My first TPK in a while

[RazorChain]

Sometimes I wonder about decision making in RPG's. I know that players don't want their characters to loose anything, be it item or anything else.

This resulted in TPK in my last session I was running.

The group had been thwarting a necromancer villain they knew was more powerful than them. They had met him twice before but never fought him. They had fought his minions on a number of occasions. Stolen the McGuffin from under his nose and were just general nuisance for him.

The necromancer had an operation on a dig site where a dragon knight was supposed to be buried. The PC's ended his operation and hired their own workers to dig up the side which led to a large tunnel and into a tomb complex. After getting through to the burial chamber, tussling with some guardians and deadly traps the PC's get the magical armaments of the dragon knight and return to the surface only to find the villain waiting for them.

The villain is willing to trade the McGuffin for the lives of two npc's he has hostage, one a friend of the group and the other a mentor to one of the PC's. The villain has a superior force in superior position on top of the dig site, surrounding the PC's. The PC's are beaten and battered after going through the tomb, low on resources and mostly out of spell power. Behind the PC's is a deathtrap dungeon with tight corridors and lot of active traps that the PC's have avoided but know about and can avoid. The group is a level 5 in dnd.

The Paladin, drunk on his own smiting power: "We can take them I still have a second level spell slot"
The Wizard: "You sure? I have only one first level spell slot, then I'm down to cantrips"
The Cleric: "I'm almost out of juice as well"
The Paladin: "I have a ring of jumping, I jump up on the top of the dig site and smite that villain, the moon druid still has her wild shape this will go splendidly"
The Rogue: "You sure about this? They have us bottled up, higher ground and surrounded! Shouldn't we rather either give up the McGuffin or retreat down the tunnel again?"
The Paladin: "Shut up man you always have your sneak attacks, don't worry"

The group: "Charge!"

The group gets paralyzed, entangled and fireballed and peppered with arrows and promptly die.

[Khedrac]

It's hard to judge situations like this without far more detail that you have put in your post, that said, the first rule of DMing is often that you don't kill the PCs, but you are willing to let them kill themselves.

From what you have said the PCs had the knowledge that the situation was very dangerous, and they also knew they had the ability to use the dungeon against the ambushers, thus this should count as the PCs killing themselves. That said, they may not agree - it might not have been clear to them that the necromancer was there in person etc.

At the very least I would suggest discussing what happened to see if they think they missed up or they feel cheated - this informtion will help you in future camapigns.

[KorvinStarmast]

Spoiler: details

Show

Sometimes I wonder about decision making in RPG's. I know that players don't want their characters to loose anything, be it item or anything else.

This resulted in TPK in my last session I was running.

The group had been thwarting a necromancer villain they knew was more powerful than them. They had met him twice before but never fought him. They had fought his minions on a number of occasions. Stolen the McGuffin from under his nose and were just general nuisance for him.

The necromancer had an operation on a dig site where a dragon knight was supposed to be buried. The PC's ended his operation and hired their own workers to dig up the side which led to a large tunnel and into a tomb complex. After getting through to the burial chamber, tussling with some guardians and deadly traps the PC's get the magical armaments of the dragon knight and return to the surface only to find the villain waiting for them.

The villain is willing to trade the McGuffin for the lives of two npc's he has hostage, one a friend of the group and the other a mentor to one of the PC's. The villain has a superior force in superior position on top of the dig site, surrounding the PC's. The PC's are beaten and battered after going through the tomb, low on resources and mostly out of spell power. Behind the PC's is a deathtrap dungeon with tight corridors and lot of active traps that the PC's have avoided but know about and can avoid. The group is a level 5 in dnd.

The Paladin, drunk on his own smiting power: "We can take them I still have a second level spell slot"
The Wizard: "You sure? I have only one first level spell slot, then I'm down to cantrips"
The Cleric: "I'm almost out of juice as well"
The Paladin: "I have a ring of jumping, I jump up on the top of the dig site and smite that villain, the moon druid still has her wild shape this will go splendidly"
The Rogue: "You sure about this? They have us bottled up, higher ground and surrounded! Shouldn't we rather either give up the McGuffin or retreat down the tunnel again?"
The Paladin: "Shut up man you always have your sneak attacks, don't worry"

The group: "Charge!"

