that point.

I would also add that what normal people read as a sign post saying "Certain death this way" PCs and other adventurer types will read as "This way to today's adventure." Overcoming odds is what adventurers do. So you need to be extremely clear about the difference between a plot hook and an intentionally insurmountable obstacle.

[Finieous]

Not saying it was your fault, but in my experience, don't steal the PCs' stuff unless you're ready for them to go mental getting it back. :smallbiggrin:

[Zanthy1]

You can't fix stupid. The player seemed all for going in against these guys, and aside from a verbal warning about the dangers, theres not much else you can do. The only other option is have an NPC save him or something, but if I were the player and you had me rescued (not as part of a plot point, but because I was just generally nearing death), I would be upset. Some people also just want to have their character die. In this case, theres not much you can do aside from talking with the guy.

[suplee215]

Not saying it was your fault, but in my experience, don't steal the PCs' stuff unless you're ready for them to go mental getting it back. :smallbiggrin:

I was prepared for that, from the person whose stuff was actually stolen.

[suplee215]

You can't fix stupid. The player seemed all for going in against these guys, and aside from a verbal warning about the dangers, theres not much else you can do. The only other option is have an NPC save him or something, but if I were the player and you had me rescued (not as part of a plot point, but because I was just generally nearing death), I would be upset. Some people also just want to have their character die. In this case, theres not much you can do aside from talking with the guy.

I don't think he wanted his character dead but he honesty thought a level 2 fighter will be enough. Plus his character was one of those "I'm a tough guy fighter who punches first". I honesty thought I handed it well until the player informed me he will no longer be showing up because he felt set up by me.

[kraitmarais]

In the end, the players make their own decisions. Sometimes they choose poorly.

He wasn't "set up" like he claimed, he had plenty of options other than trying to fight three NPCs alone. A 2nd level character often has trouble fighting three of anything alone; three armed humanoids who are intentionally acting in a threatening way should have given him serious pause.

[AvvyR]

This is a classic problem a lot of players have, especially the more fight-y classes. They tend to get it into their head that "All I have is a hammer, and everything is a nail." That they should be able to fight their way out of any and every situation, and that fighting should always get them whatever goal they're after. If they encounter a fight they can't win, they feel cheated, because they don't see anything else they could have done.

[Pelle]

I honesty thought I handed it well until the player informed me he will no longer be showing up because he felt set up by me.

If he felt set up, that was his impression even though it was not correct. If you want him to stay you should acknowledge that was how it seemed to him, and try to demonstrate from your position why that was not the case.

As for making the risk clear to the player before the character is killed, you very much have to be explicit, "if you do tis, you might die". Some players really expect the DM to protect them from their own bad decisions, by scaling encounters, deus ex machina, etc. If you don't do that as a DM, you need to be clear on that so that the players have the correct expectation.

[Unoriginal]

I think you've handled the situation well, but you could have told him "your experience tells you those guys are probably good enough to demolish you" or something like that.

Though possibly the guy is just using this as an excuse. You should talk with him about it.

[darknite]

I call this 'daring me to kill them' when I DM. Players who just push the envelope of good judgement and cross the line between heroic and stupid.

However when I run a situation that involves capturing or stealing stuff from PCs, things that players typically really don't like (which I don't do often at all), I make sure to put a silver lining in the situation as quickly as possible to soften the blow.

[Pex]

Not saying it was your fault, but in my experience, don't steal the PCs' stuff unless you're ready for them to go mental getting it back. :smallbiggrin:

This. It is not logical but often true. Why it happens I think is unconscious meta thinking. Aside from XP, things characters get in play are things players earned. It takes real world time, effort, and energy playing the game and getting stuff. Taking that stuff away is akin to taking away that time, effort, and energy. If it's a rare plot hook and players get their stuff back, they'll get over the temporary set back and enjoy the revenge against the NPC who stole from them. When it's irrevocably gone it's war. If the player's character died in the process it can be game over.

Obligatory given my reputation on the Forum: This is in no relation to my rant against tyrannical DMing. A tyrannical DM does have PC stuff get stolen, often by fiat, but I acknowledge and accept PCs can lose stuff as a matter of course and consequences of a campaign the DM being all legit, good, and wonderful.

[KorvinStarmast]

I call this 'daring me to kill them' when I DM. Players who just push the envelope of good judgement and cross the line between heroic and stupid. However when I run a situation that involves capturing or stealing stuff from PCs, things that players typically really don't like (which I don't do often at all), I make sure to put a silver lining in the situation as quickly as possible to soften the blow. Decisions have consequences. The DM gave warning, the player proceeded. It's OK for a PC to die.
To answer to "I was set up"
the answer is "Yes, that's how thugs, gangs and thieves succeed at what they do; you were warned that you were outnumbered. High risk, high reward."

Why it happens I think is unconscious meta thinking. Aside from XP, things characters get in play are things players earned. It takes real world time, effort, and energy playing the game and getting stuff. Taking that stuff away is akin to taking away that time, effort, and energy.
If it's a rare plot hook and players get their stuff back, they'll get over the temporary set back and enjoy the revenge against the NPC who stole from them. When it's irrevocably gone it's war. If the player's character died in the process it can be game over. Good points all.

[Fishyninja]

So as an aside to this.

How would most DM's here do PVP in game. I have been in games where PVP was allowed from the start, some of it was situational.
I ask as I am starting a campaign (we are about 5 sessions) in and I have noticed one player tryting to do things like slapping the back of someones head if she doesn't like what the character is doing and I can see it snowballing into daggers at dawn very quickly.

[KorvinStarmast]

So as an aside to this.

How would most DM's here do PVP in game. I have been in games where PVP was allowed from the start, some of it was situational.
I ask as I am starting a campaign (we are about 5 sessions) in and I have noticed one player tryting to do things like slapping the back of someones head if she doesn't like what the character is doing and I can see it snowballing into daggers at dawn very quickly. Before I consider this, I have an "out of game" discussion with all players. The topic is: are you folks good with PvP, or not?

Unless ALL players sign up for it, there is no DM support for PvP, and warnings will be issued. I will not condone a player bullying another player with character vs character PvP. Seen it go badly more often than not, but when PvP goes OK it is because everyone is on board the same bus.
My approach when we are all on the same bus is "let 'em play."
And don't play favorites as DM.

[Fishyninja]

Before I consider this, I have an "out of game" discussion with all players. The topic is: are you folks good with PvP, or not?

Unless ALL players sign up for it, there is no DM support for PvP, and warnings will be issued. I will not condone a player bullying another player with character vs character PvP. Seen it go badly more often than not, but when PvP goes OK it is because everyone is on board the same bus.
My approach when we are all on the same bus is "let 'em play."
And don't play favorites as DM.

Fair enough you are along a similar though process to me. The thing that has happened in my game goes like this:
P1 Rolls Dice Does an 18 hit P2?
DM Why are you rolling to hit?
P1 It doesn't matter, I'm not trying to hurt them I just want to see if that hits.
DM So you are not actually attacking them? You just want to see if you can beat there AC?
P1 Yeah, trust me it wont be too bad.
DM .......Anyway you are all making your way to x town.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So as an aside to this.

How would most DM's here do PVP in game. I have been in games where PVP was allowed from the start, some of it was situational.
I ask as I am starting a campaign (we are about 5 sessions) in and I have noticed one player tryting to do things like slapping the back of someones head if she doesn't like what the character is doing and I can see it snowballing into daggers at dawn very quickly.

Don't allow PVP, very simple. Even if you think you can trust the people at the table to be civil and mature about it 100% of the time, you can only guarantee it some of the time. With a bit of effort you could find plenty of horror stories that have come off pvp being allowed in games on this very forum. If the characters really want PVP make sure it's only done in sanctioned scenarios with consenting parties where no one will end up permanently damaged.

On topic, when I'm DMing I always try to start the session making it clear that actions have consequences, particularly when they're going to be doing something they know is dangerous.

If the players listen to that and still decide to make a decision that would end with their character being dead I personally try to give them a fair chance to "correct" their first bad decision before it escalates into character death.

I would not recommend doing this however, as it's currently causing problems between me and a player in my game who thinks I've been out to attack them. In hindsight, I should have just let the first bad decision sit with the consequences, it left them with the idea that every bad decision would be given that same treatment and when I made it clear that wasn't the case they were (somewhat justifiably in my opinion) upset.

It's not your fault if they make a decision that you've already advised against and get killed because of it. Just make sure you're always crystal clear about the decision having consequences, it's more difficult than it should be to convey that to some players even if you do say it word for word. If they're still intent on going through with that action you've done all you could and let the dice decide.

[GlenSmash!]

Talk outside of the game. Explain how when you were repeatedly asking him if he wanted to do this you were trying to drop a big hint that the encounter would be deadly, which is in fact the opposite of a set up.

Ask what kind of hint he would have preferred.

Expect him to sill make stupid choices in the future.

[Laserlight]

The best campaign I've run had PvP, BUT it was with four players who had been friends for a long time (A and B were maid of honor and groomsman when C and D got married a couple of weeks ago), everyone was on board with it, and the only times PCs were trying to actually kill other PCs was when the victims had just been demoted to NPCs after the player moved out of state.

If you have the 16 year old kid who just joined the group and thinks it's cool to steal from other players, or "I'm actually super evil but you don't know it!", then...well, they wouldn't be at my table in the first place, but I wouldn't allow PvP, including stealing or similar. If your character wouldn't get along with the group, make a new character. If you can't make a character who can get along with the group, there's the door, goodbye.

[Laserlight]

As for the original point of the thread:

a) when people quit / decline to buy/ etc, the first reason they give is rarely the real and complete reason. Always ask "is there anything else?" a couple of times.

b) When a player is going to attempt something stupid and the character would know that it's stupid, I don't just say "Are you sure?"--I tell them "Okay, you CAN jump off the cliff but it will take your whole turn, you'll take 6d10 damage when you hit, and you'll be prone until your next turn. And you'll be surrounded by four giants who will have Advantage on attacking you, because you're prone. So, with that in mind, do you still want to jump off the cliff?" Sometimes they say "Yes" anyway (the player in that situation did), but sometimes they say "Ah, I didn't realize...I look for stairs down".
And some players just don't realize that L1-3 characters are FRAGILE, and if you tackle three thugs singlehandedly and die, the system is working as intended.

[Pex]

Separate from my previous post, I agree that whenever a player wants to do something and the DM responds "Are you sure?" the player should immediately abandon the idea he wanted to do. I fully support a DM doing his job saving a player from his own Honest True stupidity. A player may not realize why what he wants to do is stupid, but he should learn the instinct to stop when hearing those words anyway.

[Tanarii]

In times like this, I find the direct route is the best. Players are, quite frankly, inclined to be dumb. I don't know what it is, but as soon as you put a character sheet in front of somebody, their brain gets deep fried. So don't hint, indicate or lead them, just tell them straight up "Ill let you do this, but if you do you will probably die." And if they want to keep doing it, well, they were warned. Its their own fault at that point.
Not only that, but even after clearly stating it in your session 0 doc, and clearly stating it at the beginning of every session, many players will still insist on acting like they are invulnerable tough guys. The repeated suicide-by-monster rate for players when I first started my campaign was incredible. At the time I found it somewhat vindicating, but in retrospect I'm just shocked at how trained modern players are to think they'll win any fight they start.

Even now brand new to the campaign players will get themselves killed. But the overall rate of TPKs is drastically down.

[Demonslayer666]

Asking him if he wanted to do the fight is very different that warning him he is outclassed and in danger. You should have made it perfectly clear that he was not supposed to fight. "You are certain you could take one of these guys on alone, but not all three at once".


Most players fight what a DM puts in front of them unless they are told otherwise.

