Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Patrick_H 07-04-05, 03:02 PM	You know, I really thought that 1st level PCs would have to have some sense of self-preservation, or they'd never make it to 2nd level. Rather than clutter up the message board here with an extended account of the session (for 2005.07.03), I'd like to refer interested persons to the campaign log at the link below. Daeorian Campaign Log (http://www.daeoria.org/daeoria/campaignlog.html) Two parts of the session are particularly troubling to me: 1st) The rogue staying behind in the lair by herself. Could anyone seriously think they're going to survive by themselves when four PCs working together are already near death? I bent the situation significantly so as not to kill the PC after the PC did something so stupid that I really think it should have been fatal. 2nd) The party was surrounded by a band of thieves. When pitted against overwhelming odds, doesn't it make sense to shut up and do as you're told rather than try to fight? Even if you assume the band of thieves were 1st level (as the PCs were), they were still up against 2 to 1 odds. Add to that the fact that the thieves may well be very experienced and far more capable than the PCs, it seems really dumb to try to defy them. Now, the PCs tried to argue that they were just playing their characters. Their characters would have fought on principle and survival be damned. I say BS! Everybody has some sense of self-preservation. I've seen their characters' stats. The PCs are far wiser than the players are playing them. I'd really be interested in any comments anyone would care to offer, but I think mostly I just needed to vent some of the frustration I feel over yesterday's session.
PlutoniumKnight 07-04-05, 03:09 PM	An easy way to teach them caution is to be fair, if they are stupid then they die or are heavily wounded, lets say they attack the theives, the theives basically would either kill or knock them out and take their goods. Every action they take has a reaction. I don't think you should have bent the situation in the first one to let him live because that's just encouraging more stupidity. In essence if they are stupid, have the world react to the stupidity in a realistic manner, you attack a band of theives, they attack back, you hide alone is a lair of undead (or other beasties) more might come along.
kaldrin 07-04-05, 03:13 PM	Now, the PCs tried to argue that they were just playing their characters. Their characters would have fought on principle and survival be damned. I say BS! Everybody has some sense of self-preservation. I've seen their characters' stats. The PCs are far wiser than the players are playing them. That would depend on their background, wouldn't it? Don't be in such a rush to say BS when it could very well be that the characters are that stubborn. I wouldn't base it purely off stats. I'd go ahead and kill off the party then and then take a vacation from gaming for a while, few weeks perhaps. Then they might come to their senses.
WCH 07-04-05, 03:17 PM	On a related note, one thing I've noticed is that the desire for a powerful character far outweighs the hinderance of creating a new character at lvl 1... which is why you always need to institute a significant penalty for new characters (lower wealth, for instance). An example of why this is needed is the Deck of Many Things: a player might figure "hey, either I'll be amazing after this, or I'll be dead and I can make a new char, who will also draw from the Deck. Eventually I've gotta win big!" and then draw several cards. Now, tell them that "if your character dies, your new character will be made on a lower Point Buy" or something similar (say start at 36, lower by 2 or 4 for each death), and they'll be scared into self preservation.
Patrick_H 07-04-05, 03:31 PM	This was our second session in the campaign I'm running. Our group has fragmented and reformed repeatedly over the last few months. I held back from doing as you suggested specifically because I was concerned about ******* everybody off and fragmenting the group yet again. The last time we re-formed, I got promoted to DM. I've given the PCs an out in every situation so that it doesn't have to be a no-win or an unsurvivable situation. You know, basically I think you're right. I was very taken aback by the emotional response the players exhibited when the situations arose. I was thrown and didn't handle it as perhaps I should have. I basically decided at the time (with respect to the situation with the thieves) to back off and think it through a bit. If you read the campaign log you'll note that the thieves left the PCs while laughing about their exaggerated bravado. They will meet again, and it will be because the PCs are so arrogant that they think they can take on and beat these guys. (The XPs they got from yesterday's game has them now being a mix of 2nd and 3rd level PCs instead of 1st and 2nd, as they were yesterday.) I reall do want everybody to have fun, including me. But if I'm going to be criticized because the PCs don't have the sense to evaluate a situation and back down when they can't win. Surely they can't expect to be in a world where nothing can stand up against a band of low-level PCs? Thanks. I appreciate your remarks. - Patrick
Patrick_H 07-04-05, 03:33 PM	Now, tell them that "if your character dies, your new character will be made on a lower Point Buy" or something similar (say start at 36, lower by 2 or 4 for each death), and they'll be scared into self preservation. That's a neat idea.
celtredleg 07-04-05, 03:40 PM	I have never seen a group fall apart becauce somebody died. I have seen a number fall apart because there was not enough challenge in the world. They arct stupid, let it fall as it will. I like the idea of come back at a lower point buy.
Deacon Liadon 07-04-05, 03:42 PM	In general, yes. The PC's believe that the DM will not throw at them anything which they cannot handle, this is especially noticable among gamers who enter from computer gaming. Hack'n'Slash all the way without realising that you can get around encounters without the fighting.
Steely Glint 07-04-05, 03:56 PM	In my experience, PCs absolutely hate to have their equipment stolen or destroyed. They will go to almost any length to prevent it, including great risk to their lives. Putting them in a situation where they have to choose between their equipment and their lives is a recipe for a TPK (and pretty frustrating for the players). I think it was a good call to reduce the toll to 10 gp per person and let them live for now; for all the thieves know they could be skilled (4th/5th level) adventurers who have handled scores of bandits in the past. I definitely agree with you on the first point, splitting up is almost never a good idea.
