What do you do if your players want to fight Big Bad early?

[MonkeySage]

I had to establish a face to face meeting with the big bad in my campaign, and already I've got a player who seems absolutely convinced he can win a fight with this guy.

Now, in the big bad's eyes, the players are more of an annoyance; dangerous only because of what they know, not what they can do. Being a patient and deceptively smart villain, he's biding his time until he can claim that he was provoked. Once that happens, there's no power on the planet that could save them from his wrath.

This villain has managed to ascend the ranks of chivalry until he reached the very top; when his father died, he was named heir to the imperial throne. His sword is as sharp as ever. He has a reputation for his nigh-supernatural strength and speed.

The difference between overall party level and his challenge rating, by himself, already spells TPK. And he's accompanied by his knights, the 5 greatest knights of the realm.

Thing is, the players were not meant to fight him this early; this was supposed to be an establishing moment for him, to demonstrate all the more why he must be overthrown, as well as just how dangerous he is. I was going to use a high level enemy of the party as a Worf, but the party interceded and demanded the enemy get a fair trial. But if the party TPKs, all of this would be for nothing. Even if they survive the fight somehow, they'll be guilty of high treason.

[shadow_archmagi]

Even if they survive the fight somehow, they'll be guilty of high treason.

That sounds like the promising start to a campaign. Run that. Let the bad guy ascend to the throne, become unstoppable, and establish a reign of terror. Have the PC's first great victory be overcoming one of his knights. Let them do things the hard way and spend decades running, hiding, building strength, until they begin to claw the kingdom back, brick by brick.

[Machinekng]

I mean, if your players make this decision, and you can't talk them out of it, it's probably best that you work with it.

Let them know the consequences, and imply that it's highly improbable that they can win. Have the big bad defeat them and humiliate them by saying that they're "unworthy" of an honorable death by his blade. After all, they aren't a threat themselves, and killing them unnecessarily will only draw attention to what they've found. Throw them in jail for them to break out of, and modify the campaign accordingly.

If it's too out of character for the big bad to spare them, then you might have to talk to them OOC.

[Zumbs]

From your description it sounds like a trial by duel?

If so, you have someone (try to) drug the player in question and fight the big bad in place of the player. That someone should preferably be more powerful than the player, e.g. a mentor (think Obi-wan vs Darth Vader), and be cut to pieces by the much more powerful big bad.

[Lentrax]

Big bad is evil. He rigs the whole damn thing.

Sets up witnesses, statements, everything. And he sets it up so he can throw the PC to the side and, as is the case with evil overlords, dismisses the problem as dealt with.

The PCs are traitors, branded as outlaws (hell, make them physical brands).

Make the players know that it was their own actions that brought it about. The evil overlord gives them the traditional sweeping monologue. And then the newly branded villains get run out of town by the very people they were trying to save from evil.

[Pluto!]

If this is a system like D&D, depending how long the campagn's been running, I'd let them try it, play it out naturally, and let whoever dies roll up new charactersbefore starting the campaign for real.

[AMFV]

You have a few options. Getting them accused of high treason doesn't sound so bad, then they'll have to flee, maybe hide in the forest and meet new allies there. That sort of thing. I would let the players attempt the confrontation and fail, that will establish his power, I would give them some way out or some way to run away.

[denthor]

This a campaign from the eighties have them kidnapped by the big bad guy.

While they are knocked out they get some magical tattoos on there arms legs backs all the same.

Each tattoo represents a different power that will need to overthrown by our heroes.

This ensures that they must level up to meet your power player.

In D&D terms these are geuas look it up high level spell.

They awaken in a room with no spells no spell books no equipment.

They find the tatatoes and that her there hotel bill has been paid for a month.

An "ally" gives them about 250 gold just enough to get started but not enough to go wild.

If they get in trouble a local thief can guide them out of town with a sewer system.

Filled with monsters the local "disappears" goes down to the first fight.

Let the game begin. They have no clues as to where they are.

[Darth Ultron]

First of all, note they'll be guilty of high treason is only true if you say it's true. Your the DM, you can do anything. So....for example...you could make whatever the PC's do.....not high treason. See how that works?