[suplee215]

Thank you all for the advice. My one concern is I do want to give my players the agency to make their own decision and I feel like a DM who is too heavy handed about "this will get you killed" is directing a part of the narrative he should not be directing in this shared medium. I am just retconning this session away and going to talk to all players about how deadly of a campaign they want and how big of a warning they want.

[Fire Tarrasque]

Players have a habit:
If you make something look really hard/bad, they do it.
Just make it clear: THEY WILL DIE.
Making them entirely aware of the probable consequences of their actions is not heavy handed. Take it to it's logical conclusion: If the players at level two decided to charge a Tarrasque, would you make them aware that they'd probably be killed? Or let them die as idiots?

[Sigreid]

My players all know things dontbscale to their level and ability so they exercise due caution.

[Snails]

Asking him if he wanted to do the fight is very different that warning him he is outclassed and in danger. You should have made it perfectly clear that he was not supposed to fight. "You are certain you could take one of these guys on alone, but not all three at once".

Most players fight what a DM puts in front of them unless they are told otherwise.

Chiming in with similar two cents...

(1) DMs sometimes think they are giving strong enough hints when the information looks more muddled from the players' side of the screen. I do not think there is anything wrong with telling the player flat out, yeah, based on his PC's experience as a badass one of these fellows is no threat, but three is very bad. Putting it in language that emphasizes the PC's competence to judge the world helps here, because that can defuse the "my brave (stubborn) PC does not back down to dumb NPCs" dynamic.

(2) I think another problem is that this little adventure involved two PCs splitting up. Multiple PCs buy a degree of cushion where desperate escapes can be attempted or negotiations can be opened up with a knife at the throat of an unconscious NPC for a bargaining chip.

(3) Players definitely can go ape**** over stuff in a way that seems insane from the DM's side of things. Yes, it is about the players feeling punished when the DM thinks he is only prodding the PC a wee bit. So maybe you accidentally pushed the Go Ape**** button? Not saying the DM did the wrong thing specifically (how much stuff can a 2nd level PC have?) but ...be aware.

[Keravath]

Just a few comments ... (edit: lol ... turned out to be far more than a few :) )

1) How experienced was the player? (not the character) Level 2 isn't very high a level but if the player doesn't have the experience then they have no way (either in character or out of it to assess the deadliness of any given situation). If fighting is likely to lead to near certain death and this is something the CHARACTER would realize then it is the responsibility of the DM to make it perfectly clear to the player.

"Looking over the three grungs standing in front of you. They seem to hold themselves well balanced with their weapons close to hand. They don't look worried. Your character realizes that if you fight them, you won't walk out of the alley alive."

It is knowledge the character would have and the player NEEDS to hear it explicitly if they are not picking up on your hints. Saying "it looks like a tough fight", "you are outnumbered", "are you sure?" ... just is not sufficient for a lot of players especially those who are less experienced as players.

2) Unless they wiped the floor with him in one round, which is possible .. it should be pretty clear by the end of the first round that he should disengage (or dash) and run away. The NPCs should probably let him go and laugh at him as he runs. In fact, from a story perspective, if the grungs are members of a local gang they might well get more reputation from roughing the character up and leaving him to die than killing him. There are a lot of ways to handle this as a DM that lead to a tense situation rather than a dead character. Maybe the Grung decide to take a hostage and ransom him off? Leaves lots of opportunity for the character to try to escape or other interesting developments.

3) How did the character happen to run into the grungs who stole his partners stuff in a back alley? Did he choose to confront them there? Could he have followed them to their hideout, gone to get his partner and returned to recover his stuff? To be honest, placing the character in an area where no assistance is available (though even in a back alley, someone might be passing by and offer assistance ... even just enough to make the Grungs run away before they finish the character off ... even at zero hit points he still has to fail three death saves). Basically, although it is DM fiat, I don't honestly see any reason why the character had to die .. which to be honest is probably also why I could see the player might feel like it was a setup since although it is the player that makes the decisions it is the DM who sets the scene.

To be honest, if the three Grungs were confronted by a weak character in a back alley even one who was just being irritating, depending on the motivations and the attitude of the Grungs, they would probably just kill him anyway, no matter what he did - especially since he appeared to recognize the backpack they had stolen. Best witness is a dead witness they might say. In which case, it is the DM who is responsible for setting a scene in which an overwhelmingly powerful group of NPCs have a player character at their mercy and with no way to prevent them from killing him unless you introduce another circumstance to the situation. Given the situation that you set, the NPCs were probably going to kill him anyway making a fight he couldn't win more or less inevitable which is why the situation might well feel quite unfair to the player in retrospect since if he is in a situation where he will likely have to fight anyway then the player should expect that they have some chance of winning.

As a DM you seemed to expect the player to walk away after recognizing the backpack they are carrying as belonging to his partner. You also seem to expect that the Grungs would let him do so. You might convince the player to walk away if you make it explicitly clear that the situation was unwinnable ... but logically, the Grungs shouldn't let him go and the player may also know that so in the player's mind they might feel like they have no choice but to fight.

Anyway, although it is tough to say it, I'd probably put most of the fault for the situation on the DM in creating a game event where the character couldn't win and didn't really have a way out. It might have been salvageable by making it 100% clear that their only option was to run away as quickly as possible ... but from the sounds of it that didn't happen.

How could it have been played differently? Place the encounter in the entrance to an alley within 30' of a street with traffic. This would allow NPC intervention to prevent the character dying if the encounter leads to a fight. It would also deter the grungs from immediately slaughtering the character since there is a risk of being caught. Second, out of all the people available in the city, why would a band of thieves target two low level adventurers? Unless they had something decently valuable, it likely wasn't worth their time or the risk. Also, why would a player leave anything of value at an inn? I've played D&D for decades and other than cheap supplies, I wouldn't leave anything in an inn room that I couldn't just replace (the coin purse goes with me) ... so I am not sure even what the plot concept is here.


Finally, frogs are not sentient humanoids. The Grungs are an aggressive "froglike" humanoid. In fact, some larger species of frogs eat other frogs. Grungs may even eat frogs (they might even eat other Grungs .. this is entirely up to the DM .. though you did mention the society doesn't condone it). So, although a comment about eating frog's legs might come off as distasteful and insulting (since the character may be implying that a Grung is an unintelligent frog) ... it is not the same as saying "eating Grung legs" which would be against the society's morality.

Anyway :) ... after all of that .. how do you get a player to back down?
- you need to get them to change their mind - they don't back down since it is NOT a confrontation between the DM and player ... it is a shared story you are creating
- give them ALL the information needed to make a decision
- encourage them to make the decision you would prefer by making the situation develop ... have two more grungs step out of the shadows ... 5:1 for most is a non-starter
- think ahead and set the scene in such a way that the character naturally makes a choice that you can respond to ... in this case, you would have needed to move the encounter or have the character run across his partner before running into the grungs .. turning it into a winnable fight. Or have the character joined by a constable looking into a gang of thieves ... there are an infinite number of plot ideas that could have prevented the situation from developing at all.

[Tanarii]

(3) Players definitely can go ape**** over stuff in a way that seems insane from the DM's side of things. Yes, it is about the players feeling punished when the DM thinks he is only prodding the PC a wee bit. So maybe you accidentally pushed the Go Ape**** button? Not saying the DM did the wrong thing specifically (how much stuff can a 2nd level PC have?) but ...be aware.Yeah definitely true. As a general rule, if you want PCs to burn the world down in retribution or die trying, steal their stuff.

Heck, most people in real life will flip out when someone steals their stuff. It's very violating, especially when you felt secure.

[Trickshaw]

OP has learned two valuable lessons. The first, many posters have already commented on: PC's lose their proverbial sh*t when you take their stuff. This can be a valuable tool in your DM toolkit when you want to "hook" your player(s) into following a course of action.

The second, which I'm not sure if anyone else touched on, is PC's will, more often than not, fight to the bitter end than surrender or back down. It's a psychological thing. IRL we are used to avoiding confrontation or making compromises in order to maintain civil society. That is unless you're a sociopath and/or psychopath that loves the idea of inevitable jail time. So when we sit down at the table, those reservations go out the window. I'm not Bob from accounting who puts up with Cheryl's sh*t in receiving so I can just get my damn orders reconciled, I'm Hangar the barbarian and THE F*CK YOU SAY THAT'S YOUR BACKPACK, IT'S FROG LEGS TONIGHT BOY-O!

You wanna see your players become outlaws? Surround them with guards and tell them, "Lay down your weapons and come with us to the stockades." No way out? How much XP is a guard worth? 100 you say? Each? I guess we got 10 dead guards to bury after our short rest.

Or if they do come quietly expect them to promptly attempt to break out and murder spree their way to freedom shortly thereafter.

Never take players loot and never set players up with a surrender/back down scenario. Unless their predictable reactions are intended by you as the DM to further the story.

Edit:

That being said, I would have tied the player's insight check that he made to see if "shady dealings" were afoot in with the added observation that he was severely out matched. Instead of a head on confrontation mayhaps a subtler reconciliation later on when odds were in his favor would be more prudent? Then again, even if he did back down, the grung would have probably viewed it as a sign of weakness and continued the fight anyway. Or you got the logical "this dude knows we took his buddy's sh*t. We can't let him leave" situation. A couple guards walking in for their break would have been a solid play on your part. "Hey-o Martha, a couple pints if you would please! Well know, what's this here? If it isn't my favorite toadies. What cher all abouts now? Causin' trouble?"

All in all, I think the fault, if there is any to lay, is predominately on you as the DM. The situation shouldn't have happened to begin with and it shouldn't have gone down the way it did. But it did.

Live and learn.

[JoeJ]

If all else fails, remember that a melee attack that brings a character to 0 hp can be declared to knock that character unconscious rather than kill them. Enemies that would plausibly do that include criminals in an urban setting, who might not want to risk being charged with murder if they're caught. And if the PC wakes up naked but alive in an alley there's a least a chance the player might realize that their character is not invincible.

[Lunali]

If all else fails, remember that a melee attack that brings a character to 0 hp can be declared to knock that character unconscious rather than kill them. Enemies that would plausibly do that include criminals in an urban setting, who might not want to risk being charged with murder if they're caught. And if the PC wakes up naked but alive in an alley there's a least a chance the player might realize that their character is not invincible.

This is what I was thinking. The thieves have already demonstrated that they're the type to steal from an inn room rather than the type to kill someone for their stuff.

[SiCK_Boy]

I also have to agree with the idea that the DM has a major responsibility in this scenario, because he's the one who created the situation in the first place.

It is always difficult for players to assess monster strength before a fight starts, especially when facing humanoids. You never know in advance how many attacks the monster will have, how many HP, or if they have some special ability or not. Even if you know the monster manual by heart, unless the DM explicitly tells you so, there may not be a lot of in-world difference between a basic grung (CR 1/4, 11 hp) or a grung elite warrior (CR 2, 49 hp). Grung may not be the best examples (because the color usually tells you what type of grung they are), but the same applies to a basic goblin (CR 1/4, 7 hp) vs a goblin boss (CR 1, 21 hp).

This is further compounded in the case of a level 2 PC: the PC just almost doubled his maximum hp (from level 1), he is probably used to fighting opponents that can be killed in a single hit (or two if he rolls below average), and he now thinks he can absorb four or five hits before he falls down. And he may not be aware of how much difference action economy (and the presence of an entire party, including a healer of some kind) makes in a fight. Player experience can compensate for that, but it can still be a bit of a power trip for players to reach level 2 and feel like now, they can take on the world (I still remember the shock of my players when they got their level up in Lost Mine of Phandelver, and then they met Redbrand Thugs with two attacks! They weren't so confident in their new-found power at that moment - at least until they realized they could still kill those thugs in one or two hits).