Kintara 07-04-05, 04:01 PM	Players, in general, hate, hate, HATE being taken prisoner (Edit: Steely Glint has nailed one reason.). I know it's a common thing to happen in stories, but I just don't think it's a good idea in a game. It feels like railroading, and it just gets under players' skins for whatever reason. Trust me. Try not to put players in situations where, if they don't do what you expect, they get exploded. Those sorts of situations are often not as fun because it means that there's a "way out" that the players need to figure out, and players tend to rebel when they feel like they're stuck doing X, or X and Y. They end up wanting to do Q or F, or something else unexpected. Players don't want to feel like they're playing Guess What the DM Has in Mind?. This is one of the hardest things to balance when DMing, though. The first situation is too vague for me to comment (I'll read the full log later), but I do know that players may be acting "suicidal" as a passive-aggressive form of protest. There's also the problem of a DM giving the players plot immunity (or having a only a minor penalty for dying), and the players getting careless and cocky, but I think DMs tend to jump to that conclusion too quickly. Try and set up situations, rather than stories, if possible, because only one person can tell a story at one time, and if you make a story, the players aren't telling it, they're experiencing it. I don't know what your games are really like, though.
Quarsian 07-04-05, 04:06 PM	1) Personally, I wouldn't have changed anything. If she was going to die, then she was going to die. The lizardfolk or whoever would likely have just killed her for revenge. This makes more sense than putting her in a cage, unless they planned on torturing her. The party did kill a lot of them, so they would be particularly hostile in terms of attitude towards the PCs. Rogues that go off on their own take chances that they need to deal with. 2) This was a situation I'd stay away from. If you are surrounding the party with a group of enemies capable of killing them all, you'd better have a damn good reason for it, especially if the PCs risk losing all of their equipment. If the PCs bring this upon themselves, that's a different story, but if they were just walking down the road and got ambushed, then it's a little unfair. It seems the point of the encounter was for the party to argue the thieves down to a fare of 10 gp per person and introduce the band of thieves as villains for another session. This is all well and good but just think: these thieves totally outclass the PCs in nearly every way. Are they going to settle for 10 gp per person when they could have it all? And if not, what is their reason for this? Diplomacy in such situations is difficult and the party might not even try it at all. Talking the thieves down isn't something that really occurrs to a party too much, especially if the thieves seem to have a good chance of winning. Like I said, you'd better have a good reason for doing this because it smacks of Railroading, and PCs tend not to like that so much. If the loss was supposed to be minimal and the ambush was supposed to start a new story arc, then it's all good.
Patrick_H 07-04-05, 04:25 PM	Like I said, you'd better have a good reason for doing this because it smacks of Railroading, and PCs tend not to like that so much. If the loss was supposed to be minimal and the ambush was supposed to start a new story arc, then it's all good. The loss would have been major, but very temporary. It was supposed to set up a new story arc that would have included providing the PCs with improved weaponry. None of the PC's weapons have any magical bonuses. If you read the campaign log you'll have noted that they were in the process of returning the lost boy. His uncle was going to be rewarding them for their great deeds and tremendous loss. Of course, when they show up with the boy and their gold and equipment are intact, then he has no reason to think it was any great effort or risk on their part to walk the boy home. So, he doesn't need to risk informing these strangers about his stash of nifty weapons. And, the new story arc included making the PCs really, really want to take out these thieves. (At least this much has still been achieved. They ended their session by discussing how they might do this.) But I really want them to be smart about it. If they take on the thieves 1 or 2 at a time, they stand a good chance of being successful and building up their stats making them better able to also take down the main thief back at the hideout. We'll see how things go next week, I guess.
High King Tigernmas 07-04-05, 04:35 PM	Yes, because there exists in the players minds the thought, 'The DM is my friend, we know each other, they won't kill my chracter at first level...' Do something that makes them think twice about thinking the DM is soft. Of course then you get the outside of game problems... :rolleyes:
Fixxxer 07-04-05, 04:37 PM	1st) The rogue staying behind in the lair by herself. Could anyone seriously think they're going to survive by themselves when four PCs working together are already near death? I bent the situation significantly so as not to kill the PC after the PC did something so stupid that I really think it should have been fatal. There's the problem. The players have made the (obviously correct) assumption that no matter how stupid their actions are, the DM will find some way to keep the PCs alive. The only way to cure this syndrome is to enforce that action=reaction. If you do something stupid, something bad will probably happen to you and the DM isn't going to stop it.
Tek 07-04-05, 04:45 PM	Hmm, I didn't actually fully read the log, but I did catch this part: Mallorian receives an extra 50 XP for courageous conduct under fire: charging an unknown, concealed enemy while injured. You are rewarding them for stupid actions.
Mirikon 07-04-05, 05:44 PM	There are two solutions for PCs that take on opponents obviously far more powerful than they are. Which one you take depends on how evil you want to be as a DM. The nice approach is to kill them. The evil approach is to render them unconcious, strip them of all their gear, and have them jailed/sold into slavery/fed to the lions/etc.
