PvP campaign?

[BobSutan]

I'm about to start up a "short" 1 month adventure as we take a break from our regular campaign and it'll place the PCs in the role of a secret police force that deals with conspiracy, plots against the crown, and so on. Their main job is to track down bad guys and bring them to justice--think CIA spooks.

One of the players and I worked out the idea of having him secretly be a double agent or actually the BBEG they're looking for this time around. Then end-game battle should be the PCs vs this one player's PC and his minions. One thing I already have planned is that when the group goes to the hideout to get the big bad, they rest the night before of course and have their watch order. Well sure enough when they get to the hideout the next morning to their surprise all the mobs will be dead already. Should really throw them through a loop (as the PC will have killed them all off already--remember, he might be way higher level than the rest of the group and just not letting on).

Figured it has all sorts of potential for interesting role-playing and plot development and in 15+ years of playing I don't think I've ever heard of someone doing this before as an actual campaign. Just thought I'd throw this out there as something you just might like to riff off of.

[Murphy80]

IMO bad, bad, bad idea, which is probably why you haven't heard about anyone doing something like this in a campaign(outside of Paranoia). If you are going to go PvP make sure all players are aware of this. At least make it crystal clear that someone in the group is a spy. This has a large possibility of going bad.

[BobSutan]

IMO bad, bad, bad idea, which is probably why you haven't heard about anyone doing something like this in a campaign(outside of Paranoia). If you are going to go PvP make sure all players are aware of this. At least make it crystal clear that someone in the group is a spy. This has a large possibility of going bad.

lol, that's the exact opposite of what we want. As was mentioned here, it being a secret and having the big reveal during an epic showdown is the ultimate goal.

http://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments...an_it_be_done/

[Murphy80]

lol, that's the exact opposite of what we want.

Who is "we", you and the player who gets to be "in" on the plot? Of course YOU want it to be a surprise. I glanced at the offered thread, but did not read it in detail (I might read it later), but IMO, in most groups such an event would NOT be welcomed.

Question, does the Evil Double Agent know he is suppoed to lose in the end? If he wins, the odds of this ending badly go up to 99.9% IMO. He/she will be in a VERY powerful position if the group is not aware of the fact that there could be a double agent. There is generally an unspoken rule in most groups, "No PvP". So most people will lower their guard with their fellow PCs. This could easily result in a TPK (TPK does not include the evil bastard, as he is not really part of the party).

Question, is the Evil Double Agent a free agent or NPC in disguise? Do you as the DM get to tell him what to do or what you want the plot to be? If he can do what he wants, the odds of a TPK go up.

Question, I don't know you or your group, so you may well be 1 of the minority of groups that this could work for....do you want to bet the group on that? Because if this ends badly....people will be .

[mathemagician]

For a very short campaign (a few sessions), this could be interesting. There are several board games where one player plays secretly against the others:
Battlestar Galactica and Shadows over Camelot are ones that I'm familiar with.
Both of these games have a mechanic where, at the start of the game, each player draws a loyalty card that tells them whether they are working with the group, or secretly against it.... no player is allowed to reveal the loyalty card, and an important feature of the game is that there is not always a "traitor."

This works great, because the players are always second guessing the others' decisions, and it creates a lot of very fun tension and accusations. You could work the same thing into your game, by distributing a card to each player, and then holding a private meeting with the player while you explain their end goal, and behaviors. Of course, you can rig it so that your chosen player becomes the traitor, and the illusion will remain for the other players, so long as you meet with everyone for a pre-determined period of time.



Battlestar Galactica has a mechanism where, halfway through the game, one of the players may be turned into a traitor. This can be a great roleplaying experience-- When you have the meeting with the loyal characters, you ask them "what is the one thing that would make you work for the dark side?" Kidnapped family / riches / whatever. Distribute new loyalty cards at the halfway point of the game, and put it in the BBEG's power to corrupt the character whose player that drew the traitor card, now they can work together to achieve their goals, but must do so without being too obvious that they've just teamed up to do a super-pair.