The group gets paralyzed, entangled and fireballed and peppered with arrows and promptly die.

I fail to see the problem.
Give 'em enough rope.
Sometimes they make a nice hammock out of it, sometimes they make their own noose.

[RazorChain]

It's hard to judge situations like this without far more detail that you have put in your post, that said, the first rule of DMing is often that you don't kill the PCs, but you are willing to let them kill themselves.

From what you have said the PCs had the knowledge that the situation was very dangerous, and they also knew they had the ability to use the dungeon against the ambushers, thus this should count as the PCs killing themselves. That said, they may not agree - it might not have been clear to them that the necromancer was there in person etc.

At the very least I would suggest discussing what happened to see if they think they missed up or they feel cheated - this informtion will help you in future camapigns.

They negotiated with the necromancer before charging and have met him twice before.
I reminded them that they had tunnels behind them.

I drew up the scenario on a battlemat with minis so they had a clear visual representation after their decision to attack and told them they could reconsider after seing the situation better visually.

For them it was a lesson. My son who plays the cleric was after the session saying he knew it was a stupid decision and berated himself for listening to the Paladin. So at least he learned something about life; Paladins are lawful stupid and life is full of people with bad plans/advice and try to convince you otherwise

[icefractal]

Not that people don't just sometimes make dumb moves, but I feel like the hostages may have been a factor.

The PCs retreat into the tunnels and then ... what? Does the lich kill the hostages? Does he shout down that they have ten seconds to come back before that happens? Or does he put the hostages to the side for now and send minions in to chase the PCs?

Any of those seem possible, but only the last one is an acceptable outcome for any PCs who care about said hostages. Whereas if you fight him that's not an issue - either you win and it's good, or you die and there's nobody left to feel bad about what happens.

[Notafish]

It sounds like it was a fair situation, and a dramatically interesting TPK - if it were me, I'd rather lose in a fight with the villain than in an encounter with wandering monsters that got out of hand.

Your story has made me curious, though - does the campaign continue at your next session, or is the story over for now?

[RazorChain]

It sounds like it was a fair situation, and a dramatically interesting TPK - if it were me, I'd rather lose in a fight with the villain than in an encounter with wandering monsters that got out of hand.

Your story has made me curious, though - does the campaign continue at your next session, or is the story over for now?

The mage defiantly used his last action to firebolt his bag of holding which held the McGuffin and then he crawled into as it was on fire, spilling him and the McGuffin into the astral sea as the bag got destroyed.

I'm thinking of starting them as level 3 characters in the same campaign. The necromancer has cast his shadow over the land and their former characters are his undead henchmen. So do they rise up and help the people from the yoke of the necromancer or do they do something completely different is up to them.

[KorvinStarmast]

Optimizing vs Roleplay
If the worlds greatest optimizer makes a character and hands it to the worlds greatest roleplayer who roleplays the character. What will happen?

A good time will be had by all. It's a win win.

[Pex]

Purposely being cynical for a different point of view the Paladin player might have had. By the way, I do take umbrage with you saying Paladins are Lawful Stupid as if that's a definition.

The players go into the dungeon and have their adventure. They deal with traps. They deal with monsters. They acquire the McGuffin, used up almost all their resources, and are ready to head back to town to long rest as this particular adventure is over. However, instead of that, they leave the dungeon but cannot go back to town to long rest because by DM fiat the BBEG with his whole army is there holding beloved NPCs hostage demanding the party give back the McGuffin the players just finished a game session or two achieving, making all the work and energy they put into playing the adventure pointless. What's to stop the BBEG from just killing them and taking the McGuffin? What stops him from killing the hostages after giving him the McGuffin? What stops him from killing the party after giving him the McGuffin? The BBEG is right there. The party thwarting him is out of juice and vulnerable. It was a TPK as soon as the DM announced the BBEG was there with his army. The rest was formality. Might as well go out in a blaze of glory.