Kintara 07-04-05, 06:04 PM	There are two solutions for PCs that take on opponents obviously far more powerful than they are. Which one you take depends on how evil you want to be as a DM. The nice approach is to kill them. The evil approach is to render them unconcious, strip them of all their gear, and have them jailed/sold into slavery/fed to the lions/etc. "Obvious" is subjective, and DMs have more information than the PCs. It's easy to say something is obvious when you know everything. This is just as much about player expectation as anything else. What a player thinks is an appropriate action depends largely on his expectations about who his character is and what kind of game he's playing in. If the DM doesn't make it clear what kind of mood he wants to set for his game, then players are going to draw the wrong conclusions about how to approach a problem. If the DM is going for Saving Private Ryan, and the players are thinking Rambo, then someone had a miscommunication. I mean, anyone with some experience in D&D knows that 1st level characters are wimpy, but this can happen at any level, and the type of game you're in will affect what's appropriate and what isn't.
DeWayne 07-04-05, 09:21 PM	Are all PCs suicidal? No, but some are, especially if their stuff is involved. A week ago I introduced some new players into an existing campaign by having the pre-existing party aid them in their escape from a group of kobolds worshiping a T-Rex. They hadn't even made good their escape and one of the newbies announces he wants to run through the 2 dozen kobold warriors into their lair (containing an unknown number of additional kobolds, traps, etc.) to find where they put his stuff. The other players talked him out of it. I spoke with a couple of the other players afterwards expressing my belief that if they attacked the lair it would result in TPK. A couple of them looked at me as if I was crazy and said "No, it'll only result in the death of the one character that actually goes in." Even players understand that sometimes the Gene Pool needs a little chlorine. Talk to your players and explain the result of suicide is usually death. They, or atleast some of them, may understand.
Malibu Trojan 07-04-05, 09:47 PM	Now, tell them that "if your character dies, your new character will be made on a lower Point Buy" or something similar (say start at 36, lower by 2 or 4 for each death), and they'll be scared into self preservation. My group plays that if you die, you can either get resurrected by your group, dropping you one level, or make a new character at the level at which you'd be resurrected. If one of us had died at first level, we'd probably have just made a new one without any penalty (though the normal penalty for getting resurrected at first level is one or two points lost in Constitution, if I'm not mistaken). Try and set up situations, rather than stories, if possible, because only one person can tell a story at one time, and if you make a story, the players aren't telling it, they're experiencing it. I don't know what your games are really like, though. I definitely agree with this. Things never go the way I plan them as a DM. I expect them to look for the secret door, and instead they just blast through the wall. It does get difficult though, because you don't know how they'll act in every situation and it's hard to be prepared for everything they might do. I've begun to talk to my players individually between sessions about what they'd like to do. One of them wants to keep the same sword (rather than upgrading), so I'm going to have him meet a metallic dragon that will imbue his sword for him in exchange for services rendered. Another (the druid) wants to become a kind of ecoterrorist; I don't have anything planned to encourage or discourage this, but I know it's coming, so I can have some kind of preparation.
LordHell 07-04-05, 10:43 PM	For point #2. Have you ever considered your players might have been trying to be heroic? D&D is mostly a game about heros. Standing up for yourselves against overwhelming odds can be considered either stupid, or heroic, depending on your perspective. If no one ever stood up for themselves against overwhelming odds - or being 'stupid' in your mind, then the world today would certainly be a different place. If I was playing a Chaotic Good character with 50 intelligence and 50 wisdom in that situation, I still might have attacked anyway. If I went down, at least I would have gone down with a fight.
Maerdash 07-04-05, 10:52 PM	2 to 1 odds? Meh. I've played for years and 2 to 1 odds aren't that hot for a dm, player's through sheer number of minds can generaly think/fight their way out of these situations, to answer your question yes most PC's are suicidal. Of course I,m coming from the perspective of a dm/player who has seen a 1st level character charge an adult red dragon. Players want to be heroic or powerful in most games so you have to anticipate that they aren't going to surrender. I wouldn't, at least not unless the odds were overwhelming
stranger-654 07-05-05, 12:37 AM	On this note i had a group of PC'S who committed mass suicide on me.....right in the middle of an adventure....and they said it was a good adventure.......and gave no explaination. Go figure
Maerdash 07-05-05, 02:03 AM	:D On this note i had a group of PC'S who committed mass suicide on me.....right in the middle of an adventure....and they said it was a good adventure.......and gave no explaination. Go figure The question here is did they ever play with you again? If so then they are just crazy so its ok.