Regarding the abilities of the BBEG, unless you want him to roll bluff checks ALL the time, on every attack, and every time he takes damage, I wouldn't make him more powerful at the onset. Rather he should be working toward his goals in secret, and his end-game power should reflect how many of these goals he accomplishes; sacrifices, artifacts collected, etc, then when the characters are all performing the ritual to stop the demon gate from opening or whatever, it actually enables him to "power up" by corrupting the ritual. This gives him an interesting predicament, because the metagame indicates that someone is the badguy, but he has to hit his goals.

So it'll be too obvious if one of the players is going out of his way to do special tasks, so they must be streamlined, or there is one other way to handle this situation. Give each character a special mission that they must carry out in secret. They are spooks, after all, they are teamed up for this special mission only. Giving each player objectives that allow the BBEG to be within reach of his special objective will call less attention to it. The special missions should all be a little shady or questionably moral, but the BBEG's might be the shadiest of all. Completing the missions should give the characters rewards to aide them against the BBEG.


It's a lot of set up, but I think it could be rewarding for a short campaign, as long as each player has a unique role to play, and at the start everyone knows that SOMEONE is the bbeg; I consider it a gross violation of trust to change the rules, especially assumed ones, on the players. It would not be fun at all for me if all of a sudden one player was the BBEG, because there is an implicit assumption that the players are a team. But if I was warned...well, that creates tension for a while, and that can be fun :)

Good luck!

[Toofey]

I could not disagree with Murphy more, I ran a short campaign/adventure (5 sessions) with a very similar twist.

the party paladin, who's player was out of town, was taken over by an agent of the BBEG, who was played by a player from another group of mine, and led the party on a quest which had the aim of rezzing the BBEG. I didn't tell the party there was a double agent but I left some clues around (one player had suspicions going into the final fight which I thought was about perfect)

I think this is really only going to go "bad" if you have the type of players who expect things to go their way and expect the DM to accommodate their ideas and plans at every turn, ie: bad sports. My group really appreciated having such a significant twist and the adventure got rave reviews and led nicely into the larger campaign I was planning where the BBEG was the BBEG (the party had taken out it's previous BBEG, and this adventure was a tie between that and the next extended campaign.)

In this case the only player I told ahead of time was the paladin's, he wasn't going to be there, and I wanted to make sure he was ok with it as his character was actually negatively effected. Good for our group he was very into role play and was actually excited to have the whole redemption plot for his paladin.

Also Murphy, the party should not always win. When I ran this adventure it was actually very important to the overall arc of the plot that the party lost this round. I honestly don't get why people think the party should win all the time it take all the excitement out of the game, and makes it meaningless when the party wins significant victories.

[ApatheticDespot]

I could not disagree with Murphy more, I ran a short campaign/adventure (5 sessions) with a very similar twist.

the party paladin, who's player was out of town, was taken over by an agent of the BBEG, who was played by a player from another group of mine, and led the party on a quest which had the aim of rezzing the BBEG. I didn't tell the party there was a double agent but I left some clues around (one player had suspicions going into the final fight which I thought was about perfect)

I think this is really only going to go "bad" if you have the type of players who expect things to go their way and expect the DM to accommodate their ideas and plans at every turn, ie: bad sports. My group really appreciated having such a significant twist and the adventure got rave reviews and led nicely into the larger campaign I was planning where the BBEG was the BBEG (the party had taken out it's previous BBEG, and this adventure was a tie between that and the next extended campaign.)

In this case the only player I told ahead of time was the paladin's, he wasn't going to be there, and I wanted to make sure he was ok with it as his character was actually negatively effected. Good for our group he was very into role play and was actually excited to have the whole redemption plot for his paladin.

Also Murphy, the party should not always win. When I ran this adventure it was actually very important to the overall arc of the plot that the party lost this round. I honestly don't get why people think the party should win all the time it take all the excitement out of the game, and makes it meaningless when the party wins significant victories.

