DMs: How far do you go to save the Party?

[Chalkarts]

I was recently the officiator of a tragic TPK.

I was running CoS, the Death House.

There is a 15x15 room with a bed and chest in it. The chest has stuff. If you remove the stuff from the chest, 2 Ghasts break through the walls and attack.
They have a guy who loves to touch stuff.

5 member group.
The logical way to proceed in this fight would have been tactical retreat to the next room which was larger and they could bottleneck the beasts at the door.

They were illogical. They attempted to face tank and rush into the room. A couple of bad paralysis saves and it was just a chain reaction.

Should I have tried to save them? The dice spoke and did not say nice things.

[Dark.Revenant]

Should I have tried to save them?

No.

They failed. They died. You did your job as DM.

[Amnestic]

Nah. TPKs suck a bit but sometimes the dice are harsh and that is the way it is.

Next time they'll all be elves for immunity to paralysis

I don't go outta my way to kill characters (rarely double tapping someone downed, except when it's an intelligent foe and the party starts trying to yo-yo heal them) but I don't hold back either.

[Inquisitor]

For my experienced group, if there are clearly multiple courses of action and they take the more dangerous or rash one, then I would never intervene.
For less experienced players, particularly if it really was a matter of bad luck vs. bad choices, I'd be tempted to at least try to avoid killing the whole party.

[Bundin]

For my experienced group, if there are clearly multiple courses of action and they take the more dangerous or rash one, then I would never intervene.
For less experienced players, particularly if it really was a matter of bad luck vs. bad choices, I'd be tempted to at least try to avoid killing the whole party.

This.

I won't actively save a party by throwing combat, but will allow them to successfully flee from combat. Except when they're stupid about it and manage to alert a bunch of other opponents, or when it really does not fit the situation they got themselves in to begin with (blatant stupidity comes to mind).

The only exception is completely new players being oneshot on level 1. In those cases, fun trumps dice. Normal hits can down them though, they had a time to take a potion (they always start with one in my games) but failed to be sensible, even after a reminder. I won't TPK a party with at least one new player in it in their first few combats/sessions, but they may end up with barely anyone alive and all resources drained. There *will* be tension :)

No.

They failed. They died. You did your job as DM.

The job is fun and tension, which may not always mean killing them relentlessly. Or it may mean exactly that at your table of course. But I'd not take that statement as a general truth.

[Mastikator]

You did nothing wrong Chalkarts. The next time the players will not be so arrogant, and in the future their victories will be earned. If they can't lose then victory is hollow, D&D is a game of fantastical heroes, heroes sometimes die.

I've saved players from poor decisions in the past that should've gotten their PC killed, that is my mistake.
Yes. I regret not killing PCs when when they (probably) should've died for doing stupid things.

-

On the flip side I've heard that the house of death from CoS is notoriously deadly. One thing you could've done is given the players a fair warning "this campaign will punish you, you might TPK if you're not careful". I think the DM should tell the players what the difficulty level will be, after that it's on the players.
I mean if you play dark souls then you should be prepared to die a lot, that's what you sign up for. The players should know what they're signing up for. Some of us enjoy that

[JackPhoenix]

If they die, they die. I've TPK'd a group in Death House too, that thing is hilariously deadly, considering it's intended for level 1 characters.

[CTurbo]

Depends on experience level for me. If it's a group of experienced players, it is what it is.

If it's a group of inexperienced players, I typical try to give them one free pass followed by a small lecture about future decision making.

[Unoriginal]

Should I have tried to save them?

No, not unless the scenario had something in place to help and that you agreed with it.

I was recently the officiator of a tragic TPK.

I was running CoS, the Death House.

It is a well-known meatgrinder.


To answer your title question: a DM shouldn't "save the Party".

If the DM messed up a description or the players didn't understand something, then the DM can do a "my bad", re-explain, turn back the clock to before the thing happened, and retcon the mistake out of existence.

If in-story there is someone or something which would save the PCs, then having said person or thing have an effect is normal too.

But if a PC makes a choice and the choice has lethal consequences, it certainly isn't the DM's job to prevent players from having PCs make those choices.