Carn Vandoril 07-05-05, 09:48 AM	Mass suicide??? Man, don't allow *weed* in your game :D I have a great sollution for learning about survival and staying alive: if they act stupid, take something from them ! here's the options: 1) their money, hit unconsious. 2) Their equipment, hit unconsious. 3) a body part (small, like a pinky-toe) etc and take their money ofcourse. 4) a body part (bigger, like an ear) etc.. 5) a limb... idem. 6) their life Looks like a 1d6 to me :D
KoboldSlayer 07-05-05, 10:41 AM	1) Personally, I wouldn't have changed anything. If she was going to die, then she was going to die. The lizardfolk or whoever would likely have just killed her for revenge. This makes more sense than putting her in a cage, unless they planned on torturing her. The party did kill a lot of them, so they would be particularly hostile in terms of attitude towards the PCs. Rogues that go off on their own take chances that they need to deal with. I'd usually give a person an "out" like being stuck in a cage instead of being dead, at least near the beginning of the campaign when they are just getting used to my DMing style. Later down the road, once they've seen some severe beatins and character death, or once they have a grasp of what their characters are capable of (which is usually not after only a session or two), then I take the gloves off and let the dice fall where they may. Usually by about level 4-5. There's a perfectly good reason for lizardfolk to capture a humanoid and put it in a cage: They simply were not hungry at the time and wanted it fresh for later. (Heehee. Makes the PC completely uncomfortable if they come over to the cage and pinch the PC to see how much fat it's got on its bones or talk about who gets what tasty bit. That makes it feel a little more URGENT that they be rescued before dinner.) To get players used to how you DM and give them a leg up on not doing anything phenomenally stupid and messing their characters up (or killing them) within the first couple of sessions, you could try a tactic I use. The players don't KNOW this, of course, or it will inspire new heights of stupidity: Give them all "one chance". That is, one being brought back from death by a kindly cleric that doesn't require more than a service...or more than they can pay. One fudge of the dice when they're about to die to some horrible damage because something rolled a crit or max damage on a spell. Etc. Give them one "out" like that for each character. My current campaign has gone on for a couple of months, and only two people have their "outs" left...and one of those is because he just joined the campaign last weekend and hasn't had time to need it. To keep them from doing dumb things and starting over, I like the lower point-buy idea. If you roll random stats instead of buying (I do), then try giving them less starting gold if they start over. People generally like neat toys for their characters, and the less toys they can afford, the more careful they will be with the character that's already around and already has the goodies.
wonlee76 07-05-05, 11:31 AM	Kill the group and put them in your version of Purgatory with a bunch of NPC adventurers who share your PC's beliefs that they should fight ion principle. All of these spirit NPCs are level 1 or 2 PC or NPC classes. Make an adventure in the underworld for them to escape to return to the land of the living. You could have all sorts of fun designing an adventure for "dead" PCs trying to bribe/cheat/steal/kill their way to the land of the living. If they survive coming back to the land of the living, hopefully the lesson will be learned. If not, kill them again at the next opportunity they do something "suicidal" and start over.
Fixxxer 07-05-05, 04:30 PM	Standing up for yourselves against overwhelming odds can be considered either stupid, or heroic, depending on your perspective. That doesn't change the fact that no matter how you look at it, it's likely that doing so will result in death.
Steely Glint 07-05-05, 04:45 PM	The problem is that PCs are often up against enormous odds even when they're expected to win. It's hard for them to tell whether they're facing 16 1st level warriors the DM expects them to defeat, or 16 4th level fighters the DM expects them to be defeated by. The only way they know is if the DM gives them sufficient information, which can be hard to do without metagaming.
Fixxxer 07-05-05, 11:32 PM	The problem is that PCs are often up against enormous odds even when they're expected to win. It's hard for them to tell whether they're facing 16 1st level warriors the DM expects them to defeat, or 16 4th level fighters the DM expects them to be defeated by. The only way they know is if the DM gives them sufficient information, which can be hard to do without metagaming. Yes, but even this is metagaming to a large degree. "Ah, let's just charge them! They're only 1st level, so their arrows probably won't even hit us." The fact of the matter is that no matter the level of the opponents, standing up and charging through a hail of arrows is a suicidal act at best. Generally speaking, there are usually other possible ways of dealing with the situation. They may not be the fastest or most heroic ways, but most times, there's a less suicidal method of dealing.
Siduakal 07-06-05, 12:10 AM	I WAS being suicidal in one of the DMs groups. (My Wizard in the good group is unbelievably cautious.. He runs if anything gets near him to keep atleast 20 feet between him and enemies) My vampire charged EVERYTHING.. He charged a dire bear at level 2. He wanted to see what it tasted like.. Note.. the DM had described the bear as ripping trees out of the ground to play with them pretty much. (Not the actual description, but you get the idea). He also chased after a banshee when it fled.. So last session.. I fought a Lavawight. I didn't know what it was, OOC I had only heard horror stories. So somethings stalkin me in the alleys and I decide to go look at it and sneak up on it.. and when I pop around the corner it wins init, mauls the hell out of me, and makes me lose 4 HP. (The bigger scar was the fact that RP-wise my character now has a burn scar on his face from the headbutt) So yea.. I'm not charging anything else.. unless it's distinctly human. They don't have as many surprises. Also, rule that if you die and you aren't rezzed/refuse rez.. you start at 1st level.
Kintara 07-06-05, 12:20 AM	Yes, but even this is metagaming to a large degree. "Ah, let's just charge them! They're only 1st level, so their arrows probably won't even hit us." The fact of the matter is that no matter the level of the opponents, standing up and charging through a hail of arrows is a suicidal act at best.But that doesn't hold up. In fact, a raging Barbarian of a decent level absolutely can charge an entrenched team of archers, and turn them to paste like they were hit with a bunker buster. The PCs are supposed to be exceptional, heroic people, and exceptional people are usually cocky bastards that do things many normal folk would think crazy. It's perfectly appropriate for a man that has single-handedly killed a giant four-times the size of his old home to get a bit confident. He doesn't expect everyone to be on par with him because most people aren't. A typical team of archers is "low level," i.e. not giant/dragon/squiggly monster killing, kingdom saving (conquering?) heroes like him. Like I said, this is a matter of player expectation. What type of game does he think he's in, and what type of game does the DM describe? It's important for them to be similar, if the game is going to work at its best.