Based on DMG guidelines, the fight was deadly. 3 grungs (50 xp each, total 150 xp), with a multiplier of 2 for having 3 monsters, further increased to 2.5 because of the small party size, means the encounter is worth 375 XP budget-wise. That's deadly for a level 2 PC, short of being deadly x 2.

Deadly encounters have a high risk of at least knocking a PC unconscious. In a case like this, where there is a single PC, that risk is much more significant (you can't spread the attacks between multiple players to give the party a break, for example). Basically, once the fight starts, the only way for the DM to not kill the PC is to knock him unconscious (stealing all his stuff, further enraging the player) or using some deus-ex machina intervention (a passerby shouts an alarm, a guard patrol happens to walk by, etc.). If you're going to use the intervention anyway, it's probably better to do it before the fight: it'll feel less contrived for the player, may open up more roleplay opportunities, and you can still have a conversation later on outside the game to remind players of the danger of fighting when alone.

In the end, what is done is done. And the player saying he's cool with it, but then claiming he was set up and refusing to play, probably points to deeper issues than just this single encounter. Not knowing the exact relationship between the DM and player (are they family, friends, mere acquaintances, etc.), how long they've been playing (in this campaign, with these characters, as a group with this specific person as DM, etc.), and other details about the entire table dynamic, it is difficult to provide advice beyond "try to talk it out".

One thing I would add, however, is to not insist too much if the player wants out. But even so, it is important to have a discussion with the rest of the players as well, not to bash the departed player, but to see what their take on the situation is. A lot of those problems come down to expectations issues (player was not expecting to be put in a fight he could not win, for example), and trying to put these expectations out in the open is still the best way to try to account for them.

[KorvinStarmast]

If all else fails, remember that a melee attack that brings a character to 0 hp can be declared to knock that character unconscious rather than kill them. Enemies that would plausibly do that include criminals in an urban setting, who might not want to risk being charged with murder if they're caught. And if the PC wakes up naked but alive in an alley there's a least a chance the player might realize that their character is not invincible. Completely a good idea, and completely fits the scenario. With the problem as posted, a bit late for that. :smallcool:

[Unoriginal]

The thieves might be more the "steal in an inn" kind, but the PC dude just had killed one of their associates.

I don't think they'd feel merciful after that, even if they didn't care about the killed guy. After all, it mean the PC was trying to kill *them* too.

[NaughtyTiger]

All in all, I think the fault, if there is any to lay, is predominately on you as the DM. The situation shouldn't have happened to begin with and it shouldn't have gone down the way it did. But it did.

Live and learn.

But this didn't answer the OP's question. How do you teach/suggest/intimate to a PC that they can't win this one, they should walk away or non-combat it out?
I read your response as never put a PC in a position where they risk death or even loss. (Kobyashi Maru has a point.)

[Sigreid]

But this didn't answer the OP's question. How do you teach/suggest/intimate to a PC that they can't win this one, they should walk away or non-combat it out?
I read your response as never put a PC in a position where they risk death or even loss. (Kobyashi Maru has a point.)

I suppose the OP could have said "you can tell that these guys are experienced thugs that will kill you if they can, and they look like the odds are heavily in their favor in a straight fight."

[SiCK_Boy]

But this didn't answer the OP's question. How do you teach/suggest/intimate to a PC that they can't win this one, they should walk away or non-combat it out?
I read your response as never put a PC in a position where they risk death or even loss. (Kobyashi Maru has a point.)

Why would you, as a DM, want to teach a player that? Why would this be a "skill" that the player needs to learn? Why would you care whether or not a player knows when to run away or back down?

Is this just a "power trip"? Is it for the sake of "realism" (in life, there are things you cannot defeat and challenges you cannot overcome, so the game needs to be the same way)? Is it for the sake of the story you are telling (I need the PC to see how powerful this bad guy is, so they back down but hate him, and then it can lead to a better story later on when they are finally strong enough to beat him)? Is it just because you don't like having to figure out a way to introduce new characters, so you'd rather not have to deal with the trouble caused by a dead character?

The premise that "players need to learn to back down" is faulty, at least if it is not supported by a specific reason.

Some players refuse to get attached to their PC. They won't enjoy the game if they don't die every 2-3 sessions! These players don't need to learn to back down; they need a DM who presents them with tough challenges and won't hold back on them (and the one time they'll make it through and "beat the odds" will be that memorable session for the player)!

Before the DM gets to play the role of a neutral arbiter describing how the world works and using game rules and dices to determine some outcome (ex: rolling damage dice to determine how much damage is caused by a monster attack), the DM is a very active participant in creating the situations he puts the PCs in. A DM claiming that "the player needs to learn to run away" or "the player should have known he was outmatched" or "I gave him all the clues in the world, but he didn't catch on" is really no more different than a player doing something stupid or creating problems for everyone in the party and claiming "that's what my character would do".

In the scenario above, the DM is entirely responsible for deciding that there would be some encounter while the party was split (the DM did not decide the party would split, but once the players make the call, the subsequent events are in the DM's control), he is responsible for having a player's equipment stolen, he is responsible for having the other player meet the thieves, he is responsible for having given that player a chance to notice the theft, he is responsible for the grung's initial reactions (taking offense, threatening the player, engaging in the fight), and he is responsible for how the grung ended the fight (by killing the player) and not using any outside intervention to prevent or mitigate that impact.

Not all of this is bad, mind you. But it is a problem if it came "as a surprise" to the DM. If all along the DM was expecting that "the PC should have known he had to back off", then that DM seriously misjudged the scenario he was putting the player through.

Others have pointed out how stealing player's stuff is always a very sensitive subject, leading to disproportionate reactions from most players. Players can misjudge the dangerosity of an opponent, or over-estimate their own combat skills. Maybe it was just bad dice rolls (although I think this fight was clearly one the player could not win barring some very great rolls in his favor - would need to know the full stats of everyone to fully assess).

The fact that the DM, after the fact, seems to be unhappy with the result (since he went to the trouble of coming to this forum and asking for advice) means, in my view, that the result was not one the DM had anticipated. And that, I believe, is the major problem in this scenario.

If the DM was confident that the outcome was fair (based on the scenario, game rules and world logic & consistency), that the player had enough agency and options to control the outcome to a major extent, that this result will allow the story to progress in a meaningful way, then there is no problem. The fact that the DM is now willing to retcon the whole session is further proof that he clearly did not think things through beforehand. Obviously, we're not at the table, and it's always easier to judge these situations in hindsight.

I don't think the OP ever explained what his train of thought was as a DM during the whole thing. Why did he have the grungs steal the equipment? What was he trying to accomplish here?

Even when the DM is satisfied with the result (as in, the result is conform to what he had in mind), players may disagree. It comes down to expectations. If players expect that they will never face a fight they cannot win, then they may be surprised (in a bad way) when a DM has them facing opponents too strong for them.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, as a DM, you should anticipate these possibilities, and avoid putting "deadly" challenges in front of the players in situations where you are not ready, as a DM, to deal with the consequences (in this case, a death), or when you realize your players are not ready to deal with the consequences either. And if there are too many instances where DM's views and player's views clash, then you need to talk about expectations so that the table is all on the same page.

[Tanarii]

Why would you, as a DM, want to teach a player that? Why would this be a "skill" that the player needs to learn? Why would you care whether or not a player knows when to run away or back down?So they don't get themselves killed over and over again taking on things that are too powerful for them.

That's a critical skill that D&D players used to learn early on. And now most don't.

[GlenSmash!]

So they don't get themselves killed over and over again taking on things that are too powerful for them.

That's a critical skill that D&D players used to learn early on. And now most don't.

Oh I learned it playing Lost Mines of Phandelver.

Our party ate a fireball from a Flame Skull. My Barbarian had 3 HP left and I grabbed the unconscious Ranger and high tailed it out of there once my turn in initiative order turned up.

Seeing the bloodthirsty Barbarain retreat was a wake up call to the whole group.

Sometimes you run.

[Pelle]

So they don't get themselves killed over and over again taking on things that are too powerful for them.

That's a critical skill that D&D players used to learn early on. And now most don't.

But do you really have to force it, intentionally putting the players in a no-win situation with the single purpose of teaching them the lesson?

If it happens naturally, sure, don't prevent the consequences from happening. Engineering the situation is a bit much IMO.

[Keltest]

But do you really have to force it, intentionally putting the players in a no-win situation with the single purpose of teaching them the lesson?

If it happens naturally, sure, don't prevent the consequences from happening. Engineering the situation is a bit much IMO.

Given that the question was "how do I do this?" Im pretty sure the whole point is that they want options beyond deliberately setting up the PCs to fail until they finally figure out that not every combat encounter is one they should be able to win.

[SiCK_Boy]

So they don't get themselves killed over and over again taking on things that are too powerful for them.

That's a critical skill that D&D players used to learn early on. And now most don't.

Agreed it's a valid reason to want to teach this skill; just not sure that was the case in the OP's scenario (we don't know how many characters that player lost in the last few sessions, or whether that player has a habit of never backing down).

[SiCK_Boy]

Given that the question was "how do I do this?" Im pretty sure the whole point is that they want options beyond deliberately setting up the PCs to fail until they finally figure out that not every combat encounter is one they should be able to win.

Why should "not every combat encounter be one they should be able to win"?

What is the point, in this game, of having combats that the players cannot win? What does it bring to your table and your group of players?

Knowing the reason why will help in framing the "how".

I think most "how" will involve either explicit telling / discussion between DM and players. Knowing the motivation will orient the discussion and the kind of points that will be made as part of said discussion.

[Keltest]

Why should "not every combat encounter be one they should be able to win"?

What is the point, in this game, of having combats that the players cannot win? What does it bring to your table and your group of players?

Knowing the reason why will help in framing the "how".

I think most "how" will involve either explicit telling / discussion between DM and players. Knowing the motivation will orient the discussion and the kind of points that will be made as part of said discussion.

To make them do things besides swording things to death. Why bother sneaking if you can just fight the guards? Why try to negotiate when you can just hold the king for ransom? Why forage for food when you can just find a goblin camp and kill them for their food?

It also cheapens the combat itself if youre only ever encountering fights you can win no matter how dumb you are. Dragon's lair? Oh, it's choking on a holy artifact and is severely weakened! Good job, 3rd level party!

[Sigreid]

Why should "not every combat encounter be one they should be able to win"?

What is the point, in this game, of having combats that the players cannot win? What does it bring to your table and your group of players?

Knowing the reason why will help in framing the "how".

I think most "how" will involve either explicit telling / discussion between DM and players. Knowing the motivation will orient the discussion and the kind of points that will be made as part of said discussion.

Speaking for myself, figuring chance of success and deciding if a battle should be taken or avoided is an exciting part of the game.

[Tanarii]

Why should "not every combat encounter be one they should be able to win"?

What is the point, in this game, of having combats that the players cannot win? What does it bring to your table and your group of players?.This is exactly why it becomes necessary to teach players this skill. Because they cant learn it naturally. They've been taught the exact opposite. That they cannot lose.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Agreed it's a valid reason to want to teach this skill; just not sure that was the case in the OP's scenario (we don't know how many characters that player lost in the last few sessions, or whether that player has a habit of never backing down).

What we do know is that the player instigated the fight, in an alley, away from the guards and killed one of the Grungs. Obviously they aren't going to let him live after that and he intentionally put himself into a scenario away from receiving help.

The situation would scream to me as a player that I shouldn't look for a fight with 3 creatures on my own if it's plainly obvious that they're less than civilized.