Making the party undead minions of the BBEG against the new party adds insult to injury.

[False God]

...The group gets paralyzed, entangled and fireballed and peppered with arrows and promptly die.

In summation, they rolled poorly and the enemy rolled well.

That's sort of one of the weird things about d20 gameplay, especially at lower levels. A LOT of the game comes down to "What did I roll on this die?" Regardless of actions taken, preparation, ammo, spell selection or what have you. If a TPK felt pointless, it's probably the fault of the dice, not the fault of player action.

Because I've certainly seen players run headfirst into worse and succeed.

[RazorChain]

Purposely being cynical for a different point of view the Paladin player might have had. By the way, I do take umbrage with you saying Paladins are Lawful Stupid as if that's a definition.

The players go into the dungeon and have their adventure. They deal with traps. They deal with monsters. They acquire the McGuffin, used up almost all their resources, and are ready to head back to town to long rest as this particular adventure is over. However, instead of that, they leave the dungeon but cannot go back to town to long rest because by DM fiat the BBEG with his whole army is there holding beloved NPCs hostage demanding the party give back the McGuffin the players just finished a game session or two achieving, making all the work and energy they put into playing the adventure pointless. What's to stop the BBEG from just killing them and taking the McGuffin? What stops him from killing the hostages after giving him the McGuffin? What stops him from killing the party after giving him the McGuffin? The BBEG is right there. The party thwarting him is out of juice and vulnerable. It was a TPK as soon as the DM announced the BBEG was there with his army. The rest was formality. Might as well go out in a blaze of glory.

Making the party undead minions of the BBEG against the new party adds insult to injury.

Should have made blue for sarcasm for that Paladins are lawful stupid.

The McGuffin was aquired on another venture by the party not in that dungeon. I think this boils down to style of play. I usually find out what the villain wants and how he is going to achieve it, then the adventurers come along and put a monkey wrench in his plans and the villain starts to react. Of course the villain can just sit around doing nothing and wait until the adventurers storm his lair and kill him. Is the wold static or dynamic.

Everything that happens in the gaming world outside of the PC's sphere of influence is DM's fiat.

But it all boils down to choice. The party could have used Leomund's tiny hut to camp in the dungeon and take a long rest but they didn't. So the question is should I have taken into consideration that the party didn't take a long rest and decided that the villain doesn't act on the information about the party where abouts because of that, and if I did would that then be considered a "Dm's Fiat"?

The mentor and the friend of the party that were waiting outside the dungeon, should they just have vanished? I gave them a 50/50 to be captured or not by the villain and even allowed the players to roll for it so that was that.

So what's to stop the villain from reneging on his words? Well the wizard was holding the McGuffin in a bag of holding threatening to destroy the bag and spill the McGuffin into the Astral Plane so there was a leeway for exchange that could have been hashed out. Just as the villain had to trust that they wouldn't betray their word.

So there were always choices for the players, in different games there are different choices. Some offer do I take the door to the left or the door to the right? What monster do I hit now? Other offer do we negotiate with the villain for our friends lives? Do we sacrifice them to their fate in hope to have a bigger chance to stop the villain? Do we do a suicidal charge and hope for the best?

[KorvinStarmast]

Purposely being cynical for a different point of view the Paladin player might have had. By the way, I do take umbrage with you saying Paladins are Lawful Stupid as if that's a definition.

The players go into the dungeon and have their adventure. They deal with traps. They deal with monsters. They acquire the McGuffin, used up almost all their resources, and are ready to head back to town to long rest as this particular adventure is over. However, instead of that, they leave the dungeon but cannot go back to town to long rest because by DM fiat the BBEG with his whole army is there holding beloved NPCs hostage demanding the party give back the McGuffin the players just finished a game session or two achieving, making all the work and energy they put into playing the adventure pointless.

See Raiders of the Lost Ark, opening scenes, for a typical narrative example.