Second, you could just have the bad guy ignore the fight. D&D works great for ''ignore fights''. A powerful character with a high AC and HP can stand there all the live long day and a weaker, lower level character has no chance of doing anything. It can be quite funny to watch a character miss and miss and miss and miss some more...

Third, you could have the bad guy toy with them. He can just knock them around, maybe knock them out or whatever and just leave them.

Fourth, you could have the guards stop any fight.

[Anonymouswizard]

First, don't have them know who the big bad is, or have there be no way for them to physically reach them. This works wonders.

If you do know who it is and can reach them, make sure they aren't utterly unbeatable, and be prepared for PC deaths just in case they don't surrender in time. Also, except their surrender if it comes, chuck them in prison to stand trial for high treason, and let them escape. Then they can come back in a few months with proof and hopefully avoid being chucked in jail again.

I serious can't stress how important giving the PCs a (slim) chance is. This is why I like systems where anybody can be downed with a lucky shot or two, but you can do it in D&D or any game, just let the PCs be able to harm him with a clever plan. If the PCs win? This is why you should have backup villains (maybe their second in command or something). Imagine a street-level Shadowrun campaign where a gang is trying to take over the entire town. The PCs successfully sneak through their hideout, kill the troll leader in their sleep, and get away, only to discover a few weeks later the second-in-command and brains have kept it all together. Losing your planned villain isn't the end of the world, just reuse them in a campaign or two, especially if you haven't truly fleshed them out in the player's eyes.

[Quertus]

I say, if they go for the TPK, give them the TPK.

Who knows? Maybe they have a clever plan to win, like having a friendly paying an archmage incantrix to cast maximized twinned delayed blast fireball a few times for them before they walk in.

Maybe they lose, but at least one survives abd is smart enough to flee, is branded a traitor, New characters are rolled up, campaign continues.

Perhaps the BBEG has a traitor with an amulet of emergency healing who can surreptitiously save the party.

Or perhaps they all die, only to be resurrected years later, as the only ones to ever stand up to the BBEG.

[Rakoa]

First of all, note they'll be guilty of high treason is only true if you say it's true. Your the DM, you can do anything. So....for example...you could make whatever the PC's do.....not high treason. See how that works?

Verisimilitude is an important component of any game. The only reason the Big Bad has yet to destroy the PCs is that he wants their deaths to be viewed as justified self-defense. In what world would a group of people attack a ruthless and evil leader and get away without the full extent of the law falling on their heads? Ludicrous.

I say, if they go for the TPK, give them the TPK.

I'm with this guy. Let the dice fall where the may, and let the PCs face the consequences of their actions. But remember, verisimilitude! The idea of a traitor in the BBEGs ranks seems a bit forced to me, but the other ideas are great. Especially the last one.

[Sredni Vashtar]

That sounds like the promising start to a campaign. Run that. Let the bad guy ascend to the throne, become unstoppable, and establish a reign of terror. Have the PC's first great victory be overcoming one of his knights. Let them do things the hard way and spend decades running, hiding, building strength, until they begin to claw the kingdom back, brick by brick.

Big bad is evil. He rigs the whole damn thing.

Sets up witnesses, statements, everything. And he sets it up so he can throw the PC to the side and, as is the case with evil overlords, dismisses the problem as dealt with.

The PCs are traitors, branded as outlaws (hell, make them physical brands).

Make the players know that it was their own actions that brought it about. The evil overlord gives them the traditional sweeping monologue. And then the newly branded villains get run out of town by the very people they were trying to save from evil.

Or perhaps they all die, only to be resurrected years later, as the only ones to ever stand up to the BBEG.

I love these responses and would gladly play the hell out of them.

[Sam113097]

Now, in the big bad's eyes, the players are more of an annoyance; dangerous only because of what they know, not what they can do. Being a patient and deceptively smart villain, he's biding his time until he can claim that he was provoked. Once that happens, there's no power on the planet that could save them from his wrath.

This villain has managed to ascend the ranks of chivalry until he reached the very top; when his father died, he was named heir to the imperial throne. His sword is as sharp as ever. He has a reputation for his nigh-supernatural strength and speed.