If your DM asks you "Are you sure?" that typically translates directly to "That's a bad idea". If the player still decides to make a bad decision they need actual consequences or they'll continue to play the game as if consequences won't reach them. This seems like a fantastic situations to have a player taught this lesson.

-He gave the player ample opportunity to not attempt to kill these creatures
-The player himself decided that fighting 3 criminals by himself in a back alley was an ideal scenario, again after being asked if he was sure
-The player did a heel turn deciding he was "set up" after he was asked if he was sure about his decision to attack the creatures, obviously they would opt to kill him outright after he killed one of them outright.

I'd hardly fault the DM in this, even if he didn't explicitly say "this will end in your death" it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell that you're a relatively new adventurer trying to take on 3 creatures at once and that's a recipe for disaster. He obviously could have been crystal clear with the situation but even that might not have stopped the player.

On the topic of having the players stuff stolen, it sucks, clearly. You've probably spent some time earning those things and it always feels bad to get set back in progress. That's not validation for throwing yourself into a deadly situation and feeling "cheated" when you die because of poor planning. In this specific situation the player could have:
-Told the guards that they were robbed
-Regrouped and tailed down the Grung together
-Done both of those things and convinced some of the guards that the Grung were enough of a menace to warrant jailing or execution
-Let it be because you probably didn't lose anything more valuable than your life

[Sigreid]

Instead of "are you sure?" I prefer "really!?! O.k., wow."

[Rusvul]

In my games, when a player is about to do something colossally stupid, I look them in the eye and I ask them "Are you sure?"

Usually, this stops them from doing the stupid thing, or at least makes them think it through more. If they do it anyway, the consequences are on them. They key is to save the "Are you sure?" for when a player does something very stupid. It comes out once every few sessions at most in my game, but my players have decent self-preservation instincts. When it's rare, it means more.

[GooeyChewie]

Why should "not every combat encounter be one they should be able to win"?

Sometimes the DM wants to introduce the big bad (or a recurring villain) before the players are ready for the end game.
Sometimes the module is a sandbox and the players wander into an area with high-level encounters.
Sometimes you have perfectly reasonable plans and the party randomly decides to split up and fight the group encounter solo.

[Pelle]

This is exactly why it becomes necessary to teach players this skill. Because they cant learn it naturally. They've been taught the exact opposite. That they cannot lose.

No, they will learn it soon enough on their own if you let things have natural consequences. You don't need to design an encounter to specifically teach this. By 'teaching', it sounds like you put new players into intentionally no-win situations, so that they will recognize them later on their own. That's backwards, just let them lose the first time they engage an unwinnable enounter in combat. I don't see forcing the pcs into a combat they will lose to add anything to the game.

[ProsecutorGodot]

No, they will learn it soon enough on their own if you let things have natural consequences. You don't need to design an encounter to specifically teach this. By 'teaching', it sounds like you put new players into intentionally no-win situations, so that they will recognize them later on their own. That's backwards, just let them lose the first time they engage an unwinnable enounter in combat. I don't see forcing the pcs into a combat they will lose to add anything to the game.

No one is advocating deliberately putting the players into these situations just to kill them. Encounters like this are important to show that you could definitely find yourself in a terrible situations and running or ignoring the issue is a good option. Curse of Strahd specifically has some incredibly dire encounters that could very quickly lead to the "immortal hero" player becoming a bloated corpse in the swamp.

The players put themselves into the no win situation most often(the player in OP's game definitely did), and the natural consequence is them dying more often than not. The thing being proposed is to let them die so they know not to do it in the future. The tells were there that they would die taking this approach and they ignored them expecting a hero moment where they triumph over evil and get all the fame and moneys. Instead the tiny frog men killed him because of COURSE the adventurer who just left home last week is going to lose a 3v1 fight.

I feel that you might also be ignoring the chance that a player would run headfirst into a situation you never planned for them to be in, and again, the natural consequences end up with them dead. Let them die if they decide, after a warning, to still approach the very clearly trapped and monster filled dungeon in their skivvies with a rusted butter knife.

I can tell you, with certainty, that you should absolutely let the players make this mistake at least once. It's caused me no end of trouble having a player who is convinced I won't kill the party and has taken his recent near death experiences as a personal attack.

You might think it's backwards but it's very important in a DND campaign, whether you're playing it as a combat simulation or using it as a storytelling medium, that heroes can die if they make bad decisions.

[SiCK_Boy]

By the way, when I asked all those "why" questions earlier, it's not because I don't legitimately know the answers (I know what the answers are for me as a player and a DM, generally). It's to make my point that it is important for a DM to think about those things and have a reason to do what he does. It is interesting to see how people respond.


What we do know is that the player instigated the fight, in an alley, away from the guards and killed one of the Grungs. Obviously they aren't going to let him live after that and he intentionally put himself into a scenario away from receiving help.


I disagree with the last part (the obviously comment). We don't know how the player made it to the alley, nor exactly when / how the two additional grungs came toward his back with their daggers. Maybe the player felt, at that point, that it was already beyond his capacity to flee, so he assumed the DM wanted a fight and he obliged.


If the player still decides to make a bad decision they need actual consequences or they'll continue to play the game as if consequences won't reach them. This seems like a fantastic situations to have a player taught this lesson.

Except that the OP is choosing to lessen the lesson (if that was his goal) by retconing the whole thing. By your logic, the DM should not retcon, and he should just let the player go. What he should do is maybe use this situation as a teaching moment for the other players instead (see guys, if you end up alone in an alley and I tell you to back down and you refuse, your character will die; deal with it). And maybe the player will then ask the DM to stop putting them in alleyways all the time... or they'll start carrying alarm whistle or something!

But the key point is that the DM should think about what he does, and it should ideally align with what the players expect.

[JoeJ]

Why should "not every combat encounter be one they should be able to win"?

What is the point, in this game, of having combats that the players cannot win? What does it bring to your table and your group of players?

Knowing the reason why will help in framing the "how".

I think most "how" will involve either explicit telling / discussion between DM and players. Knowing the motivation will orient the discussion and the kind of points that will be made as part of said discussion.

If the characters can't fail, then success is boring and meaningless. This is just as true in games as it is in literature, possibly even more so because of the intensity with which some players identify with their characters.

[ProsecutorGodot]

By the way, when I asked all those "why" questions earlier, it's not because I don't legitimately know the answers (I know what the answers are for me as a player and a DM, generally). It's to make my point that it is important for a DM to think about those things and have a reason to do what he does. It is interesting to see how people respond.

I disagree with the last part (the obviously comment). We don't know how the player made it to the alley, nor exactly when / how the two additional grungs came toward his back with their daggers. Maybe the player felt, at that point, that it was already beyond his capacity to flee, so he assumed the DM wanted a fight and he obliged.

Except that the OP is choosing to lessen the lesson (if that was his goal) by retconing the whole thing. By your logic, the DM should not retcon, and he should just let the player go. What he should do is maybe use this situation as a teaching moment for the other players instead (see guys, if you end up alone in an alley and I tell you to back down and you refuse, your character will die; deal with it). And maybe the player will then ask the DM to stop putting them in alleyways all the time... or they'll start carrying alarm whistle or something!

But the key point is that the DM should think about what he does, and it should ideally align with what the players expect.

On the bolded note, perhaps, if it wasn't made clear to us by OP that he had the 2 Grung do that to dissuade the player from attacking them and back off. In and out of character the player was advised not to pursue this course of action. He decided to attack and kill someone, he also apparently intimidated them in a manner that was incredibly racist towards them, which probably didn't help his chances.

I read a little bit about Grung and it makes special note that they are INCREDIBLY tight knit in their castes, killing one of their own would likely not be received well.

On the rest, I personally don't think that the DM should retcon the situation but I think a worse outcome would be letting the player leave unsatisfied. The player is the one who made the mistake here, I don't see any reason the player couldn't have avoided the situation.

It is obvious that he approached the Grung in an alley, that much is explained in the OP, it is also obvious that the DM asked repeatedly if the player was sure he wanted to start a fight with 3 people all at once and it most assuredly makes sense that the living 2 Grung would then be justified in killing the player in self defense.

This DM didn't do anything out of line with what I as a player would expect from this sort of situation, that's the problem. This player expected to be the superhero and ended up dead, feeling cheated because he's playing a level 2 mortal character and was outnumbered in a game system that places a heavy focus on not being outnumbered. The players expectations in this case were unrealistic and a DM shouldn't have to babysit bad decisions.

In this case, I don't think it does anything to lessen the impact of these events. The player likely won't make the same mistake again and the DM is being incredibly generous to correct a "mistake" he didn't make.

[SiCK_Boy]

In this case, I don't think it does anything to lessen the impact of these events. The player likely won't make the same mistake again and the DM is being incredibly generous to correct a "mistake" he didn't make.

I think the DM should explicitly make sure, with the player, that he won't do the same mistake again, rather than just assume that the lesson was "learned". Maybe it was, but maybe the player will see this situation as "next time I get put in a tough spot, I can keep pushing my luck and then complain I was set up and the DM will just retcon it".

I would also really love to hear the reasoning of the DM for creating this scenario in the first place. Why go to the trouble of stealing the player's stuff, then dangle the thieves in front of a single player, and wait to see what happens? The whole scenario does feel like a set up.

Have the players been fighting against these thieves before? Is it the whole point of the campaign (PC vs thieves) and was this just a supposed to be a simple "meet your new foes" type of encounter?

Did the player even have anything worth stealing? Was the DM correcting a situation he created earlier by giving something too powerful too soon?

Or did the DM simply did not think it through in the first place, in which case, the discussion with the player should be much different. It can still include the "man, next time I tell you they seem too strong, trust my voice... treat it as the little lizard brain in your mind who cares about your survival first and foremost" part, but it could also include a discussion around the kind of adventure and challenge the players are looking for.

[Tanarii]

No, they will learn it soon enough on their own if you let things have natural consequences. You don't need to design an encounter to specifically teach this. By 'teaching', it sounds like you put new players into intentionally no-win situations, so that they will recognize them later on their own. That's backwards, just let them lose the first time they engage an unwinnable enounter in combat. I don't see forcing the pcs into a combat they will lose to add anything to the game.
That's your misinterpretation of what it means to be 'teaching' the players to back down. Not an inherent problem with the language.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I think the DM should explicitly make sure, with the player, that he won't do the same mistake again, rather than just assume that the lesson was "learned". Maybe it was, but maybe the player will see this situation as "next time I get put in a tough spot, I can keep pushing my luck and then complain I was set up and the DM will just retcon it".

I would also really love to hear the reasoning of the DM for creating this scenario in the first place. Why go to the trouble of stealing the player's stuff, then dangle the thieves in front of a single player, and wait to see what happens? The whole scenario does feel like a set up.

Have the players been fighting against these thieves before? Is it the whole point of the campaign (PC vs thieves) and was this just a supposed to be a simple "meet your new foes" type of encounter?

Did the player even have anything worth stealing? Was the DM correcting a situation he created earlier by giving something too powerful too soon?

Or did the DM simply did not think it through in the first place, in which case, the discussion with the player should be much different. It can still include the "man, next time I tell you they seem too strong, trust my voice... treat it as the little lizard brain in your mind who cares about your survival first and foremost" part, but it could also include a discussion around the kind of adventure and challenge the players are looking for.

It's not assumed that he learned his lesson, they've already had the discussion about retconning it as you mentioned so he HAS to be aware that doing that again is a no go. I doubt OP would offer to retcon the situation at all unless an understanding was made, that was the whole point this thread was made to begin with.

A good reason is that towns have criminals and people who leave themselves open to getting pickpocketed get stolen from, money is money. It also could very well have been intended to be a situation where the players were introduced to a new enemy that they would deal with together but this player immediately went to resolve the situation alone and payed a steep price for following a criminal into a dark alley. He could have found the guards, found his friends, tracked down the criminal from a distance to collect his things back stealthily or just let it go because some coin or weapon isn't worth dying over.