Siduakal 07-06-05, 12:27 AM	HOWEVER.. 1st level characters with the core races should NEVER be that cocky. They're basically just finished with training the basics and set loose. They're entry-level into their careers. They should be VERY VERY careful, because they aren't yet positive they can handle everything. Arrogance you guys refer to comes with experience.. Not right off the plate usually.
Kintara 07-06-05, 12:31 AM	HOWEVER.. 1st level characters with the core races should NEVER be that cocky. They're basically just finished with training the basics and set loose. They're entry-level into their careers. They should be VERY VERY careful, because they aren't yet positive they can handle everything. Arrogance you guys refer to comes with experience.. Not right off the plate usually.Yeah. But once you move past 1st or 2nd level, it's worth mentioning that player perception can make a big difference in what he is seeing. Is there a reason for the PC to expect X group of bandits to be 4th level, instead of common criminals? I think it's "metagaming" to expect your enemies to be a decent challenge, when a typical group of such enemies should be a piece of cake to be treated with casual heroicism. If you want your PCs to always be tactically cautious, then make the system reflect that with some variants. The truth is that enemies with a low enough CR in comparison to your level should be anything but frightening.
Cantankerous 07-06-05, 10:17 AM	It's all campaign dependant. If the DM wants to let the players get away with anything and everything, always win through no matter how idioticly they act, then sure. Of course, that isn't acting heroicly. It's acting stupidly and arrogantly, but you can call it heroics if you want. Any PC worth his salt knows that there is a time to be heroic and a time to be smart. You act heroicly if the need to do so is greater than you own need for survival. Setting yourself up against overwhelming odds just to sooth the ego is NOT heroic. It's braindead and in a reasonably run campaign, so then is the PC. If it becomes a matter of stand up against overwhelming odds or what you believe in is doomed... then you go down fighting, taking as many of the enemy with you as possible if you can't win, but you still seek a way to win even then. Dying isn't necessarily brave. Throwing your life away for the sake of ego is idiotic. Laying down your life for a cause you feel is of greater importance than your life... that IS heroic. Not surrendering when faced with overwhelming odds by a group of bandits isn't heroic. It's inane. So you have your neat stuff taken away. So what? You live and can then turn the table on said bandits later and rid the region of the threat that they pose. THAT is heroic. In a world where there is more than one of those giants running around, it is also reasonable to assume that you personally haven't faced all of them. Somebody else out there may have done something similiar, with a bow. Too, it is equally idiotic for the PC to assume that those giants he's faced are the be all and end all of what he or other people, including some with bows, might have faced. Maybe most of those enemy bowmen are just former farm boys, but maybe one of them is Gwyrfelling Black Arrow, who is also a giant/dragon/squiggly thing slayer; just giant/dragon/squiggly things of good nature. The smart PC might stop to consider that before he has crossed one fifth the distance between them he might have a black shafted arrow growing out of his left eye. Until the PC's get to the point of being great heroes, say eighth level and beyond, they deserve to get their butts sawed off when they act arrogantly. Isshia
Kintara 07-06-05, 01:01 PM	What they "deserve" is to know what kind of game they're in when they play with you. None of the things I've said are supposed to be applied universally. The right game can make the players appropriately cautious, but the players don't automatically know when they are supposed to be. Personally, I'm the type of DM that lets his players chop through a bunch of low level minions, which would be considered "overwhelming odds" if they weren't low level. I'm not making the challenge easy, but I like sending a lot of enemies at the party sometimes. There's nothing wrong with the players just going at it with them, if that's what they want to do. There's no objective right or wrong way for presenting your vision of your campaign to the players. But you need to be clear with them about what your vision is. I don't encourage my players to be "stupid," but they do make decisions based on how I present the game to them. The bandit thing is different, though. The problem with that isn't that they get their stuff taken away, exactly. The problem with that is that the DM is basically stepping in and saying, "You're GOING to surrender or die." It's just not a very good scenario to put players in because it just isn't any fun. Sure, whatever happens later might end up fun, but if you're thinking about it realistically, getting captured by bandits in the middle of nowhere is practically a death sentence in the real world. I don't even really see why surrendering is so sensible. It "makes sense" in movies, but that's just as cinematic, in my opinion, as attacking. Moreso. The PCs are banking on their plot immunity just as much as them attacking, if they surrender, as far as I'm concerned.