Okay, I can't let this pass without commenting. No, having preferences that differ from yours does not make someone a bad sport. Most, perhaps even all, RPG players to one degree or another enter a game with a set of meta-expectations about how the game will proceed. One of the strongest of those is the concept of the party. There's a reason that your average party coalesces into a group far more quickly and firmly than one would expect from a group of strangers, and why they nearly always stick together through the most trying of circumstances, that meta-expectation is why. When a player agrees to play in a campaign, a party of cooperative characters who can trust one another to not stab them in the back is implicit in what they're agreeing to.

No game can ever be exactly what every player wants it to be, but to make such a fundamental change to the game's social contract in secret goes beyond that. You're not merely failing to take into consideration what sort of game your players want to play, you're actively hiding the sort of game they're agreeing to play from them and denying them the chance to decide if it's the kind of game they would enjoy playing.

Add it all together and when you do throw in your twist what you're revealing to the players isn't just that one of their party members was a mole, but that the game they thought they were playing and that they were emotionally invested in isn't the game they were playing. Worse, if the players are defeated by the mole you're giving them an unsatisfying ending to the game moments after you pull the rug out from under their emotional investment. That's not going to be an easy thing for any player to enjoy.

My advice is to make sure everyone is aware that there's a mole in the party, and build the game around that suspicion and paranoia. That kind of game can be great fun, and you're sure that everyone there is enjoying the game your running and not simply the one they think you are.

[Toofey]

When it's a form of collaborative story telling, not wanting adventures (stories!) where unexpected, or different things from normal happen because they don't meet your personal desires is being a bad sport.

I'm not saying things should never go the party's way, and that the players shouldn't be allowed to have plans, even plans that come off without a hitch, I'm just saying that being intolerant of anything being other than your expectation is ridiculous, drastically limits the options for the stories you can tell, and is (as silly as it is to be applying this to most role playing settings) unrealistic.

[Kaun]

I am not sure it is a "bad sport" issue, it may just end up being a case of you and the mole player having fun at the expense of the rest of your group.

Bad sport would suggest that they new the rules, lost and complained. Your example seems more like you are changing the rules on them in the final moments of the game and hopeing that they enjoy being at a massive disadvantage and being defeated by a "friend".

Don't get me wrong, some groups will really enjoy this but just as many won't.

Its not like loosing to a BBEG or dieing to a monster.

[The Glyphstone]

When it's a form of collaborative story telling, not wanting adventures (stories!) where unexpected, or different things from normal happen because they don't meet your personal desires is being a bad sport.

I'm not saying things should never go the party's way, and that the players shouldn't be allowed to have plans, even plans that come off without a hitch, I'm just saying that being intolerant of anything being other than your expectation is ridiculous, drastically limits the options for the stories you can tell, and is (as silly as it is to be applying this to most role playing settings) unrealistic.

It's not an in-character consideration, though, it's a violation of the social contract. If you tell your players they'll be playing a nautical swashbucklers and pirates campaign, and they show up only to find out that you've changed it at the last minute to a desert campaign...that's just rude.

Or for an unspoken 'contract', you tell them they'll be playing a nautical swashbucklers and pirates campaign, and they show up only to find out that it's actually a political intrigue game among the feuding pirate lords of I Swear This Isn't Port Royal Town, they'll feel cheated even though you didn't specifically say that the campaign would be ship/sailing-based.

So unless your group is the sort that all likes playing Evil characters (they do exist), and you tell them they'll be playing [X], they'll be showing up expecting that, well...they'll be playing [X] as a party, together. Not that one of them is actually the BBEG and will knife them in their sleep without warning one session night, because any villain surrounded by his mortal enemies who trust him implicitly (in and out of character) would do exactly that the minute they've outlived their usefulness, not in a dramatic reveal that allows them to thwart his plans anyways. At the very best, you get an Ozymandius Gambit, where they find out too late to stop him, and end the whole campaign on a down note.

The only way I can see this being possible is a sort of two-part game...the first half of the 'campaign' being their unknowingly setting up the villain's victory - cue reveal - then the "villain" player brings in a real PC instead of a mole and they spend the second half of the game trying to undo their 'successes' and build up to a climactic final battle. Done right, that would be a great game.

