Setting up encounters too difficult for the party to defeat?

[MonkeySage]

If I wanted my players to experience defeat without forcing them to roll new character sheets, what approach would be best

[Rhynn]

1. Never, ever think that you know or can control the outcome. Don't force a defeat, that's stupid, unfair, and counter to the point of playing a game.

2. Intelligent opponents with an interest in taking PCs alive, as prisoners, for ransom, as slaves, etc.

3. Conflict within social constraints: cattle-raiding, feuding, dueling, etc., where deaths happen but killing a surrendered or defeated opponent is considered wrong or even murder.

4. Be aware that your players may not even imagine that non-fatal defeat is possible. You need to introduce the concepts (ransom, wergild, etc.) early and explicitly, and then positively reinforce their use. Don't suddenly have opponents murder surrendered or defeated PCs, because that will immediately train the players to never surrender.

[Jan Mattys]

4. Be aware that your players may not even imagine that non-fatal defeat is possible. You need to introduce the concepts (ransom, wergild, etc.) early and explicitly, and then positively reinforce their use. Don't suddenly have opponents murder surrendered or defeated PCs, because that will immediately train the players to never surrender.

I find that this is an excellent, and sadly often underestimated, point.

[Sir Pippin Boyd]

If I wanted my players to experience defeat without forcing them to roll new character sheets, what approach would be best

First, keep in mind what Rhynn said about not trying to force an outcome. Player agency means that a DM doesn't ultimately decide what happens, because player choices can always muck it up. The only time you can even pretend to be sure the players will "lose" is if you can set up some extremely clever Xanatos Gambit, and even then don't be surprised when they turn it around on you.

As for a way to "defeat" the party without killing them, the sheer aggressiveness of most PCs makes this impossible. Usually when confronted with a stronger enemy, they'll keep trying to fight it unless the power gap is so big and obvious that it'd just be heavyhanded to use to begin with. Capturing them alive could be done if needed, using the right combination of Enchanters with CC spells, grapplers, ranged attackers with drow poison, and rogues with saps, but even this would be a fast-and-hard approach to disabling the party nonlethally. It'd either work in 2 rounds or not at all, and even then leave the party feeling more cheated than defeated.

If you want them to feel like they've lost, something noncombat is probably the best way to do it. Not all victories and failures happen on the battlefield.

[Waar]

If I wanted my players to experience defeat without forcing them to roll new character sheets, what approach would be best

obviously (as in obvious for your players) non-lethal confilict is a possible route.

[kyoryu]

The best way is to start with a conflict that has actual stakes, not just "I try to kill you!" That puts a failure condition in the game inherently, that the players can be aware of.

"The orcs are trying to get the Luminous Statue of Lumina." Great. You can even nudge the players that if the orcs get the statue, they'll probably be more interested in that than killing the characters. Nudge them more during the actual combat if things seem to be tipping towards the bad guys.

Really, I can't imagine running a combat where player defeat wasn't on the table. If there's no way that the players can lose, then why even bother?

[veti]

One word: army.

Pick some well organised enemy that, in a group of 20 or so, would be a slightly challenging encounter. Then have 5000 of them show up.

If the party insists on fighting, it might be hard not to kill them. But if the enemy surrounds the party and doesn't attack, that should send a clear enough signal as to what's up. If they insist on fighting anyway, you're going to have to think of a good reason for not killing them.

[Red Fel]

1. Never, ever think that you know or can control the outcome. Don't force a defeat, that's stupid, unfair, and counter to the point of playing a game.

2. Intelligent opponents with an interest in taking PCs alive, as prisoners, for ransom, as slaves, etc.

3. Conflict within social constraints: cattle-raiding, feuding, dueling, etc., where deaths happen but killing a surrendered or defeated opponent is considered wrong or even murder.

4. Be aware that your players may not even imagine that non-fatal defeat is possible. You need to introduce the concepts (ransom, wergild, etc.) early and explicitly, and then positively reinforce their use. Don't suddenly have opponents murder surrendered or defeated PCs, because that will immediately train the players to never surrender.

As is so often the case, I agree with Rhynn. (And with Sir Pippin, but stuffing two quotes in this post felt like overkill. Sorry, PB!)

You can't force the players to surrender or give up without a fight. Unless they know that a fight is suicide, they'll probably go into it given half an opportunity. Warning them in advance may give the wrong message, and make them convinced that the warning was a plot hook, not a deterrent. Killing one of them to show how powerful the enemy is is more likely to make the rest angry, not cow them. As Sir PB notes, players are often simply too aggressive to be sensible.

As Rhynn suggests, really your best option is to use a fight in which a loss doesn't mean death, such as a structured duel. This will allow you to use a much stronger opponent without the lethal outcome. It will impart onto the PCs a knowledge that they are not the unstoppable force they think they are. Maybe it will even humble them.

But remember, they could always defy the odds. Even if there's only a 1/20 change of victory, if the PCs score that natural 20, they are entitled to that victory. Be prepared to give it to them, even though it ruins your plans.

As an aside, I think it's bad form to "want[] players to experience defeat[.]" If they've got power and tactics and continue to rock on, as long as you can keep producing a reasonable challenge, it's not your job to teach them humility. As long as they have fun, and you have fun, why mess with a good dynamic? This isn't some sort of adversarial game where you earn points by brutalizing the players. (If you want that, go play Kobolds Ate My Baby! Also, play it anyway, because it's awesome.)

[Rhynn]

As an aside, I think it's bad form to "want[] players to experience defeat[.]" If they've got power and tactics and continue to rock on, as long as you can keep producing a reasonable challenge, it's not your job to teach them humility. As long as they have fun, and you have fun, why mess with a good dynamic? This isn't some sort of adversarial game where you earn points by brutalizing the players. (If you want that, go play Kobolds Ate My Baby! Also, play it anyway, because it's awesome.)

Agreed. Wanting the players (or PCs) to "experience defeat" is not just desiring a specific outcome (that way lies railroading), but also desiring a negative outcome for the players.

[hemming]

An enemy with overwhelming force that doesn't want to kill them or kill them immediately. Defeat can lead to cool escape missions...

Had a party of PCs betrayed on an inside job - The PCs thought they were stealing from a rival, but were fed bad intel by a trusted source and were in fact heisting from the king's tax collections.

The king's own guard set up a sting operation - they were tipped off by said source. Elite guards came in from both sides of an alley and on a rooftop - PCs had the option to surrender but were subdued w/ nonlethal damage. Wake up in prison pending public execution - here PCs have many options to plan escape