Patrick_H 07-07-05, 10:39 PM	Everybody has given me a lot of good meat to chew on, and I really appreciate it. Based on the two situations I was stressed over, I come away from this discussion with two things. 1st -- I may have been too gentle with the rogue who got herself into a mess she should have know to avoid. 2nd -- The band of thieves may have been a bit heavy handed. I scaled it down on the spot, rather than force the confrontation. But, the players are warned: it won't always go that way. That having been said, I particularly like and share the perspective of "Cantankerous". There have been a lot of really good comments here, and I'm printing some of the to read to my group. I want to make it clear to them that the views, though I agree with many of them, are not just things that I've pulled out of thin air. They are the views of experienced DMs. (Logical fallacy of "appeal to authority". :D ) Thanks again. - Patrick
Siduakal 07-07-05, 11:39 PM	Bro, NEVER scale it down. I chased down a ****in Lava wight on my level 5 Vampire (ECL 13) thinking it was someone with faerie fire on them due to the circumstances (Only got brief glimpses) I stepped around the corner I knew it was around and it won init. My DM did NOT pull punches, I got my ass WHIPPED. I was under 20 HP at the end of the things full attack. I tumbled as far away as I could from it. Then bolted up a wall when it came for me the next round. Got up the wall, it teleported to me.. I ran some more and turned to a bat and flew as fast as I could beat my wings. Pulling punches won't teach your players anything at all. Never scale down on the spot. Have it set up beforehand. Some fights will be easy, some will be hard. Want an example? My CN Drow (5 Wiz/2 Ranger), a NE Nymph (Ranger full out), and a LG Monk (7 Monk) were with a LE outsider (Don't ask.. long story.. my character was totally opposed to it.. stupid LG monks code of honor..) Well a group of werebears came and said "There's evil amongst you.. why are you here?" The LE Outsider of course taunted them to all ****.. Said he was going to go rape their women and burn down their cities and that he just had to camp for the night so he had the energy to get it all done in the morning. -.- They charged.. it was a sad fight for them, because we were really slanted against them.. and both the Nymph and my Drow ended up getting monster crits right off the bat.. Another time, though.. I got my ass whipped by ONE HIT from a thrown weapon for smarting off to someone.
Kintara 07-08-05, 04:14 AM	If you play long enough, a DM will end up completely PKing the party if he doesn't scale it back. The easiest approach is to adjust the tactics of the enemies so that they don't outright kill everyone, but even that sometimes becomes a stretch. Sometimes it's just best to fudge a couple rolls when you realize that the entire party is about to die messily. And novice DMs might need to scale the monsters back if they don't have a good grasp of what's challenging and what's horrific. You won't know how powerful a dragon is for their CR until you run one. It's not the DM's fault that dragons are way tougher than their CR indicates. ;) I mean, there's a difference between being afraid to kill party members, and being afraid of killing the whole party. Death is a matter of course in standard D&D, but entire party kills aren't much fun.
AntiDjinn 07-08-05, 04:39 AM	A couple of years ago I played in a game where the DM made it clear that PCs were powerful (high point buy, and only PCs started out with a feat at first level) but were not going to be coddled. Stupid action would = character death with no chance for DM bailout. To do this he dispensed with the DM's screen. All dice rolls by both DM and players were made on the table in clear view of everyone. If that monster just nailed you with a natch 20, backed up, and the damage was enough to kill you then you died. Raise Dead and Resurrection were effectively removed from the game. The PC's all worshed a pantheon with a reincarnative cosmology. When people in this culture died it was expected that their souls migrated to new bodies (they were around, but newborns so it was not like we could go pick them up and keep going). People who were resurrected were viewed as little different from undead, and attempts by others to use such magic on people of this culture failed because their faith did not support this unnatural breaking of the cycle of death and rebirth. With those two specific changes we got what I considered an ironman mode campaign. It was sudden death and I never saw so many PCs die for good (one Druid came back because of the Reincarnation spell). And it was certainly fun; there's noting like the despiration that comes from having 4 hit points left and knowing the DM was pulling no punches just because you are on the ropes, and the exhilaration at still managing to survive by wits and luck.
Cantankerous 07-08-05, 05:25 AM	If you play long enough, a DM will end up completely PKing the party if he doesn't scale it back. I find this to be untrue. I've been doing this for nearly three decades now and the only two TPK's that have occured were both the direct result of extremely poor planning or being arrogant to the point of stupidity. The easiest approach is to adjust the tactics of the enemies so that they don't outright kill everyone, but even that sometimes becomes a stretch. Sometimes it's just best to fudge a couple rolls when you realize that the entire party is about to die messily. When the party does something tremendously stupid on their own, they reap the benefits of their actions. Never let the idiot dice kill good characters through bad luck, no, but never hand the party success on a silver platter when they have earned failure or they will NEVER get any better at what they do. And novice DMs might need to scale the monsters back if they don't have a good grasp of what's challenging and what's horrific. You won't know how powerful a dragon is for their CR until you run one. It's not the DM's fault that dragons are way tougher than their CR indicates. ;) THIS is true. I mean, there's a difference between being afraid to kill party members, and being afraid of killing the whole party. Death is a matter of course in standard D&D, but entire party kills aren't much fun. They may not be much fun, but sometimes it will occur. If the group is Hell bent on going out in a blaze of glory (or mediocrity) then let them. If you have a bunch of fourth level characters charging a small army of foes, (as we've seen discussed more than once on these boards) then do NOT let them off. Play it through as per the rules. You as DM will not have killed the party. THEY simply will have found a particularly inane way of commiting suicide. I disagree with the idea that using common sense is not universal. You can assume in any game world that water is wet, that it is not comfortable to have a sword rammed through your ribs and that if you act like a moron and believe you are invulnerable that you WILL die. Nor is presenting the PC's with a situation where they seem (SEEM) to have but a single choice railroading. One situation with the group of bandits that wasn't explored is the intelligent one. Run away. Unless the DM is an idiot he's not going to present the players with a no win situation or a situation without options. He does NOT, however, have to make the options insultingly obvious. He can assume that a small degree of creativity and forethought will go into the actions of the PC's, just as he is required to use forethought in his/her designing of the encounters. Treating the players like moronic children is not good DMing. It is as ridiculous in stlye as confrontational DMing where the DM is out to kill the players. If you win every fight, your DM is either an ethical coward or lacks any creative sense and is handing you the goals you set on a platter. Sometimes the PC's will loose. The difference is that with a good DM loosing does not necessarily mean death. Mine in blue. Isshia
Siduakal 07-08-05, 10:21 AM	Er, my DM doesn't scale it back.. She has an encounter list for when I do things that warrant random encounters. Everything from a EL 5 encounter (To an ECL 11 average party) to a Lavawight is on there. She doesn't scale it down at all. If I'm dumb enough to try to fight the Lavawight, I'm going to die.