[Toofey]

I'm not talking about bait and switch, I'm talking about a betrayal, or charm effect (those are only common in the game worlds we're talking about) in the part as part of the story. If people take exception to it because they don't know about something going on, then how are you supposed to do anything where the players don't have all the information. Unexpected occurrences, betrayals, unforeseen consequences, these are elements that add dimension and dramatic tension. I'm simply saying you should be allowed to use these as a DM to add to the story, and that if people have a serious problem with the plot taking an unexpected turn than it's bad sportsmanship because they're putting their problem with an expectation of theirs being challenged (which btw, is pretty good story telling, and provides compelling challenges other than simply killing the next DC level of monster) Over the advancement of the plot, and the ability of the storyteller to have dramatic devices at their disposal.

[The Glyphstone]

Because it really depends on how everything plays out. If the traitor is revealed in the last session for the climactic fight, you're basically weighting the entire success or failure of the campaign on that one battle...if they win, it'll be great, but if they lose, they'll have the double whammy of having TPKed in the endgame boss fight, and having been betrayed by someone they thought in and out of character to be an ally.

"Hey, remember last game, when we got to the demon lord's cave and Bob revealed he was actually the High Cultist we'd been hunting down, and he almost finished the ritual before we kicked his ass?"

makes a much better story than

"Hey, remember last game, when Bob stabbed us all in the back during the demon lord fight and we lost?"

Dramatic devices and storytelling tools sound great on paper, but in real life you have to use them carefully to make sure you don't end up killing the party's fun for the sake of your story. You have to know your group really well, and be able to predict if the DRAMA of a revealed mole would be worth it, particularly if there was no way for them to figure it out ahead of time. If you get really lucky, you might end up with

'hey, remember last game, where Bob turned out to be the High Cultist, and Fireballed us in the back during the summoning ritual and we all died? I couldn't believe that cheesemonkey managed to hide it so well with all those clues we figured out in hindsight - no one let him play a character with ranks in Bluff again."

[Tvtyrant]

Besides which, it is a fundamentally selfish decision. The betrayer has decided to gamble everyones enjoyment on a decision only they are allowed to make, and if it turns out badly then everyone gets burned for their decision.

To quote an old friend: "You do not take risk other people on your behalf."

[Toofey]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PLAYERS LOSING?!

If it's a foregone conclusion that they'll win you lose dramatic tension, also sometimes a major loss is the springboard to the next campaign (which was specifically the case in the adventure I ran where I did this)

[Tvtyrant]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PLAYERS LOSING?!

If it's a foregone conclusion that they'll win you lose dramatic tension, also sometimes a major loss is the springboard to the next campaign (which was specifically the case in the adventure I ran where I did this)

Because you are taking away their ability to make decisions! If you send a dragon to go kill the party in the middle of the night without any reason, you are taking away their ability to make decisions. If they hear about a dragon and go try to kill it, then they made the decision for themselves. The difference is that having someone betray the party is essentially fiat, especially if you don't give them clues as to what is going on.

[Kaun]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PLAYERS LOSING?!

If it's a foregone conclusion that they'll win you lose dramatic tension, also sometimes a major loss is the springboard to the next campaign (which was specifically the case in the adventure I ran where I did this)

I dont think its a matter of loosing, its just that your scenario doesn't even sound like they have a chance.

Maybe just tell them at the start of the game that they won't win this and ask them if they are still keen to play. If they say yes then they have been fairly warned.

[Enix18]

Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, this is actually a very good idea, Bob.

From experience, I can tell you that something like this will not upset the players—all this "breach of the social contract" stuff is pure nonsense. Now, it would be one thing if you just let the double agent PC slit everyone's throats in the middle of the night without warning. That would just plain ruin the fun. Clearly, though, that's not what you intend; as far as I understand, you plan on having the big reveal come at the very end for a final, climactic battle. (If, like some of the folks in this thread, you're honestly worried about the PCs losing, then talk to the double agent PC and make sure he's willing to throw the fight if need be, although I doubt that's a necessary precaution.)