The job is fun and tension, which may not always mean killing them relentlessly.

There is no tension if there is no proper consequence for the actions.

If my PC goes against a relentless killer (like what is in Death House, IIRC) and they don't relentlessly kill my PC when given the opportunity, I have no tension nor fun.

Of course, a DM can simply choose to simply *not* use relentless killers if they're not comfortable with those specific consequences. More than fair. But then they shouldn't pretend that the danger the PCs are facing includes relentless killers.

In other words: OP did their job, as they ran this specific threat and dungeon accordingly.

[Chalkarts]

If they die, they die. I've TPK'd a group in Death House too, that thing is hilariously deadly, considering it's intended for level 1 characters.

When I was reading through it I didn't really give thought to the numbers. As we were running it I realized how rough it was.

[stoutstien]

Every table/group is different so there isn't one right fit. I usually have the stakes flushed out by the end of session 0.

[rel]

Every table/group is different so there isn't one right fit. I usually have the stakes flushed out by the end of session 0.

This.

There's nothing inherently wrong with a game with frequent PC deaths, or a game with no PC deaths. But it's important that all the players are aware of the games tone and are happy to participate.

A miscommunication can always happen, but its far less likely if everyone sits down and talks things through before the game starts. A good session zero can prevent a lot of issues from even happening.

And if you're worried you did something wrong (as the GM or as any other player) then talk about it after the game session.

[Boci]

On the note of logical vs. illogical tactics, it worth noting you the DM have access to all information that players do not, so what is logical for you might not be for them. Take this encounter, the monsters burst through the wall, so it seems at least likely a player would assume bottledecking them in a door will not work.

[Mameluco]

This.

There's nothing inherently wrong with a game with frequent PC deaths, or a game with no PC deaths. But it's important that all the players are aware of the games tone and are happy to participate.

A miscommunication can always happen, but its far less likely if everyone sits down and talks things through before the game starts. A good session zero can prevent a lot of issues from even happening.

And if you're worried you did something wrong (as the GM or as any other player) then talk about it after the game session.

On the note of logical vs. illogical tactics, it worth noting you the DM have access to all information that players do not, so what is logical for you might not be for them. Take this encounter, the monsters burst through the wall, so it seems at least likely a player would assume bottledecking them in a door will not work.

This.

Also, I'm not a fan of "death as a teacher" theory. I've played several meat-grinders before, and the only thing I learnt from that is to not care about my PCs when I play campaigns with high death-rate and start using the PCs as a expendable resources, not people within a world.

This happened to me because PC death loses its danger when you realise you can always roll a new character, so it's a set back, not a real issue.

[tokek]

This is why I'm not a fan of Death House

Parts of it teach the players to be afraid of everything, to be afraid of doing anything.

But players who are afraid to do anything are no fun to DM for and I really doubt if they are having any fun either. That character who always just has to take a look or can't resist touching is the character who most often moves the plot forwards (Peregrine Took was a good party member, change my mind).

I try to fix this at the setup stage. I don't like the setup for that encounter much.

Like the Rose and Thorn encounter is supposed to be a RP/problem solving encounter not a combat encounter - I don't mind that one at all.

But yes Death House is a bit of a meat grinder and what I most don't like about it is that it might teach players to not touch anything or do anything for fear of being killed.

[Sigreid]

Only rarely if I realize I forced them into a no chance fight. If they picked the no chance fight, that's on them.

[Unoriginal]

Only rarely if I realize I forced them into a no chance fight. If they picked the no chance fight, that's on them.

Worth noting is that the whole Curse of Strahd module is explicitly and blatantly enduring a fight the PCs can't win against the eponymous vampire... until the turning point, where the PCs acquire the means to win and Strahd scrambles to correct the mistake he made by not immediately ending them.

It is not an experience all players will enjoy. And that should be cleared in session 0 or when playing the module is first proposed

[KorvinStarmast]

I was recently the officiator of a tragic TPK.
I was running CoS, the Death House.

Well, that's about how it works. Death house requires quite a bit of care and cautions play.