What's to stop the BBEG from just killing them and taking the McGuffin? What stops him from killing the hostages after giving him the McGuffin? What stops him from killing the party after giving him the McGuffin? The BBEG is right there. The party thwarting him is out of juice and vulnerable. It was a TPK as soon as the DM announced the BBEG was there with his army. The rest was formality. Might as well go out in a blaze of glory.

That's a way to look at it. All of that depends on how much of a mustache twirler the BBEG is.

Concur with your objection to Lawful Stupid.

[King of Nowhere]

if we were in ank morpork, your party's fate would be dismissed as "suicide".
and it seems mostly the paladin's doing, he convinced the others.

my party has long since learned that there are times to escape.

[Mastikator]

OP you did the right thing, honoring the players wishes to win spectacularly or die horribly. Hopefully they learned an important lesson: don't listen to the paladin escape and surrender are valid options.

Allowing them to live would've sapped any sense of consequences or agency. It's also fitting that hubris comes before the fall.
Turning them into undead servants is imo a bit too much. Actually if you could, have the NPC hostages live. They can be the "I was there" NPCs which would refamiliarize the players with the story and recontextualize the NPCs (always a treat).

[Easy e]

These players died from player entitlement.

It is a rampant sentiment, and one that I often indulge in as well.

[Slipjig]

These players died from player entitlement.

It is a rampant sentiment, and one that I often indulge in as well.

Yeah, it kind of sounds like the players were expecting BioWare-style plot armor, where even truly terrible decisions don't generally kill you.

[RazorChain]

These players died from player entitlement.

It is a rampant sentiment, and one that I often indulge in as well.

The problem may also be that I often play other systems that don't have DnD power level. In that regard Dnd isn't really good at telegraphing danger.

On top of this there were 3 enemy casters and 2 of them managed to lock down the party with upcasted hold person and entanglement.

[Mastikator]

The problem may also be that I often play other systems that don't have DnD power level. In that regard Dnd isn't really good at telegraphing danger.

On top of this there were 3 enemy casters and 2 of them managed to lock down the party with upcasted hold person and entanglement.

Arguably the DM telegraphed it well enough that the rogue was able to see their death coming. He just needs to learn that sometimes you gotta stand up to other members.

Good thing about DnD is that death can be a learning experience even if you're the one dying

[Khedrac]

Good thing about DnD is that death can be a learning experience even if you're the one dying

That would be RoleMaster - where you get experience for dying...

[icefractal]

That would be RoleMaster - where you get experience for dying...

I'd definitely give someone XP for an encounter they died in - assuming they get raised, of course. Seems like a major learning experience.

[Olffandad]

It's a good story - maybe folks are conditioned a little too much for the "walk off home run" victory.

It seems the DM correctly signaled a dangerous situation - likewise, there's no shame for a player to push the limits and avoid a boring long rest to start at 100% resources.

Obviously, the party can always play it safe - if there's no risk of losing, why play?

Also, the necromancer gets to show off some lovely new trophies (the first team) to the next interlopers getting in his or her business.

[Mastikator]

That would be RoleMaster - where you get experience for dying...

Hopefully the players level up ;)

[Rynjin]

But it all boils down to choice. The party could have used Leomund's tiny hut to camp in the dungeon and take a long rest but they didn't. So the question is should I have taken into consideration that the party didn't take a long rest and decided that the villain doesn't act on the information about the party where abouts because of that, and if I did would that then be considered a "Dm's Fiat"?

The mentor and the friend of the party that were waiting outside the dungeon, should they just have vanished? I gave them a 50/50 to be captured or not by the villain and even allowed the players to roll for it so that was that.

This GMing style always frustrates me, because these two paragraphs are actively contradictory.

On the one hand, verisimilitude. Two NPCs are left unattended, and the villain arrives. He kidnaps them. This is fine.

On the other hand...game logic. The party TOTALLY has the option to spend 8-12 hours resting, during which the villain will of course...do nothing? He'll just let them pull back into the tunnels, let them rest, and then stand in the same position until they get back and are ready to tussle again? This is also fine, on its own.