In the last Pathfinder campaign my group played (which spanned several months, and went from 1st to 10th level) I worked out with the DM in the very beginning that my character was not only the right hand man of the BBEG, but the guy who taught his left hand man to be a great fighter! Throughout the campaign I dropped subtle hints, such as briefly bantering with powerful enemies about things I shouldn't know during battle, and conveniently finding an excuse to disappear just before every time the left hand man showed up.

However, things weren't quite cut and dry by the end. Through role-playing over the course of our adventures, my character developed quite a strong friendship with the party wizard. As the party faced off against the left hand man for the final time my character made his big reveal and quickly turned the situation into a rather one-sided affair—yet he could not bare to kill his one greatest friend, and right on the verge of victory he abandoned the battlefield.

Altogether it ended up being quite a dramatic affair, with many difficult emotions swirling around and forcing the characters to make equally difficult choices. One of the characters, for various reasons, was actually unsure of who to side with, and ended up doing very little during the big reveal battle because he couldn't decide who to attack. And things became even more interesting when, after becoming disillusioned with the vile ways of the BBEG, my character tried to reunite with the party.

Long story short, it was pure awesomeness. Even if your plot doesn't nearly rival that, I think a betrayal in the party is always something worth trying at least once.

[The Glyphstone]

Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, this is actually a very good idea, Bob.

From experience, I can tell you that something like this will not upset the players—all this "breach of the social contract" stuff is pure nonsense.

You've personally played extensively with Bob's group then? Otherwise that is a bit of a presumption.

[Kaun]

what he said

So Moral of the story, Mole player not being a jerk = higher chance of awesome!

[Enix18]

You've personally played extensively with Bob's group then? Otherwise that is a bit of a presumption.

No, my friend, I have played with other human beings—enough to know that they (or at least, the one's who generally play RPGs) aren't fragile children totally averse to change or unexpectedness. Having one player betray the others, so long as it is done in a just fashion (as Bob seems to plan on doing it), should not result in hurt feeling or cries of unfairness.

"Should", of course, is the operative concept: Bob knows his players better than any of use could, so only he could know if they're unusually sensitive to this sort of thing. However, I don't think Bob is asking us to psychoanalyze his party; if he didn't think this sort of twist was something they could handle, he wouldn't be asking our opinions on it in the first place.

Thus, from my experience, I can say that a betrayal—as long as some thought is put into it—is not a bad plot twist at all. If done well, it will offer quite an unparalleled moment of shock for the players, and possibly stimulate some intriguing roleplay. If execute with more mediocrity it may fall flat, but there won't be any harm done that couldn't have occurred through any other plot device. If done poorly... well, the DM might have a little work on his hands, but it doesn't take much forethought to avoid a total flop with this.

A little double-crossing can generate some memorable moments, and I can't see any good reason why Bob shouldn't give it a try.

[Jamin]

Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, this is actually a very good idea, Bob.

From experience, I can tell you that something like this will not upset the players—all this "breach of the social contract" stuff is pure nonsense. Now, it would be one thing if you just let the double agent PC slit everyone's throats in the middle of the night without warning. That would just plain ruin the fun. Clearly, though, that's not what you intend; as far as I understand, you plan on having the big reveal come at the very end for a final, climactic battle. (If, like some of the folks in this thread, you're honestly worried about the PCs losing, then talk to the double agent PC and make sure he's willing to throw the fight if need be, although I doubt that's a necessary precaution.)

In the last Pathfinder campaign my group played (which spanned several months, and went from 1st to 10th level) I worked out with the DM in the very beginning that my character was not only the right hand man of the BBEG, but the guy who taught his left hand man to be a great fighter! Throughout the campaign I dropped subtle hints, such as briefly bantering with powerful enemies about things I shouldn't know during battle, and conveniently finding an excuse to disappear just before every time the left hand man showed up.

However, things weren't quite cut and dry by the end. Through role-playing over the course of our adventures, my character developed quite a strong friendship with the party wizard. As the party faced off against the left hand man for the final time my character made his big reveal and quickly turned the situation into a rather one-sided affair—yet he could not bare to kill his one greatest friend, and right on the verge of victory he abandoned the battlefield.