I think the player should have already heard the DM's voice as his own survival instincts when he was asked repeatedly if he was sure he wanted to do this with knives pressed at his back. There are so many better solutions to this situation and he set himself down the worst one despite repeated advising not to.

I can understand looking at this from both sides but I just can't see it clearly from any perspective other than the player is upset that he died in a situation he was given every opportunity to avoid. If the player feels set up it's because he set himself up. The situation was already made clear as "deadly" before he decided to commit to a fight, all it would have taken was a Disengage action and he could have ran out the alley a living man.

[Banaticus]

In times like this, I find the direct route is the best. Players are, quite frankly, inclined to be dumb. I don't know what it is, but as soon as you put a character sheet in front of somebody, their brain gets deep fried. So don't hint, indicate or lead them, just tell them straight up "Ill let you do this, but if you do you will probably die." And if they want to keep doing it, well, they were warned. Its their own fault at that point.

I would also add that what normal people read as a sign post saying "Certain death this way" PCs and other adventurer types will read as "This way to today's adventure." Overcoming odds is what adventurers do. So you need to be extremely clear about the difference between a plot hook and an intentionally insurmountable obstacle.
This is an amazing post. As a GM you kind of want your players to go risk life and limb and be crazy about death. You want them to go take on orcs to rescue some complete stranger. So you may need to be a little more blunt between, "I'm warning you that you're seriously going to die here" and "I'm warning you because it's fun to give you a challenge."

[suplee215]

To clear up some of the discussion, here is why I had it. The party was smaller than usual and I needed a filler type episode as the main path they were on (fighting in a tournament during the festival they are at). This town is an extremely small town that becomes a town of tents and other things during the summer solstice. I decided to add some grung thieves who see some of the tourists as easy marks. All that was stolen from 1 character (not the one who got killed) was a few nonnamed books, a small portion of vials from his alchemy kit and rations. Before the fight happened the character already replaced the vials and other alchemy stuff for 1 gold. I had the grungs be tailing each of them and they didn't notice every time. The reason I had the fighter see the grung was simply to have him see a grung and put two and two together once he finds out his friend was robbed and relay the information. I then expected the two characters to track down and kill the grungs, also giving them a bit more exp in the process. I also had the grungs working in small groups as is and when the fighter threatened the grung with the goods decided his friends showed himself. Now I intended the grungs to give him a choice to back off, although I do not fully remember if I did or not. At this point the fighter did decide he was fighting and started the combat. The player claims he thought at this point combat was unavoidable and if he turned his back he was going to be attacked from behind no matter what the grungs (or I) said. I also told him right afterwards that had him not killed one of the grungs they would not have killed him. I just see no reason they will not kill one who killed one of them. The player has been playing D&D for years, as long as I have if not longer. This game takes place at a store and before this one we used to play at another store (but at different tables). Despite these years of playing, he was unfamiliar with being hit while unconscious causing a death save so I am unsure if his previous DM did not bother with the rule, used an older edition rule (which I am unfamiliar with) where damage while dead caused negative HP or purposefully avoiding killing characters.

The session was a bit of a mess anyways with the other player being a wizard who just wanted to look for magic items, lore and alchemy lessons and the fighter wanting to gamble. So they were split up for most of the events and barely paying attention to the others. The player who plays the fighter also doesn't say much when I ask him the typical level 0 question of what he expects so it is a bit hard. He also joined after the first session where I asked a lot of those questions. Next session I am going to just ask the party as a whole what they expect from me, how much they want character deaths or want me to avoid them, etc.

[Pelle]

You might think it's backwards but it's very important in a DND campaign, whether you're playing it as a combat simulation or using it as a storytelling medium, that heroes can die if they make bad decisions.

That's why I am saying in the very sentence you are referring to, that you should let the players lose if they chose to engage with something that they can't win. Like in the OP scenario, let natural consequences take care of the learning process. I was objecting to forcing them into a no-win situation so they learn that the DM has no qualms about killing them. If you don't think that's backwards, you are advocating deliberatly killing them.


That's your misinterpretation of what it means to be 'teaching' the players to back down. Not an inherent problem with the language.

Cool. Then I didn't understand what you meant with that players can't learn it naturally. To me that happens naturally when the players attack something dangerous that was not intended as a combat encounter.



This player expected to be the superhero and ended up dead, feeling cheated because he's playing a level 2 mortal character and was outnumbered in a game system that places a heavy focus on not being outnumbered. The players expectations in this case were unrealistic and a DM shouldn't have to babysit bad decisions.


Yes, but whose fault is it that the player has the wrong expectations? Both player and DM in my opinion. If the player expects that combat encounters will be possible to win, then the DM should explicitly say that is not the case, not just expect that the player understand. Sure, the player probaby learnt when his character was killed, but don't want to return to the game either. Was that better for the game than just talking about expectations in advance or giving a proper warning?

[suplee215]

Yes, but whose fault is it that the player has the wrong expectations? Both player and DM in my opinion. If the player expects that combat encounters will be possible to win, then the DM should explicitly say that is not the case, not just expect that the player understand. Sure, the player probaby learnt when his character was killed, but don't want to return to the game either. Was that better for the game than just talking about expectations in advance or giving a proper warning?

And this is exactly why I made this thread. I accept that I probably messed up somewhere and I thank everyone in here for advice. I am just cautious of saying "you can do this but you'll die if you do" because it feels too much like "you can't do that" which can limit the joint story telling I see D&D is. And this is also why I decided to just retcon it out of the way although and get a better grasp of what the player(s) want out of the game. I also may need to go over the rules a bit more than I thought. He has been playing DnD for years and did not know that taking damage while at 0 causes death save fails which may pay part into why he didn't run.

[bobofwestgate]

Why would you, as a DM, want to teach a player that? Why would this be a "skill" that the player needs to learn? Why would you care whether or not a player knows when to run away or back down?

Is this just a "power trip"? Is it for the sake of "realism" (in life, there are things you cannot defeat and challenges you cannot overcome, so the game needs to be the same way)? Is it for the sake of the story you are telling (I need the PC to see how powerful this bad guy is, so they back down but hate him, and then it can lead to a better story later on when they are finally strong enough to beat him)? Is it just because you don't like having to figure out a way to introduce new characters, so you'd rather not have to deal with the trouble caused by a dead character?

The premise that "players need to learn to back down" is faulty, at least if it is not supported by a specific reason.

Some players refuse to get attached to their PC. They won't enjoy the game if they don't die every 2-3 sessions! These players don't need to learn to back down; they need a DM who presents them with tough challenges and won't hold back on them (and the one time they'll make it through and "beat the odds" will be that memorable session for the player)!

Before the DM gets to play the role of a neutral arbiter describing how the world works and using game rules and dices to determine some outcome (ex: rolling damage dice to determine how much damage is caused by a monster attack), the DM is a very active participant in creating the situations he puts the PCs in. A DM claiming that "the player needs to learn to run away" or "the player should have known he was outmatched" or "I gave him all the clues in the world, but he didn't catch on" is really no more different than a player doing something stupid or creating problems for everyone in the party and claiming "that's what my character would do".

In the scenario above, the DM is entirely responsible for deciding that there would be some encounter while the party was split (the DM did not decide the party would split, but once the players make the call, the subsequent events are in the DM's control), he is responsible for having a player's equipment stolen, he is responsible for having the other player meet the thieves, he is responsible for having given that player a chance to notice the theft, he is responsible for the grung's initial reactions (taking offense, threatening the player, engaging in the fight), and he is responsible for how the grung ended the fight (by killing the player) and not using any outside intervention to prevent or mitigate that impact.

Not all of this is bad, mind you. But it is a problem if it came "as a surprise" to the DM. If all along the DM was expecting that "the PC should have known he had to back off", then that DM seriously misjudged the scenario he was putting the player through.

Others have pointed out how stealing player's stuff is always a very sensitive subject, leading to disproportionate reactions from most players. Players can misjudge the dangerosity of an opponent, or over-estimate their own combat skills. Maybe it was just bad dice rolls (although I think this fight was clearly one the player could not win barring some very great rolls in his favor - would need to know the full stats of everyone to fully assess).

The fact that the DM, after the fact, seems to be unhappy with the result (since he went to the trouble of coming to this forum and asking for advice) means, in my view, that the result was not one the DM had anticipated. And that, I believe, is the major problem in this scenario.

If the DM was confident that the outcome was fair (based on the scenario, game rules and world logic & consistency), that the player had enough agency and options to control the outcome to a major extent, that this result will allow the story to progress in a meaningful way, then there is no problem. The fact that the DM is now willing to retcon the whole session is further proof that he clearly did not think things through beforehand. Obviously, we're not at the table, and it's always easier to judge these situations in hindsight.

I don't think the OP ever explained what his train of thought was as a DM during the whole thing. Why did he have the grungs steal the equipment? What was he trying to accomplish here?

Even when the DM is satisfied with the result (as in, the result is conform to what he had in mind), players may disagree. It comes down to expectations. If players expect that they will never face a fight they cannot win, then they may be surprised (in a bad way) when a DM has them facing opponents too strong for them.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that, as a DM, you should anticipate these possibilities, and avoid putting "deadly" challenges in front of the players in situations where you are not ready, as a DM, to deal with the consequences (in this case, a death), or when you realize your players are not ready to deal with the consequences either. And if there are too many instances where DM's views and player's views clash, then you need to talk about expectations so that the table is all on the same page.

It's important for the player's to know there are times where they can't win by fighting. There are encounters where combat isn't the answer. Even in published modules there are situations where you can't win, only survive. Curse of Strahd comes to mind. There's at least half a dozen chances to encounter Strahd before the final battle. And if you try to fight him, he will eat your whole party if you persist.

[Tanarii]

. Cool. Then I didn't understand what you meant with that players can't learn it naturally. To me that happens naturally when the players attack something dangerous that was not intended as a combat encounter.
I said that in response to a post claiming that combat encounters should not be so dangerous they could kill the players.

In such a game, the players are being taught they cannot die. They cannot naturally learn that some potential combat encounters are beyond them.

(Edit: correction, I went back and looked. It was that there should be any encounters they cannot win.)

[SiCK_Boy]

It's important for the player's to know there are times where they can't win by fighting. There are encounters where combat isn't the answer. Even in published modules there are situations where you can't win, only survive. Curse of Strahd comes to mind. There's at least half a dozen chances to encounter Strahd before the final battle. And if you try to fight him, he will eat your whole party if you persist.

Encounters that you cannot win by fighting are different than encounters where combat is not the answer, which are differents from situation where you can't win, only survive.

Encountering Strahd early in Curse of Strahd is a case where the big bad basically tries to troll out the PCs. As a DM, these encounters are very dangerous to put in front of the players, because you know that the PCs are not ready to win the fight. Yet, a DM who would simply have Strahd appear in the middle of a road and start telling the PCs that they are welcome to his domain, and they'll never leave alive would certainly be to blame, in my view, once the players just start throwing spells and attacking the vampire... that DM would be even worse if he then told the players "you see the vampire's eyes turn red. I'm warning you, as a DM, that you have no chance to win. Do you want to continue attacking?", to which the player respond they keep attacking, and then Strahd kills them.

Knowing that some encounter are unwinnable nice and all; sending those encounters at the PC with no backup plan or no purpose other than to see if they will be wise enough to not take the bait is bad.