The issue is when these two ideals clash, as here. Either you're playing by video game logic or you're not. Sending mixed signals means the players don't have the information they need to MAKE an informed decision. Because the mindset of the GM and the style of the game is one of the most important things when it comes to making the right choice in a given situation. Players can be Wrong Genre Savvy and it leads to issues. As it does here.

What you have essentially told the players is one thing: events in the world continue to move in the background even when you can't see them. This implies that given 8-12 hours to prepare, the villain will do...something. Torture the hostages for information. Set up an unwinnable fight in some way, such as by laying traps around their Tiny Hut. Maybe just...**** off back to his lair with the hostages and leave a note saying "Come see me when you're willing to negotiate."

But what's actually happening is that they should actually ignore all those potential consequences of taking a rest, because events only move in the background on your whims, not by any sort of logic.

[Sneak Dog]

Sure, a plan to actually save the hostages would've been better, or a plan to keep the Macguffin out of the evil necromancer's hands. If they did try to find such plans and got none, this seems like the natural outcome of the situation.
As paladin I too would've decided that instead of (risking) sacrificing the lives of two hostages to save one's own, it's better to charge in against insurmountable odds to stand against evil.

Because really, this situation just stinks. The evil necromancer has hostages to force action, and can be safely assumed to be negotiating in bad faith with the people being a general nuisance right here when they're vulnerable. Might as well follow the tenets you were sworn to follow while praying for (divine) intervention.

[RazorChain]

This GMing style always frustrates me, because these two paragraphs are actively contradictory.

On the one hand, verisimilitude. Two NPCs are left unattended, and the villain arrives. He kidnaps them. This is fine.

On the other hand...game logic. The party TOTALLY has the option to spend 8-12 hours resting, during which the villain will of course...do nothing? He'll just let them pull back into the tunnels, let them rest, and then stand in the same position until they get back and are ready to tussle again? This is also fine, on its own.

The issue is when these two ideals clash, as here. Either you're playing by video game logic or you're not. Sending mixed signals means the players don't have the information they need to MAKE an informed decision. Because the mindset of the GM and the style of the game is one of the most important things when it comes to making the right choice in a given situation. Players can be Wrong Genre Savvy and it leads to issues. As it does here.

What you have essentially told the players is one thing: events in the world continue to move in the background even when you can't see them. This implies that given 8-12 hours to prepare, the villain will do...something. Torture the hostages for information. Set up an unwinnable fight in some way, such as by laying traps around their Tiny Hut. Maybe just...**** off back to his lair with the hostages and leave a note saying "Come see me when you're willing to negotiate."

But what's actually happening is that they should actually ignore all those potential consequences of taking a rest, because events only move in the background on your whims, not by any sort of logic.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I meant that they could have rested after they had cleared the dungeon before they met the villain. If they had retreated the villain would have sent his minions after them but then the PC's would have had a pretty defensible position with plenty of unsprung traps only they knew about.

[Rynjin]

...So the PCs are supposed to be psychic? What that implies is the scenario you set up didn't really have any options. They could either surrender or die, and since surrendering to a psycho necromancer usually means death, and then worse, the choices are really "die or die horribly".

[Notafish]

The problem may also be that I often play other systems that don't have DnD power level. In that regard Dnd isn't really good at telegraphing danger.

On top of this there were 3 enemy casters and 2 of them managed to lock down the party with upcasted hold person and entanglement.

Stuff like "the enemies can cast spells at your level and will try to kill you if you fight" is something I might want to communicate out of character to a 5th level party, depending on what player expectations for the campaign are.

I think the default expectation for 5e is that the characters are a cut above most other individuals, including the BBEG's henchmen. I think there is also a tendency to expect that the PCs are the only characters with agency in the world, as in video game RPGs. "The enemies are a match for you, will attempt to spy on you, will adapt to your actions, and are trying to win" is a concept that requires a different approach to strategy than one where you are telling a collaborative story in which the player characters are the only protagonists.

[RazorChain]

...So the PCs are supposed to be psychic? What that implies is the scenario you set up didn't really have any options. They could either surrender or die, and since surrendering to a psycho necromancer usually means death, and then worse, the choices are really "die or die horribly".