Altogether it ended up being quite a dramatic affair, with many difficult emotions swirling around and forcing the characters to make equally difficult choices. One of the characters, for various reasons, was actually unsure of who to side with, and ended up doing very little during the big reveal battle because he couldn't decide who to attack. And things became even more interesting when, after becoming disillusioned with the vile ways of the BBEG, my character tried to reunite with the party.

Long story short, it was pure awesomeness. Even if your plot doesn't nearly rival that, I think a betrayal in the party is always something worth trying at least once.

This may work for your group but I hate the idea that someone is the traitor. I am sure you had fun but I would have felt betrayed and be less likely to play with you again if I found out someone was the secret spy all along. In short some people will love this others hate it

[Murphy80]

Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, this is actually a very good idea, Bob.

From experience, I can tell you that something like this will not upset the players....
...
Long story short, it was pure awesomeness. Even if your plot doesn't nearly rival that, I think a betrayal in the party is always something worth trying at least once.

It should be pointed out that this story is from the BETRAYER! Enix, have you ever been betrayed and was that fun? It sounds like your story was interesting and fun, but we have only your side of it. Did all the other players find it fun? I also find it funny that you are so emphatic that it "will not upset the players".

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PLAYERS LOSING?!

If it's a foregone conclusion that they'll win you lose dramatic tension, also sometimes a major loss is the springboard to the next campaign (which was specifically the case in the adventure I ran where I did this)

The players losing or winning is not the main issue, it's the manner of the loss. I played in a game where the group accidentally released a great evil (thus, "losing" the scenario). In hindsight, the clues about the truth where there, we just completely misinterpreted them. That was memorable and fun. Then there was the game where someone played an assaisn and ended up killing everyone when we were low on hp after a battle. Not fun and I barely remember the details, only the bad feelings it generated.

Another pair of examples. 1st a TPK where we were talking with a dragon and 1 of the players says something wrong. We all knew it was wrong, and the dragon killed us with a breath weapon. Memorable and relatively fun. Then there was the door we innocently opened while exploring, got attack with no warning by an encounter 5 CRs above. Not fun at all. No warning, no chance.

Also, I am not saying the Pc's winning should be a "foregone conclusion", that's why dice are used in combat. And a Losing Scenario is a legitamate story. But such stories have to be told very carefully and if the players feel they never had a chance, then you will (most likely) lose players. If you warn them at the start that PVP in enabled and that someone could be a spy, then they have a chance to direct the story.

You sound like you are going to disregard all warnings, so I hope your group will have fun with this. I really do....but I doubt it. Good gaming.

[Killer Angel]

As said by others, I think it's a bad idea.
I can think of only two ways this can be handled in a positive way.
The group is composed of evil PCs (maybe a campaign dedicated to devils, drow, etc).
The characters know that there is a mole, so part of the adventure is to discover it and to don't be unprepared.
In both cases, the players won't be negatively surprised, betrayal is a part of the story.

[The Glyphstone]

You sound like you are going to disregard all warnings, so I hope your group will have fun with this. I really do....but I doubt it. Good gaming.

Indeed - you appear to have only come looking for accolades and support, not discussion, since anyone who disagrees must be immature children incapable of surprises. Enix is supplying you with such agreement, so you don't really need the rest of us anymore. Go run your game, and if you still have a group afterwards, come back and prove us all wrong. It'll be healthy for everyone involved.

[Tengu_temp]

I think this might be very effective, but under one condition: the mole PC should be okay with losing. Because this situation really works only if the mole loses, otherwise the other players will probably feel cheated - they got no hints that there's a mole and couldn't do anything to defend themselves against him, the other player might've as well just flipped out and decided to screw the campaign for the lulz.

[Toofey]

1) it's good for the players to lose from time to time, there's no reason that has to be the end of the story (with possiblities ranging from them becoming a group looking for the first group, or them getting Rezed by an NPC, or even just that they lose, but enough survive to revive the rest of the party) it helps build dramatic tension.