The difference between overall party level and his challenge rating, by himself, already spells TPK. And he's accompanied by his knights, the 5 greatest knights of the realm.

Show how insignificant the party is to him at this point. You could set up the conflict so that he can only be attacked in a place where he can easily escape. Have him step out of the room and leave only one of his knights to deal with the party. Show the party that it would only take one of his guards to kill them, and that the Big Bad doesn't even see them as a threat.

[Darth Ultron]

Verisimilitude is an important component of any game. The only reason the Big Bad has yet to destroy the PCs is that he wants their deaths to be viewed as justified self-defense. In what world would a group of people attack a ruthless and evil leader and get away without the full extent of the law falling on their heads? Ludicrous.

The ludicrous part is where the DM feels forced to do something because of what they have created. It's a far too common symptom in modern games: DM's feel like a big gamer brother is looking over their shoulder and will take away their ability to DM if they don't do everything right.

[MonkeySage]

Consistency is important to me personally. I am my own worst critic at all times, and I want to tell a story that I myself would want to read. Because if I don't like what I'm doing, my players won't like it either.

[Slipperychicken]

So what are the players supposed to do instead?


If they're supposed to say "Nah, let's put off this whole evil-empire plot; we need to grind up to level X before we can take him", then you probably need more effective ways of conveying this idea. There's nothing wrong with letting the players know OOC that they're not strong enough yet, and should do some questing to gather their strength before trying to take him down.

[Dr.Gunsforhands]

Thing is, the players were not meant to fight him this early; this was supposed to be an establishing moment for him, to demonstrate all the more why he must be overthrown, as well as just how dangerous he is. I was going to use a high level enemy of the party as a Worf, but the party interceded and demanded the enemy get a fair trial. But if the party TPKs, all of this would be for nothing. Even if they survive the fight somehow, they'll be guilty of high treason.

I feel like I missed something here. Whatever the party may know about our villain, you say that all they're doing at this stage is demanding that some guy get a fair trial. What did the guy allegedly do? Do they have legal justification for making this demand? And perhaps most importantly: are they in public?

While his combat prowess is key to making the game work, it sounds like our villain's defining attribute is that he's careful. Even if the PCs are ants to him, he doesn't want to crush them until he can make it look like he's in the right. The goal, then, is to put the PCs in a box where they can't start a fight without making themselves look like the bad guys. My first instinct would be for him to roll his eyes, tersely remind the PCs of his legal authority in this matter, and ask whether they actually have some evidence of the guy's innocence or whether they're just wasting everyone's time.

The PCs seem naive and easily swayed. Since the guy we're executing is someone they already don't like, the villain can spin this to his advantage. "After all, you want this criminal brought to justice, too... right?"

[MonkeySage]

The prisoner is a loose end, an accomplice of the Big Bad. The Big Bad wants to make sure the prisoner doesn't talk. Basically, the prisoner was a gangster for hire; give neighboring nations trouble so that the Big Bad could "save" them in exchange for land and resources. The players don't like the prisoner because in the process of making the Big Bad look good, he killed a lot of people.

[Dr.Gunsforhands]

I started imagining how that conversation might go in my head. I'm not sure how useful it is, but here's what I wound up with:

Spoiler

Show

"Preposterous. What on Earth gave you that idea? (Gag him.)"

"(Yes, sir.)"

"He told us so himself!"

"...and you didn't find it suspicious that he wanted to implicate the same people who had foiled his plans several times in the past? He's clearly fabricating a scandal out of spite."

"But... but he had notarized royal communiques and everything!"

"What? Let me see."

"Uhh..."

"Well? Where are they?"

"Well, I mean, we didn't steal them from him or anything. I think he said they were in his tent?"

"MMMMPH"

"...so, you mean to tell me that this known con artist said that he had some documents, and you just took him at his word."

"Exactly!"

"...guards, take him to the gallows, and please escort these fine people out with my thanks for finally bringing him in."

[Darth Ultron]

Consistency is important to me personally. I am my own worst critic at all times, and I want to tell a story that I myself would want to read. Because if I don't like what I'm doing, my players won't like it either.