Encounters where combat is not the answer are particularly difficult to set up if they involve opposing monsters or enemies. If you put players in a room with lava floors (as in another post made today on the forum), the players will realize quickly that "combat is not the answer" and try to use skills or spells or other approaches. But if you give them thieves, humanoid thieves of a race not known to be uber-powerful at that, you may think that the best approach is to follow them sneakily, or call the cops on them... but in a game primarily about combat prowess, most players will feel like combat is a legitimate answer. The DM has to share part of the blame for such a setup. One way to move players away from this behavior is to provide incentives to do so: give more XP when they negotiate rather than kill, have the law be applied with vigor against shady NPC (and not just against the PC, as I went through in another campaign, where every single guard we encountered was corrupt to the bone and would never believe us or offer to help us in any way). Don't just expect that the players will learn to "not fight" naturally and quickly; and if you want to make them suffer through some encounters for the sake of teaching them, then assume your acts as a DM and don't retcon it... but maybe some players will prefer to leave.

Repetition will eventually lead to some kind of learning, but it can be a painful process.

[Snails]

The thieves might be more the "steal in an inn" kind, but the PC dude just had killed one of their associates.

I don't think they'd feel merciful after that, even if they didn't care about the killed guy. After all, it mean the PC was trying to kill *them* too.

Good point. But is that NPC actually dead, or just unconscious? The rules just handwave the question for convenience of easier play. Well, "convenient" really means what is convenient for the DM to keep his or her game running more smoothly.

[suplee215]

Good point. But is that NPC actually dead, or just unconscious? The rules just handwave the question for convenience of easier play. Well, "convenient" really means what is convenient for the DM to keep his or her game running more smoothly.

There is an option in the book for any melee attack to deal nonkilling damage instead so I usually go with "dead unless said otherwise".

[Snails]

This is an amazing post. As a GM you kind of want your players to go risk life and limb and be crazy about death. You want them to go take on orcs to rescue some complete stranger. So you may need to be a little more blunt between, "I'm warning you that you're seriously going to die here" and "I'm warning you because it's fun to give you a challenge."

Teaching your players is a much bigger topic than merely some encounters are not for fighting.

Do you want to teach your players that PCs erring on the side of bravery is more fun? Or that PCs should err on the side of cowardice? Because once you teach your players that the "smart" thing is cowardice, you are going to have much more trouble motivating your players to do things the DM will enjoying DMing.

They will literally get randomly spooked and march right out of the module when it is halfway through -- I have seen it. That was the accidental result of a DM who thought that being "tough" would teach the players to be "smart", coupled with hints that were far too "clever".

[Pelle]

And this is exactly why I made this thread. I accept that I probably messed up somewhere and I thank everyone in here for advice. I am just cautious of saying "you can do this but you'll die if you do" because it feels too much like "you can't do that" which can limit the joint story telling I see D&D is. And this is also why I decided to just retcon it out of the way although and get a better grasp of what the player(s) want out of the game. I also may need to go over the rules a bit more than I thought. He has been playing DnD for years and did not know that taking damage while at 0 causes death save fails which may pay part into why he didn't run.

Yes, that's good. Both parties are responsible for having the right expectations, so communication is key. Even if you are doing nothing wrong, you have to acknowledge what the player feels. Especially when he doesn't know all the rules, it feels like you are baiting him into a situation and hitting him with unkown rules just to kill him. It's his fault that he don't know the rules, but so what?

I have numerous times played games (board games and rpgs) where I have explained all the rules. Then someone forgets one, didn't pay attention when it was explained, or don't understand the implication of the rules. Then that player feels cheated when he lose because of it, often claiming the rule wasn't mentioned, when I know very well it was. Yes, the player is at fault, but it doesn't help pointing fingers. Just try to check with the player before he does something stupid that he understands the consequences of the action. You might limit the joint storytelling somewhat by affecting the actions the player make, but it's more important to make the player understand the situation fully. Sometimes that might include "you don't know how skilled these enemies are, but if they are more skilled than you you will certainly be killed". Then the player still has to make the choice himself, but he might not have realized that being killed was a possibility at all.

[Pex]

Teaching your players is a much bigger topic than merely some encounters are not for fighting.

Do you want to teach your players that PCs erring on the side of bravery is more fun? Or that PCs should err on the side of cowardice? Because once you teach your players that the "smart" thing is cowardice, you are going to have much more trouble motivating your players to do things the DM will enjoying DMing.

They will literally get randomly spooked and march right out of the module when it is halfway through -- I have seen it. That was the accidental result of a DM who thought that being "tough" would teach the players to be "smart", coupled with hints that were far too "clever".

Taken to the extreme, when the villagers tell the 3rd level party the nearby swamp is dangerous anyone who goes in never comes back, the players are not being stupid when they go into the swamp to investigate the plot hook and promptly get dissolved by the acid breath of a black dragon with the DM rolling his eyes saying "I told you it was dangerous".

[Tanarii]

Taken to the extreme, when the villagers tell the 3rd level party the nearby swamp is dangerous anyone who goes in never comes back, the players are not being stupid when they go into the swamp to investigate the plot hook and promptly get dissolved by the acid breath of a black dragon with the DM rolling his eyes saying "I told you it was dangerous".
A player that takes no precautions, makes no attempts to find out why its dangerous, to seperate fact from superstition, who just blunders in and gets dissolved ...

Yeah, they deserved to die. They didnt pay any attention to what the DM telegraphed.

[ShadowImmor]

It seems to me that there's a middle ground to be had, but I feel like the most important thing a lot of people are saying is give the player several "outs" and at each one warn them that it could lead to death. If they ignore you, hey, it's on them. If they take an out no harm, no foul. You must also telegraph the outs so the player knows that A) It's a "Safe" (by which I mean they may suffer some minor damage or reputational damage/lose some gold) route, and B) They should take it.

[Chaosmancer]

And this is exactly why I made this thread. I accept that I probably messed up somewhere and I thank everyone in here for advice. I am just cautious of saying "you can do this but you'll die if you do" because it feels too much like "you can't do that" which can limit the joint story telling I see D&D is. And this is also why I decided to just retcon it out of the way although and get a better grasp of what the player(s) want out of the game. I also may need to go over the rules a bit more than I thought. He has been playing DnD for years and did not know that taking damage while at 0 causes death save fails which may pay part into why he didn't run.

I wouldn't worry so much about the bolded part suplee.

The thing is, players often don't want their characters to die. Telling them "this path of action is 99% likely to kill your character. You can go forward, but unless you've got some incredible luck you will die." is very different to my mind than "I won't allow you to do this."

To derive a crazy scenario. Let's say an enemy flew over a cliff to escape the party, and the fighter decides to jump after them. I've got no problem telling that fighter that if they don't roll a 20 they are going to fall 500 ft and die instantly. They can still do it, but being aware of the consequences allows them to own their decision and subsequent death. It was their plan, and their plan failed.

Not like that always works.

I had a guy who wanted some info during downtime and it was inocously unimportant at the time plus he rolled well enough to talk to someone who actually knew something.

So, he went alone (he wanted to be sneaky) and talked to a mob boss who told him everything he wanted to know. However, the player didn't like the guys tone (yeah, I know) so he drew his weapon and attacked. By himself. In the middle of this guy's hideout.

So, he got wrecked. Obviously. However, I knew we only had a few sessions left, and I knew this player would be upset over his character dying, so instead of killing him I had him wake up naked and tied up on the other side of the city. Clearly he should have learned a lesson right?

Well, of course not. He declares that he is going to march, naked and weaponless, back to the hideout, kill everyone, and get his magical gear back.

Luckily the other players stepped in and forced him to at least grab them and some back up gear, but it just goes to show sometimes people are dumb and there is nothing you can do about it.

[Plantae]

The player made a stupid decision, but as others have noted, it's best to just be explicit when combat would be deadly to the PCs, especially because similar-looking creatures can have greatly varying stats.

It probably doesn't matter, but I am curious about the minutiae here. What CR were the grungs? How many rounds did the combat last and what actions did the PC and the grungs take?

[Pex]

A player that takes no precautions, makes no attempts to find out why its dangerous, to seperate fact from superstition, who just blunders in and gets dissolved ...

Yeah, they deserved to die. They didnt pay any attention to what the DM telegraphed.

It's the adventurer's job to go where villagers say a place is dangerous and try to make it not dangerous anymore. The dragon can still be there, but it doesn't have to open parley with its acid breath. If the players attack it that's on them, but if they see the dragon the dragon breathes, that's the DM being a donkey cavity. It could just want to talk. It may not even be the reason people are disappearing.


I wouldn't worry so much about the bolded part suplee.

The thing is, players often don't want their characters to die. Telling them "this path of action is 99% likely to kill your character. You can go forward, but unless you've got some incredible luck you will die." is very different to my mind than "I won't allow you to do this."

To derive a crazy scenario. Let's say an enemy flew over a cliff to escape the party, and the fighter decides to jump after them. I've got no problem telling that fighter that if they don't roll a 20 they are going to fall 500 ft and die instantly. They can still do it, but being aware of the consequences allows them to own their decision and subsequent death. It was their plan, and their plan failed.

Not like that always works.

I had a guy who wanted some info during downtime and it was inocously unimportant at the time plus he rolled well enough to talk to someone who actually knew something.

So, he went alone (he wanted to be sneaky) and talked to a mob boss who told him everything he wanted to know. However, the player didn't like the guys tone (yeah, I know) so he drew his weapon and attacked. By himself. In the middle of this guy's hideout.

So, he got wrecked. Obviously. However, I knew we only had a few sessions left, and I knew this player would be upset over his character dying, so instead of killing him I had him wake up naked and tied up on the other side of the city. Clearly he should have learned a lesson right?

Well, of course not. He declares that he is going to march, naked and weaponless, back to the hideout, kill everyone, and get his magical gear back.

Luckily the other players stepped in and forced him to at least grab them and some back up gear, but it just goes to show sometimes people are dumb and there is nothing you can do about it.

Some players don't take kindly to NPCs humiliating them. It's a motivator for vengeance as much as losing their stuff. When they're so enraged being reasonable does not exist. That's on them. The DM and fellow players should attempt interference, but be mindful the player is enraged because he took it personally. The good news is he's still playing so his anger is towards the NPC, the proper direction at least. If he blamed the DM he'd quit playing.

For those DMs who do it on purpose for the sake of humiliating the player through the NPC for his own jollies, I salute them with one finger.

Edit: NOT saying that's what you did here.

[suplee215]

It probably doesn't matter, but I am curious about the minutiae here. What CR were the grungs? How many rounds did the combat last and what actions did the PC and the grungs take?

The grungs were CR 1/4. There were 3 of the them. THe battle lasted 3 rounds, 5 until total death. I admit, I did roll rather high, rolling a 12 or higher to hit him (AC 16, +4 attack bonus on grungs) but I was even showing the numbers to make sure there was no accusations of me lying. As a dwarf fighter he had advantage and profiency on the con saves for poison (DC 11) but the purple one did take him out of the round for the first turn (puple grung causes a person to spend their time covering themselves in liquid) except for when he used second wind. Second round is when he used action surge to kill one of the grungs. Third round he went down. 4th and 5th they proceeded to kill him. THey also won initiative.

[Tanarii]

It's the adventurer's job to go where villagers say a place is dangerous and try to make it not dangerous anymore. That's just crazy.

If the villagers asked for help, but warned them it was dangerous ... I'd still expect them to take some sensible precautions.

But telling them its deadly dangrous and no one ever comes put alive? No request for help or other indication that they should go there? Thats a direct DM warning that you're not ready for the area.

[JoeJ]

It's the adventurer's job to go where villagers say a place is dangerous and try to make it not dangerous anymore. The dragon can still be there, but it doesn't have to open parley with its acid breath. If the players attack it that's on them, but if they see the dragon the dragon breathes, that's the DM being a donkey cavity. It could just want to talk. It may not even be the reason people are disappearing.