Kintara 07-08-05, 01:39 PM	Hmm, I'm not sure how much we're disagreeing here, so I'll just see if I can make myself clear. I don't have any problem with killing PCs, but I don't want to kill the entire party. In my experience, sometimes things get out of hand unintentionally on the part of the DM, but then my DMs throw some pretty dire threats at me, as do I to them. Even if the players end up doing something stupid and bring it on themselves, I don't like killing everyone until the campaign reaches a satisfying conclusion. They'll learn from their mistakes because death costs levels and money. I think you might be thinking that I let PCs get away with more than you think. But I am bothered by the implication that it's usually the DM that has the common sense, and it's the players that are acting irrationally. Sometimes it's the other way around, and I don't think a little fudging to make up for a blunder is a bad thing, but that means recognizing when you, as the DM, make a blunder. As for the bandit ambush thing, running away is an option. I mentioned it, but I assumed you'd need to fight your way through before you could start. ;) My problem with it is the idea that the PCs should have surrendered. I just think that if you're thinking like that when you're planning an adventure, you're thinking about it wrong. It implies, to me, a too linear, plotted out, story. It's not always true, of course, but when the DM is perturbed because the PCs didn't surrender, that always draws up the "plot line" flag. Like I said, situations are better. Anyway, I don't see Run, Fight, or Surrender as being obviously suicidal when being ambushed in the woods by bandits, or at least not one more than the others. ;)
AntiDjinn 07-09-05, 04:54 AM	In defense of players choosing to hold their ground against overwhelming odds, sometimes it is your best option. One of our former DMs (not the one I talked about above, who is a way better DM) used to have monsters chase us down every time if we ran. So cutting and running meant they caught us strung out and fleeing. It didn't seem to matter what we fought either: No matter how slow they caught us, or cut off our retreat, or (rarely) hunted us down and attacked when we were not expecting it. This sort of thing is reasonable for some more vindictive (or hungry) monsters, but many opponents had no reason to pursue after we vacated the area. I don't think he realized he was doing it, but this was the attitude his world displayed. So we as a party learned how to survive in a world where every encounter will happen even if it has to chase you to the horizon: When monsters swarmed over us we formed up, shields out, soft targets in the middle and fought as a unit. If we moved, we stayed in formation. We got pretty good at it and never had a total party wipeout (close calls though). When someone finally had to call him on it (and when he could no longer deny it was a pattern) was when the party wizard finally got Teleport. When we could teleport and foes simply ported in behind us, or when foes who should have had no clue as to our identities or home base showed up to harrass us it was pretty much undeniable. Lucky that campaign wrapped up (he moved) and hasn't been back to haunt us.
tiercel 07-09-05, 05:47 AM	A lot of PCs seem to think that their Main Character status gives them a special aura of invincibility. In my campaign, during the very first session the newly-formed party was travelling through the forest and stopped for the night at a simple, no-frills waystation (think: unfurnished wooden cabin, but with fireplace). A couple of them wanted to try out their Survival skill and some amusing hunting episodes took place, during which they saw some reasonably fresh bear tracks. Instead of taking this as a warning, they couldn't stop talking about how they wanted to hunt down and skin a bear. Be careful what ye ask for. Feeling a little cantankerous, I had a brown bear come sedately snuffling about the castaway remains of the evening's kill, outside, as the party was securely settling in for a night in the waystation. I described it as a huge, powerful-looking grizzly, but it didn't seemed too worried about them, just more curious about the scraps. Naturally, they attacked. (Yes, they were 1st level.) To be fair, they did get lucky results from their grease and color spray spells, and I was slightly nice in having the bear's full-round attacks go off against different targets instead of concentrating on mauling a single victim. I also didn't have it deliberately go after anyone who dropped or fled. Even so, in the end one PC was dead, one auto-stabilized at -9 (the percentile dice finally came up lucky in the clutch), 2 fled screaming into the woods, and one stood badly gashed in a corner of the shattered remains of the waystation, the bear's corpse at his feet. And you know what? PCs started showing a little more caution after that. Not always, and not always much, but a wee bit of paranoia set in. Especially the poor monk who stabilized at -9 and spent the better part of a week in a coma recovering because the party had no cleric. Of course, a few levels later they got a little trigger happy during a Ravenloft arc which had already pushed them to their limits. They found the BBEG, and they decided, eh, throw open the door and charge in, in detail and in the order their initiatives came up. That time I just let the dice fall as they may. About a minute later, a lone, greivously wounded PC staggered out into the stormy night as the zombie hordes overwhelmed the town below. The other PCs didn't leave the crypt alive. (Though two of them did turn up later, heh heh heh.) You hate to blow up the whole party, but, if the PCs do something suicidal, let them pay the cost. (Unless they just happen to be luckier than they have any right to be, which sometimes happens too!) Sometimes your players just need to know that you have the stones to throw down a TPK if the PCs dig themselves a hole. That said, make sure your players realize the kind of campaign you are preparing for them week by week -- some players may want/expect a super-heroic campaign where the PCs routinely face unfathomably impossible odds and stroll out under their own power routinely. D&D is heroic fantasy - no question - but personally I think acts of daring are more heroic if there is real risk to the characters involved. How heroic is it to do something dangerous if you know that Plot Convenience will always intervene if you get yourself in too deep?