For that encounter, our first CoS group, the cleric (me) uses "protection from evil/good" on the barbarian who manned the chokepoint in the doorway. (I otherwise used sacred flame). We got out of that fight with just one downed PC. (Death saves made then we stabilized). We were lucky we had taken a short rest, as I had turn undead ready to go. I tried to turn undead on them but both passed their saves.

Should I have tried to save them? The dice spoke and did not say nice things.

Death House is a freaking meat grinder.
FWIW: I would never run a beginner group through Curse of Strahd. The mood/tone of that adventure is too negative.
We just had a very nice lady in our current CoS group quit playing.
She was very clear about why: the mood/tone of the module is just too negative for her.
The 'you can never win' theme finally got to her.
(Which stinks, beyond how much fun it is to play D&D with her; she was playing a paladin and we just got a raven amulet that only she could wear.

Only rarely if I realize I forced them into a no chance fight. If they picked the no chance fight, that's on them.

Likewise.

[da newt]

I normally ensure the party has a chance to retreat, but if they choose to stand and fight to the last or make foolish decisions, that's their choice (and CoS is designed to be a meat grinder).

I also don't like to DM for level 1 PCs - it's just too easy to kill them by accident. I prefer to only kills PCs on purpose.

[Oramac]

the Death House.

Death House is basically a TPK in written form. There's so damn many places in there that can (and do) TPK a party that it's pretty tough (or nigh impossible) to get through it without someone dying, if not everyone.

I'd say you were probably fine. And now the party knows that this ain't their grandma's campaign, as the saying goes.

[JackPhoenix]

Well, that's about how it works. Death house requires quite a bit of care and cautions play.
Death House is a freaking meat grinder.
FWIW: I would never run a beginner group through Curse of Strahd. The mood/tone of that adventure is too negative.

This. CoS is a good adventure, but it's not an adventure for beginners, or for everyone. It's not written as a fun romp where the players are on a power trip beating up all sorts of monsters, and treating it as such... from either side of the DM screen... is doing it a disfavor. It requires a specific mindset to play (while Death House is linear, the rest of CoS is more sandboxy experience with TPK landmines hidden all over the place) and

Parts of it teach the players to be afraid of everything, to be afraid of doing anything.

is exactly what the Death House is supposed to do, to teach players they do have to be extremely cautious if they want their characters to survive through the whole thing. That's, however, not a lesson applicable to the rest of 5e, and not something new players should learn. It's more oldschool style adenture.

[Easy e]

GMs have to be careful what they teach players in game, because once they learn those "lessons" they can be impossible to break.

I recall a attempted campaign that completely derailed because due to some overly risk-averse players they refused to engage with the inciting incidents and adventure hooks. They sited "lessons" they had learned playing D&D with past DMs.

That was a really frustrating campaign.

[Leon]

I don't, may suggest that something might be unwise to less experienced players but otherwise let the dice roll as they do.

[Easy e]

A lot of games handle this very differently than D&D does.

- Some explicitly remove death as a fail state.
- Some only allow death with mutual consent of the player
- Some move to death much quicker, but the replacement is easier

Depending on the needs of the game, the answer to this question can vary a lot.

[meandean]

It's the DM's job to describe what the character is able to perceive, and the players should be granted information that their characters undoubtedly would know. Even if you don't like going "meta", which I think is often a rule meant to be broken, that wouldn't be what this is. The characters, in story, would be realizing that they're in a fight they can't win and they're going to die.

In some cases, you can head a terrible decision off at the pass before it happens. "I pull on the piece of wood sticking out!" "You look up... it seems likely that if you did that, it would collapse the entire structure on top of you. Do you still want to do it?"

Now, in this specific case, there was presumably nothing visible indicating that the treasure chest shouldn't be touched. So you wouldn't warn them against doing that. But as the doomed fight plays out, you can start sending messages that escalate in urgency and specificity. "You always have the option to run"... "This really is not looking good at all for you guys"... "Make a Wisdom check... [assuming it's not terrible] It occurs to you that if you retreat into the next room, you can at least bottleneck them at the door".

Ultimately, it's up to the players whether they take your increasingly unsubtle hints. But I think it's the right thing to do to provide the information.