Going into a situation that they've been told is deadly dangerous without making any effort at all to find out what the danger is before they stumble into it is Hold Muh Beer level stupid. (Unless you're playing comic book superheroes, in which case it's just your regular job.)

[Chaosmancer]

That's just crazy.

If the villagers asked for help, but warned them it was dangerous ... I'd still expect them to take some sensible precautions.

But telling them its deadly dangrous and no one ever comes put alive? No request for help or other indication that they should go there? Thats a direct DM warning that you're not ready for the area.

Actually... That's kind of how I introduce areas to challenge the players.

In fact, on a campaign I'm about to start I was asked how dangerous the country side around this colony is and I said it was "high walls and a kill zone where they shoot anything that moves"

That's not to discourage them from going in there, it is to make them tense and excited.

And some players don't bother asking what is in the dangerous area if I don't give clues in the beginning, because too many DMs will do "nobody knows" to keep the mystery and tension fresh.

It is a style choice, depending on the literature you want to emulate

[Snails]

It is a style choice, depending on the literature you want to emulate

Exactly. It is a genre/style choice.

The literature, the myths, the movies, the comic books I read do not have heroes who are easily dissuaded by the vague mumblings of frightened goatherds. You can call my PC stupid all you want, but, yes, I am playing him stupid just like Aragorn is stupid. That's how we roll. Booyah!

[JoeJ]

Exactly. It is a genre/style choice.

The literature, the myths, the movies, the comic books I read do not have heroes who are easily dissuaded by the vague mumblings of frightened goatherds. You can call my PC stupid all you want, but, yes, I am playing him stupid just like Aragorn is stupid. That's how we roll. Booyah!

Just make sure you and the DM are both playing the same sub-genre.

[Keltest]

Exactly. It is a genre/style choice.

The literature, the myths, the movies, the comic books I read do not have heroes who are easily dissuaded by the vague mumblings of frightened goatherds. You can call my PC stupid all you want, but, yes, I am playing him stupid just like Aragorn is stupid. That's how we roll. Booyah!

Aragorn never just charged into battle without a clue of what to expect though. Theres a difference between planning around known danger and acting in spite of it. Most heroes and successful protagonists employ the former.

[Tanarii]

Going into a situation that they've been told is deadly dangerous without making any effort at all to find out what the danger is before they stumble into it is Hold Muh Beer level stupid. (Unless you're playing comic book superheroes, in which case it's just your regular job.)
Actually that's not a bad comparison. Some tables are apparently playing comic book superheroes. And not the gritty kind. The plot-armor invulnerable kind.

And players who learned to game at those tables don't learn how to save their own life.


Actually... That's kind of how I introduce areas to challenge the players.

In fact, on a campaign I'm about to start I was asked how dangerous the country side around this colony is and I said it was "high walls and a kill zone where they shoot anything that moves"

That's not to discourage them from going in there, it is to make them tense and excited.I'm going to repeat myself. That's just crazy.

Unless the point you're trying to communicate is:
almost no one comes out, including you if you try, so expect you're going to die unless you're very clever and very lucky. If you're up for that challege, go for it. But don't whine if you do die.


And some players don't bother asking what is in the dangerous area if I don't give clues in the beginning, because too many DMs will do "nobody knows" to keep the mystery and tension fresh.Clues are a good idea. Smart players hunt for them if they don't get handed them for free.


It is a style choice, depending on the literature you want to emulateSure. Problem is one teaches you the habit of getting killed when you switch genre. The other doesn't hurt at all, unless there are bonus points for blindly charging into danger. Circling back to what I said above, and modifying it for agreeing to this point: it's comic book superhero crazy. :smallamused:

BTW, don't get me wrong: sometimes the clever thing to do is swift and decisive action, and the careless thing is overthinking the problem. :smallwink:

[Snails]

Aragorn never just charged into battle without a clue of what to expect though. Theres a difference between planning around known danger and acting in spite of it. Most heroes and successful protagonists employ the former.

A degree of stubborn bravery in the face of some risk, including unknowns, is normal among those known as heroes. There is a world of difference between taking a peek around a dangerous swamp and choosing to gamble one's life on a possibly doomed battle just because it is there.

[JoeJ]

A degree of stubborn bravery in the face of some risk, including unknowns, is normal among those known as heroes. There is a world of difference between taking a peek around a dangerous swamp and choosing to gamble one's life on a possibly doomed battle just because it is there.

I'll just leave this here.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9xnfyyiTf0

[SiCK_Boy]

..."you don't know how skilled these enemies are, but if they are more skilled than you you will certainly be killed". ...

In this case, in fact, the enemies were not more skilled than the PC. The PC has probably a better attack bonus, more hp, a better AC, and better powers between his class and race features than the enemies. Damage output is probably close, when accounting for the grung's extra poison damage (offset by the PC being a dwarf).

The key factor in this battle is the number of enemies rather than their individual strength. Action economy is the key factor. If the 3 grungs decided to go at the PC one after the other, the PC would have most likely won. But 3 vs 1 is a really tall order, especially with a PC who probably can only absorb 3-4 hits at most (up to 5 or 6 with second wind), before getting knocked unconscious.

[Chaosmancer]

I'm going to repeat myself. That's just crazy.

Unless the point you're trying to communicate is:
almost no one comes out, including you if you try, so expect you're going to die unless you're very clever and very lucky. If you're up for that challege, go for it. But don't whine if you do die.

See, but what is the alternative?

It wasn't even session 1, I'm just hyping a game that was agreed on minutes ago, with very little prep done on purpose in case they had different ideas for the game.

So when they say "how dangerous is this borderland" am I supposed to respond with "oh, its not bad. The occasional monster attack but if you're smart you'll be fine"

I mean, I'm sure you sell your stuff better, but sometimes you want to upsell your product. If there isn't great danger, why are we going there? Sure sometimes you get people who then get used to hearing "Danger: do not enter" and just scoff, but if you actually deliver enough danger most of the time they'll turn that around into A) knowing the adventure lies that way and B) respecting that it was called "The Forest of Death for a reason, and they should approach cautiously, while hopefully not encouraging "But this sounds dangerous, do we really cate enough about the Princess to fight a Dragon that lives in the Forest of Death? I heard there was some easy gold in the church, only guarded by an old guy. Lets play it safe"



Sure. Problem is one teaches you the habit of getting killed when you switch genre. The other doesn't hurt at all, unless there are bonus points for blindly charging into danger. Circling back to what I said above, and modifying it for agreeing to this point: it's comic book superhero crazy. :smallamused:

BTW, don't get me wrong: sometimes the clever thing to do is swift and decisive action, and the careless thing is overthinking the problem. :smallwink:

See the thing is, you are conflating two unrelated points.

Just because I tell my players "No one who enters the Cave of Doom is ever heard from again" and they go in and survive the horrors within doesn't mean that when I say "No one has survived traveling through the Demon's Pass in 200 years" they are just going to laugh and stroll in with their weapons sheathed.

Quite often they will ask follow up questions and seek out experts who might know more. They prepare because I signaled "this place is dangerous" where if I just kept silent they'd be a little miffed no one mentioned the fact that everyone who has attempted the route recently has died.

[Trickshaw]

I read your response as never put a PC in a position where they risk death or even loss. (Kobyashi Maru has a point.)

Then you read wrong.

[Tanarii]

See, but what is the alternative?To actually communicate the appropriate danger, so they can make informed decisions. And contrast it vs their need and desire.


So when they say "how dangerous is this borderland" am I supposed to respond with "oh, its not bad. The occasional monster attack but if you're smart you'll be fine" That works if its the case.

But more commonly a desire to be heroic, or complete a task, or succeed where no one else has before, or even just get rich ... is enough to propel adventurers intp a situation they know is dangerous but not guaranteed deadly. So you can talk up exactly how deadly it is, and they'll do it anyway. And as long as you didnt overinflate the actual risk, they don't "learn" they're invulnerable powerhouses.

It's not so important if theyre on a linear adventure or adventure arc where theyre going to do it anyway because they've committed to the adventure. But if they're in a more of a sandbox with a choice of adventuring locations /hooks appropriate to a variety of different leveled groups, which one they are willing to try matters. Amd they need the ability to judge risk vs reward accurately.

I mean, I suppose I could choose to be direct. "This area is appropriate for a party of 4-6 characters of levels 6-8" :)

On a smaller scale, the value of being able to accurately assess risks and make appropriate choices on how to approach things holds true even for a single party, unless every encounter that might be combat is tailored to their level and clearly indicated as a "combat" encounter.

[Astofel]

That's just crazy.

If the villagers asked for help, but warned them it was dangerous ... I'd still expect them to take some sensible precautions.

But telling them its deadly dangrous and no one ever comes put alive? No request for help or other indication that they should go there? Thats a direct DM warning that you're not ready for the area.

The problem here is that 'no-one comes out alive' is meaningless in a village that's most likely full of commoner NPCs. Damn near anything can kill one of those without even breaking a sweat. The thing in the swamp could be a troll, or it could be an ancient black dragon. One of those is an appropriate challenge for a 5th level party, the other is most assuredly not. Many players also assume that whatever the DM describes must be relevant to them in some way. After all, if they weren't supposed to do anything with it, why would the DM bother mentioning the swamp at all?

I do agree that it's a terrible plot hook, though. At the very least the hook line should be something like "Ever since those strange lights/noises/whatever started appearing in the swamp, no-one who's gone there at night has ever come back. Well, except for Jenkins over there, but he hasn't been the same since."

[Tanarii]

The problem here is that 'no-one comes out alive' is meaningless in a village that's most likely full of commoner NPCs. Damn near anything can kill one of those without even breaking a sweat. The thing in the swamp could be a troll, or it could be an ancient black dragon. One of those is an appropriate challenge for a 5th level party, the other is most assuredly not. Many players also assume that whatever the DM describes must be relevant to them in some way. After all, if they weren't supposed to do anything with it, why would the DM bother mentioning the swamp at all?
That's the entire (two) points.

First, it's insufficient information, no hook, just a description the area is deadly dangerous. That should, in theory, warrant further information gathering. Not just blundering into it all fat and happy that you can handle it.

The other point is: Players assuming that the DM is describing something that they can specifically handle. Or all situations they get into are ones they can handle. Thus, this thread, and the discussion on why this is potentially problematic.

[Pelle]

The other point is: Players assuming that the DM is describing something that they can specifically handle. Or all situations they get into are ones they can handle. Thus, this thread, and the discussion on why this is potentially problematic.

That's fine, different styles etc. I don't mind it, and myself typically design encounters without care for combat balance, letting players figure out what they should do. But what do you do as a DM when you sense that the players assume wrongly, presumably based on the styles of games they have played before? Do you
1. Keep silent, and let them stupidly walk into danger having their character mercilessly killed, so that they will learn the hard way what style of game you are running?
or
2. Warn them OoC that "listen guys, I know you are used to being able to win every combat encounter you face, but the way I run games ..." and give them a chance to correct their assumptions?

I think the first one is bad, because it is kind of dishonest, and more importantly you risk losing the trust of the players and they might not want to return.

[Magzimum]

How do you make a player back down?

Go overkill.

Let us imagine you don't want your players to fight the evil frog guy who just stole your buddy's gear and cash. (Let us also assume you really want to take away their stuff, because you are an evil evil DM :smile: ).