Ok, so consistently is important, but the only way for the gameplay to go is the railroad?

Let that sink in: your railroading the game. If action A happens then action B must happen. It's like your saying you have no "DM agency "........lol.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

If you want your PC's to not attack the villain, don't give them a way to attack the villain. Have them in jail when he monologues, or in handcuffs, or asleep with him appearing in a dream (all kind of dependent on the skillset of your party). If you gave them a way to attack the villain and they choose that way, let them fight. You're all writing this story together, and maybe your players would like to read this story. The villain is so far above the players in combat prowess at this point that I don't really see the need for killing any of them. Incapacitate them in a handful of rounds, showing them how badly outclassed they are. Maybe "accidentally" destroy a family heirloom or cut of a hand if the bad guy really means it. Have him rub it in with some monologuing and do to them whatever your evildoer would do. You said he would kill the if provoked? Well, a bunch of easily angered amateurs/first level characters trying to kill you is not really provocation is it? All his real opponents would agree on that. That's barely worth putting them on a train to Siberia for. It's not very genre savvy maybe, getting rid of the heroes in such a way that they'll surely never escape and come back for revenge, but it works in universe.

[Rakoa]

Ok, so consistently is important, but the only way for the gameplay to go is the railroad?

Let that sink in: your railroading the game. If action A happens then action B must happen. It's like your saying you have no "DM agency "........lol.

That isn't railroading. That is simple cause and effect. If the player characters jump off a cliff, they will fall. If they run into a bear and her cubs, she will attack. If they fireball an orphan girl, she will die. If they attack the Big Bad too early, he will try his damnedest to kill them.

Railroading isn't "If action A happens then action B must happen." Railroading is "Action H will happen, regardless of what Action A through G might be, because I say so."

[Darth Ultron]

That isn't railroading. That is simple cause and effect. If the player characters jump off a cliff, they will fall. If they run into a bear and her cubs, she will attack. If they fireball an orphan girl, she will die. If they attack the Big Bad too early, he will try his damnedest to kill them.

I just don't get this type of shortsighted one way railroading. When you say something must always happen, that just limits your game play. Like to say every single bear momma will automatically go all murderhobo if a character runs into them is just dumb.

This really is in the top three problems that modern games have: the insane idea that things must only be one way ever.

[goto124]

If you want your PC's to not attack the villain, don't give them a way to attack the villain. Have them in jail when he monologues, or in handcuffs, or asleep with him appearing in a dream (all kind of dependent on the skillset of your party).

I'm going with this, but further.

Don't let the villain get anywhere near the PCs.

The PCs are creative. They can devise many ways to get out of what the DM thinks are impossible situations. The only way to stay alive, is to stay far far away from the PCs, and don't let them know where the villain is.

It makes sense anyway. Why would the villain have time to visit a bunch of low-level PCs? There's better stuff to do than expose yourself for nothing.

If the villain wants to talk to the PCs, leave a message, or use a magical version of a group Skype call. All that attacking does is to destroy the message and lose valuable information.

Why is a face-to-face meeting required?

[Thrudd]

A. There is no reason to stop the players from doing anything that it is reasonable for their characters to do. If they are confronted by a bad guy and there is nothing physically preventing them from attacking, then the possibility exists that they might attack and you should know that before you put them in front of the bad guy.

B. Intelligent creatures rarely fight to the death, if they can help it, and usually don't seek to prolong a combat. If the PC's attack and see they are outclassed, wouldn't they retreat? After retreating, would the bad guy have any reason to pursue them?

Wouldn't it be likely that a high ranking person like this would command his underlings to protect him, in the event of an attack? Like any good villain, as soon as the players draw their weapons and make to come at him, his bodyguards will block their path, and a fight will ensue while he exits stage left. They will dramatically try to get to him, but too many bad guys will be in their way, or something else will stop them, like a wall of fire or a pit full of spikes will open up, or something. Maybe he presses a magic ring and just teleports away. If they insist on pursuing and get past the very obvious attempts to dissuade them, then let the dice fall where they may.