2) I'm not talking about one player busting out and TPKing the party, I'm talking about a character either being not who they claim to be, or being charmed, given how common charm effects are in D&D worlds it's amazing that this doesn't happen more often

3) if you read my specific example it's clear that all the things you are saying I'm doing wrong, were NOT THINGS I DID, and while they're good to consider, read what I did before you start saying I'm doing it wrong. In fact I did have enough clues that one of my players had figured what was going on out before the baddie on the party turned. Why do you assume that the DM is not offering clues. (further ranting on the point in spoilers)

Spoiler

Show

from my position behind the screen I can tell you that if there's something unexpected the DM has probably dropped a whole bunch of clues that get ignored by the players. Before you complain about being blindsided, make sure you're paying attention before you complain. I had a player throw a tempter tantrum the other day about not having been told about something he screwed up and once the other players got there I asked each of them before they had a chance to hear the argument about the point in question and they (who pay attention) knew about it, and the troublesome player shut the **** up. The overwhelming majority of the time the DM is practically tripping over themselves to offer clues as to what's going on while the players totally misinterpret these clues to fit with what they expect, like in life Players who fit their information to their expectations are doing it wrong.

4) If a player seriously thinks it's a problem that they do not win every single time, then they are in fact a bad sport. In real life you don't win every time, in fantasy games if you win every time there will not be dramatic tension, it's just the dice you have to roll before you count your treasure.

5) If you want to play a game where there's no unexpected factors, might I recommend chess?

[Kaun]

Give it a go then mate, im interested to see he how it goes.

If you can be persuaded into doing a journal i would be keen to read it.

[Killer Angel]

2) I'm not talking about one player busting out and TPKing the party, I'm talking about a character either being not who they claim to be, or being charmed, given how common charm effects are in D&D worlds it's amazing that this doesn't happen more often

You really don't see the difference between a DM mind controlling a character with a spell, and the DM and a Player secretly planning a betrayal since the beginning of the campaign? The first one it's fair game, while the other one... it's a worst variant of the already bad PvP.

4) If a player seriously thinks it's a problem that they do not win every single time, then they are in fact a bad sport.

I totally agree. Sadly, this is not at all what we were saying.

[Tanngrisnir]

1) it's good for the players to lose from time to time, there's no reason that has to be the end of the story (with possiblities ranging from them becoming a group looking for the first group, or them getting Rezed by an NPC, or even just that they lose, but enough survive to revive the rest of the party) it helps build dramatic tension.

As has already been said by others, people are not disputing that players should lose everyone once in a while. It's the manner in which they lose people are disagreeing with.

[Toofey]

As has already been said by others, people are not disputing that players should lose everyone once in a while. It's the manner in which they lose people are disagreeing with.

To which I return to how realistic it is that people would be charmed in a fantasy world, how often betrayals are important to defeats/victories in the real world, and how this type of instance can be a great way of setting up a next BBEG. As I said before there's no reason the players should know everything, if you would like to play a game with no unexpected factors, there are plenty of options out there for you.

I'll point out that everyone in this thread who's done this as a DM has had a good experience (admittedly we all did the most important part which is make sure the defeat does set up a campaign, as it would be a ****ty way to end a party and a plot if that was it) meanwhile it seems like (to me) the players are in here saying, "hey that's not fair, wtf" and I'll agree it's not fair, but that's not actually a good reason not to do it.

It seems like a lot of the people on here don't want DMs to do anything that puts them at any sort of disadvantage, which is just ridiculous. This is a nice, different from "go kill monster with DC X" plot, that might just surprise some players and challenge some expectations. As far as making sure fights aren't one sided etc... that's an issue DMs have to face EVERY SINGLE FIGHT regardless of the circumstances. But I'm getting sick of people on here trying to Veto plots that they wouldn't like to see, because those plots would put them at a disadvantage. It's starting to seem like a common thread here. to the point where I'm considering recommending a DM only forum on this board, or starting a DM specific board somewhere.