Do: Narrate: The evil frog joins 28 of his friends. All of them seem armed and alert. It is also abundantly clear that the two big bouncers at the door as well as the barman are friends with the frogs. Now, if a player still attacks, then I would say it is the player's fault.
Don't: Check the encounter calculator, and make the fight deadly with 3 frogs, assuming that the player will know the stats of the frogs and realize that 3 of them is a deadly fight. They will not back down, because you just presented a plot hook because you stole their stuff. Good players actually follow that hook. They will also rely on the age-old strategy of over-estimating their own strength and luck, and they will hope/assume you provide them with an ally.

[Tanarii]

That's fine, different styles etc. I don't mind it, and myself typically design encounters without care for combat balance, letting players figure out what they should do. But what do you do as a DM when you sense that the players assume wrongly, presumably based on the styles of games they have played before? Do you
1. Keep silent, and let them stupidly walk into danger having their character mercilessly killed, so that they will learn the hard way what style of game you are running?
or
2. Warn them OoC that "listen guys, I know you are used to being able to win every combat encounter you face, but the way I run games ..." and give them a chance to correct their assumptions?

I think the first one is bad, because it is kind of dishonest, and more importantly you risk losing the trust of the players and they might not want to return.
Neither.

First of all, at my table:
1) They've been warned in the session 0 document.
2) I frequently reiterate the warning at the beginning of sessions, especially when there is a newer to my table player in the group.
3) By now, most of my regular players know the style very well.

But generally speaking, for a new group that's been warned in the session 0 doc, and had a warning at the beginning of session, that there will be things they cannot handle in combat in the campaign? Ramp up the telegraphing. Including in the first round of combat if need be. If they ignore telegraphing? Let them die. They'll learn.

For a new group where I've not explicitly warned them there would be things they cannot handle in combat, but there probably will be anyway? Yeah, totally give them an "OOC" warning the first time it happens. Then double check after the session that they're all on the same page as you for the future.

I'm explicitly thinking of Tomb of Annihilation for the latter. I'm pretty sure most groups won't go into it realizing they can easily be extremely outmatched and may need to flee frequently. So DMs are unlikely to make that explicitly clear before the adventure-path begins. For that matter, I'm willing to bet there are plenty of DMs running it that will start combat encounters not evening being fully aware that the PCs are completely outclassed, and thus fail to telegraph the encounters properly.

[Pelle]

Neither.

First of all, at my table:
1) They've been warned in the session 0 document.
2) I frequently reiterate the warning at the beginning of sessions, especially when there is a newer to my table player in the group.
3) By now, most of my regular players know the style very well.


Here you are just skipping my premise by saying the players will not assume wrongly...



Yeah, totally give them an "OOC" warning the first time it happens. Then double check after the session that they're all on the same page as you for the future.


So you agree then, great! :smallsmile:

[Tanarii]

Here you are just skipping my premise by saying the players will not assume wrongly...I am not. I'm establish the ground rules that they've been sufficiently warned. I am not dismissing they may still assume wrong anyway.

Then I go on to explain the answer is neither "let them die" nor "tell them OOC". It's telegraph appropriately. Ramp it up, even in the first round of combat when you can still tell they're still assuming wrong.

If none of that works, then and only then do I proceed to "let them die".


So you agree then, great! :smallsmile:
I have no issue with a DM giving direct-to-players warming, when they have had no previous explicit warning that they may face things that they will totally outclass them, and massacre them if they just try to take these things on in direct head-on combat.

This is absolutely necessary because so many players have been trained by other DMs (and adventure/module/adventure-path writers) to believe that this situation will never actually happen. So they do not know how to stay alive when suddenly confronted with a game where it can happen.

[Angelalex242]

I generally use math to decide when to back down.

When fighting drow last Wednesday, I was ready to go full charging against a party of them until the wizard fireballed...he had sculpt spell, so he didn't hurt the party, but he caused a cave in and knocked 2/3 of the party out.

When it became 2 on 6 instead of 6 on 6, I laid down my sword.

[Pex]

That's the entire (two) points.

First, it's insufficient information, no hook, just a description the area is deadly dangerous. That should, in theory, warrant further information gathering. Not just blundering into it all fat and happy that you can handle it.

The other point is: Players assuming that the DM is describing something that they can specifically handle. Or all situations they get into are ones they can handle. Thus, this thread, and the discussion on why this is potentially problematic.

You're assuming players aren't looking for more information beforehand. You're assuming there is information to be had aside from going into the area villagers said was dangerous and see what's there to make it not dangerous anymore as adventurers are supposed to do.

[Tanarii]

You're assuming players aren't looking for more information beforehand. You're assuming there is information to be had aside from going into the area villagers said was dangerous and see what's there to make it not dangerous anymore as adventurers are supposed to do.
Youre right.

Either the players did something stupid and didn't look for info that is there, the players did something stupid and assumed they were supposed to go somewhere dangerous without any prep just because its dangerous and they stupidly thought that is what they were supposed to do, the DM failed to tell them its not a comic superhero game where they can be stupid like that and face no consequences, or the DM failed to provide make available additional info when they went looking for it on top of bare-bones (but very clear) telegraphing.

Or a tryrannic DM who gets off on killing players. 😂

[Pex]

Youre right.

Either the players did something stupid and didn't look for info that is there, the players did something stupid and assumed they were supposed to go somewhere dangerous without any prep just because its dangerous and they stupidly thought that is what they were supposed to do, the DM failed to tell them its not a comic superhero game where they can be stupid like that and face no consequences, or the DM failed to provide make available additional info when they went looking for it on top of bare-bones (but very clear) telegraphing.

Or a tryrannic DM who gets off on killing players. 😂

Which was my original point. The players are not stupid at 3rd level investigating a swamp the villagers say is dangerous only to be dissolved by the acid breath of a black dragon with the DM rolling his eyes while saying "I told you it was dangerous."

[Tanarii]

Which was my original point. The players are not stupid at 3rd level investigating a swamp the villagers say is dangerous only to be dissolved by the acid breath of a black dragon with the DM rolling his eyes while saying "I told you it was dangerous."
... provided the DM didn't tell them it's not a comic book super hero game where it's okay to be stupid and "investigate" something they've been warned is dangerous by stumbling into it unprepared ... I agree.

Or maybe the genre is horror.
PCs: "Let's go see what's in the pitch black basement in the abandoned farmhouse where witches are known to have committed black demon summoning sacrilege. What can possible go wrong?"
Audience: "don't go in there!"

[Pex]

... provided the DM didn't tell them it's not a comic book super hero game where it's okay to be stupid and "investigate" something they've been warned is dangerous by stumbling into it unprepared ... I agree.

Or maybe the genre is horror.
PCs: "Let's go see what's in the pitch black basement in the abandoned farmhouse where witches are known to have committed black demon summoning sacrilege. What can possible go wrong?"
Audience: "don't go in there!"

It's like you're taking it personally, as if you actually did have NPCs say a swamp is dangerous, players went in and got dissolved by acid breath, got chewed out by them, and now you have a session 0.

[Beelzebubba]

I lay it out all up front. This is the spiel I give players early on. It works.

--

"I've found the game is more fun when there is actual risk, and every encounter isn't set up to always be 100% winnable in direct combat. It's hard to narrate that, so in those cases I'll just tell you straight up that your character knows it.

But, since un-winnable situations aren't fun, there will almost always be ways you can overcome them - some exploitable weakness. The trick is to find them, through cleverness, stealth or planning. That's where I go out of my way to reward creativity, and use 'rule of cool' to make stuff just work if it's entertaining enough for the group and fits your character. So, think of those as puzzles, and combat is something to be employed at certain times and places to solve them.

It's a bummer to always feel out-gunned, so that's just one type of encounter, and I'll mix it up from session to session to keep it fresh. Those situations will generally be at pivotal moments, and hopefully feel 'right' in context.

The only situations that will truly be un-winnable will be the consequence of a series of character choices, or a few outlandishly bad ones and a series of terrible dice rolls. Again, in those cases, I'll straight up warn you, because I never want someone to leave the table thinking I put them in an unfair situation because my narration wasn't explicit enough."

[Tanarii]

It's like you're taking it personally, as if you actually did have NPCs say a swamp is dangerous, players went in and got dissolved by acid breath, got chewed out by them, and now you have a session 0.
Nah. Too much coffee + stressful workday = getting overly invested in online disagreements.

[Chaosmancer]

Nah. Too much coffee + stressful workday = getting overly invested in online disagreements.

Yeah, I understand that (well, not the too much coffee ;) )

And honestly, I think we all agree more than disagree here.

Thinking about this if I was a player, enter some random village, someone says "the swamp is dangerous". My first question is "why is it dangerous?"

If random villagers says no one knows, I'll ask around and confirm "no one?"

If it really is no one... Then I'm assuming the DM has given me all tge information available. After all, if there was more information to be had, me asking for more information should have uncovered at least a hint of who to talk to.

Then, it depends on some meta-knowledge. If we are between quests and don't have a clear direction (or if the game so far has been a "help people along the way" style game) then I'm likely to assume this is the DM signaling "I prepared a swamp adventure for you guys". If we are mid-quest (delivering an item or person, racing to stop an xxxx) then I'll probably argue against going in, it is a distraction from our main goals. And, I suspect it would be an arguement because other players will see it as signaling "swamp adventure" and not want to ignore the DMs hard work and plans.

But all out this is predicated on the fact that there was no more information to be had. Because, let's be honest, "dangerous" or "deadly" have so many meanings in DnD. We could mean normal dangerous (quick sand bogs and poisonous snakes), we could mean extra dangerous (lizardfolk tribe and monster snakes) or we could mean insanely dangerous (dragons and hellmouths) without context who is to say what that villager is talking about.

[Tanarii]

And honestly, I think we all agree more than disagree here.
Probably. Honestly, we're just debating the core of the styles that have become known as Combat-as-War vs Combat-as-Sport. And most games come somewhere in between.

I've found official play leans more strongly to CaS and somewhat linear adventures and adventure paths, although the experience varies from DM to DM. As a result, I offer a more CaW and sandbox campaign as a counterpoint.

So my bias is pretty clear. I'm sure when I was running 4e official play single session adventures I'd have been arguing in favor of core concepts more aligned with CaS style play. :smallamused:

[Unoriginal]

I think that regardless of CaS or CaW, a DM should inform the player of the consequences for the action that the PC is aware off, and should be clear about it.

If your player declare "I cast Friend on the guide" in the middle of the street, in a city with laws the PC should be relatively aware of and where casting spells on people without warning is illegal, the DM should say "your character knows it's illegal and that everyone is going to call the guards on you ASAP". If the player wants to storm a mob boss's mansion naked and alone, tell him "your character knows the goons will almost certainly kill them"

In other words, if there is a reason for the player to know something is too dangerous for the PC, be explicit, and make clear they acknowledge it.

Otherwise, you never know how other people percieve the situation.

Now of course PCs won't know *all* the dangers. And never be afraid to say "no" or "it can't work" when something truly has no chance to work.

[Sigreid]

I think that regardless of CaS or CaW, a DM should inform the player of the consequences for the action that the PC is aware off, and should be clear about it.

If your player declare "I cast Friend on the guide" in the middle of the street, in a city with laws the PC should be relatively aware of and where casting spells on people without warning is illegal, the DM should say "your character knows it's illegal and that everyone is going to call the guards on you ASAP". If the player wants to storm a mob boss's mansion naked and alone, tell him "your character knows the goons will almost certainly kill them"

In other words, if there is a reason for the player to know something is too dangerous for the PC, be explicit, and make clear they acknowledge it.

Otherwise, you never know how other people percieve the situation.

Now of course PCs won't know *all* the dangers. And never be afraid to say "no" or "it can't work" when something truly has no chance to work.

I play it a different style. My players know challenges are go for it, later and god no. And it's up to them to figure out which is which and have an escape plan if they are wrong. I dont do a lot of instant death though, unless it's very obvious.