If they get into a fight with an enemy of unknown strength in a place where retreat is impossible, then they deserve whatever comes to them. You've got to let the players succeed or fail on their own decisions. Of course, presenting them with an unbeatable fight when, in the past, you have always given them beatable fights and rewarded them for fighting everything that they encounter, is going to be a problem. You need to consider how you've presented past games and this game up until now, as well as what the game system itself rewards them for and what expectations it creates. It isn't like a video game, where you have cut-scenes that you can't interact with in between combat encounters designed to be winnable for the player. Don't try to use the type of story telling conventions from other media (games, movies, books), they don't necessarily apply to TTRPGs.

[MonkeySage]

Darth Ultron: They'd be accused of High Treason for conspiring against a monarch, and attempted regicide for trying to kill said monarch. This isn't railroading, it's simply the law of the land; actions have realistic consequences.

The face to face meeting with that monarch was the result of them being in the wrong place at the wrong time: The Big Bad went to visit his accomplice only to find him flapping his gums to a bunch of outsiders. The Big Bad doesn't know how much the players found out, how much his accomplice told them. He can reasonably guess that they know more than he wants them to know, and are thus a liability, all of them are.

The player in question decided against attacking the big bad. Said that the method he would have used would have been unsportsmanlike and cheaty, something I would have to actively house rule against because RAW don't forbid it.

[Lorsa]

This scenario happens quite often, I think, and too many DMs deal with it in the wrong* way.

(* speculation on my part based on prior experiences and game stories)

The best thing to do is not to have your players meet the Big Bad if you don't want them to fight it. In general, players will ALWAYS try to fight Darth Vader, even if they aren't ready. Just like Luke in Episode V (yes, I just recently watched Star Wars with my girlfriend to introduce her to the movies).

There could be many reasons for this, starting with the simple fact that players usually try to fight their way out of anything. I usually try to look at it from a character perspective though (the power of hermeneutics).

From a character's point of view, the Big Bad represents utter evil, whereas the character is just an insignificant individual trying to fit for good. Unless the character is of such planning nature, and has such self-confidence that (s)he believes it is possible to eventually amass enough mundane forces (armies or the like) to defeat the Big Bad, (s)he will usually take any chance given to try and kill or defeat the Big Bad, even if it is a kamikaze mission.

Remember, the idea that "I will go and face level-appropriate challenges until I have gathered experience to face the end challenge of the campaign" is an inherently meta-game idea. Yeah, sure, a character could believe that training will eventually make them on pair with the Big Bad in fighting ability, but how long will that take? How much evil will BBEG have done in the meantime? What's to stop evil guy from also becoming better? Who is to say you will even get a chance to come into contact with the Big Bad even after you've become a better fighter? Regardless of your personal strength, they are nothing compared to the armies commanded by the villain.

I think this last is the main point. No matter how much personal skill is gained, from a character's point of view, it matters nothing, as the BB will always be more powerful than them. Since that is true, any character will jump on the first chance given to try to take BB down. For all they know, this will be the only chance. 1% chance is still better than unknown chance, so why not go for it?

[Jayngfet]

I'm gonna reiterate the earlier mention point of "what are they SUPPOSED to do?"

I mean let's face it, your players would have every right to get pissed at you if they died from the sound of it. You set up a cutscene where they sat there and watched this other dude kill off the biggest thing they ever accomplished then decided they have no chance of winning because the guy is surrounded by a team of elite minions they never heard of who are also the best ever.

As a general rule if your plan for your players boils down to "have them gawk and be impressed at this super cool dude I made they can't even touch." Then your plan is bad. This is an interactive media, having them sit still or take penalties for messing with the script is bad.

[Lorsa]

That isn't railroading. That is simple cause and effect. If the player characters jump off a cliff, they will fall. If they run into a bear and her cubs, she will attack. If they fireball an orphan girl, she will die. If they attack the Big Bad too early, he will try his damnedest to kill them.

Railroading isn't "If action A happens then action B must happen." Railroading is "Action H will happen, regardless of what Action A through G might be, because I say so."

Or perhaps something like this:

"Action B must happen, but as action B depends on action A, then action A must also happen, and end with the result that leads to Action B."

So on and so forth in an infinite backwards loop.