Kintara 07-09-05, 01:06 PM	What can I say, except that I don't like killing an entire party. I don't typically have the problem of players that strut around as if they're invincible, either. TPKing the group just puts an ugly punctuation mark to the end of a game that I don't think is very satisfying. PCs pay a cost when their players make a stupid move. I don't care if half the party dies. In fact, I don't mind too much if the party dies at an appropriately dramatic moment, say, at the climax of the story, especially if they can pull out some sort of a victory in spite of their deaths. I just think D&D builds in plenty of ways to punish poor decision making that the loss of one situation to "plot convenience" is hardly a killing blow, so to speak. ;)
Cantankerous 07-09-05, 04:58 PM	Hi Kintara. I understand your stance. I just disagree with you on a couple of counts. First, a TPK need not be the end of the particular campaign. In both of the cases where it's happened in my own games this didn't result. In the first three of the five players had henchmen who survived (by the simple expediant of not being present) and in THEY simply formed the core of the new five member party, still bent on the same end aims. The second time around the PC's were all just 2nd level (and had the stupid audacity to go after a nest of trolls because they thought they had the ultimate strategy designed) and out of the four players in that game two decided to play the relatives of the deceased, while the other two were simply recruited in new. The DM just has to stay flexible and think on his/her feet to pull it off. It's just been my experience that if you cut them uncalled for breaks, the average PC will begin to think they are untouchables. The only real killing blow to a good campaign is this kind of thinking on the players part. If they KNOW they will always have a survivor to possibly see to resurrecting the rest, if they KNOW that they can just throw down at things without getting scorched for it, players tend to get sloppy, thinking, I'll survive. Isshia
Siduakal 07-09-05, 05:07 PM	Yea, teach us young and we won't be so cocky.. til we try a monster race and think it'll make us god. (Ala my level 2 Fighter Vampire charging a CR 17 enemy because he thought he could take it.. heh heh) My first real campaign only lasted 2 sessions, then we booted a party member and decided we'd rather start over (Since he was SUPPOSED to be the tank but was being stupid) But those 2 sessions I had been untouchable with my combat expertise use and tumbling.. (I'd read the book for about 3 months prior to playing to learn rules) So the next time we played, I had a monk.. It was Shadows of the Last War Module for Eberron. Now, I thought I was invincible in D&D. So against the 4 kobolds and 1 Warforged (A level 3 or 4 Fighter Warforged, I was a Level 2 Human Monk of Deneith), I just WALKED past the kobolds. (I had 20 AC because of my dragonmark, which I activated as my standard) I got to the Warforged and he missed me. So I got my flurry and punched him once, and thought "Heh he can't touch me" so I used my second hit in the flurry on a kobold. ...Warforged swung.. ..crit.. I was -7 HP and had to action point stabilize.
Cantankerous 07-09-05, 05:11 PM	Yea, teach us young and we won't be so cocky.. til we try a monster race and think it'll make us god. *lol* Good one. Isshia
varder_kiften 07-09-05, 11:25 PM	Characters hate dieing in my campain. The reasons why... -Their body ceases to exist, all items from that body are lost. There is no logic to this, I just shout "Your corpse dissapears to join a wandering troup of bards." No questions asked. -They start one level below the average party level. -They get half starting gold for that level and may only choose items from the DMG and the PHB. No extra books allowed. If all else fails, try to make them care about what happens to thier characters. Make them come up with some history or something. If they like their character they will not want him to die.
Kintara 07-10-05, 04:37 AM	Hi Kintara. I understand your stance. I just disagree with you on a couple of counts. ...Likewise. ;) I know that I can find a way to keep the campaign going with a TPK, but I like my players to feel like they have something invested in their characters, and they usually do. Rezzing allows for them to keep their characters going until they're satisfied. And that's fine with me. I'm a big fan of facilitating the players in telling their characters' stories. D&D still extracts a significant cost in gold and XP for dying and being rezzed. As for lazy planning and poor critical thinking, that's something that you'll have to deal with on an individual basis, but I think my concession to the players on this issue has paid more dividends than it has cost me. There are other things that can happen to a party in the course of a story to show them that they have made a mistake. Death is one of the least satisfying, as far as I'm concerned.