Let's go over this once again in greater detail. The PC's attack the dig site where there is supposed to be a tomb of the dragon knight. The PC's kill the Necromancers henchmen at the dig site but a couple of them escape.
The PC's take over the dig site, hire some workers to dig up the entrance. The PC's thwart an attack on town by the necromancer see him kill the local wizard. The wizards apprentice tells the PC's that the Necromancer is after an Orcus figurine (the McGuffin). The PC's race against time and manage to get the Orcus figurine before the Necromancer. The PC's return to the dig site and enter the tomb of the dragon knight because they want the potential treasure. The diggers return to their homes but the former wizard's apprentice and a former mentor to one of the PC's wait topside.

The PC's clear the dungeon, get nice loot, and even though the Wizard's PC wants to rest because it's almost evening and he's out of spell slots, the cleric concurs. The Paladin blows them off, the rogue and the druid/monk don't care. The PC's get back from the tomb to the digside. They are surrounded with the enemy on the higher ground with lot of missile weapons, the PC's are almost fully healed but mostly out of spell slots. The Necromancer offers them a trade, the Orcus figurine for their friends lives The Wizard and Cleric are cautious, they don't have any firepower and the situation looks dire. The party discusses their options. The Cleric wants to put up an exchange, the figurine for their friends lives and he starts to hash out a deal with the Necromancer. The wizard wants to retreat back into the tunnels because they'll have superior position there and there is a lot of unsprung traps that the party can utilize to their advantage. The Paladin has a ring of jumping, he figures that he can jump to the top of the dig site and smite the necromancer with his second level smite and first level smite that he has left. The rogue and the druid/monk don't care either way (passive players).

So I'm going to say that they always had a choice A) Parley B) Retreat to superior position and fight C) Suicidal charge where they were surrounded and the enemy had the higher ground and the party was bunched up together.

[Sneak Dog]

Oh, thank you for the additional context. It sounds like the party didn't consider that the enemy would show up to take what they wanted on a short timescale and got themselves in an awful situation. It's the consequences of their own actions fueled by greed coming to bite them.

So I'm going to say that they always had a choice A) Parley B) Retreat to superior position and fight C) Suicidal charge where they were surrounded and the enemy had the higher ground and the party was bunched up together.

But I'd still say that by this point in time, their choices stink. A likely gets them backstabbed anyway. B sort of forfeits their hostages' lives. C at least lets them die following what they believe in, in a universe where they believe in interventionist deities and have made a bunch of allies to boot. (They probably should've tried to get the figurine out and away though. Let one of them attempt to run off with it into the sunset.)

The hostages are the real stinger here. If they had long rested in the dungeon, the necromancer wouldn't have sat idly by either. Use a message scroll to get the message across, or send in some disposable zombies. Without answer, they can just leave and take the hostages to their fortress, or kill and raise them as undead to rub it in the PCs faces.

[RazorChain]

Oh, thank you for the additional context. It sounds like the party didn't consider that the enemy would show up to take what they wanted on a short timescale and got themselves in an awful situation. It's the consequences of their own actions fueled by greed coming to bite them.



But I'd still say that by this point in time, their choices stink. A likely gets them backstabbed anyway. B sort of forfeits their hostages' lives. C at least lets them die following what they believe in, in a universe where they believe in interventionist deities and have made a bunch of allies to boot. (They probably should've tried to get the figurine out and away though. Let one of them attempt to run off with it into the sunset.)

The hostages are the real stinger here. If they had long rested in the dungeon, the necromancer wouldn't have sat idly by either. Use a message scroll to get the message across, or send in some disposable zombies. Without answer, they can just leave and take the hostages to their fortress, or kill and raise them as undead to rub it in the PCs faces.

I agree that their choices stink but that's usually how I run my games, it's not roses and rainbows all the time. Sometimes it boils down to hard choices and the law of unintended consequence.

I fully understand that there is more than one way to run a game. I can treat every encounter as combat as sport and have them level appropriate and never have any meaningful choices except what monsters butt to kick next to take their treasure. This is a fine way to run DnD but not my way.