Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 DateOfLies Mar 23, 2013 10:58:15	We got TPKed last night. Not cause our party sucked either, we were pretty oped but still only level 3. Great party, been playing for 3 months now (every 2 weeks) and man, the monsters kept critting and we kept missing and that's that. All that plot and role playing won't see a conclusion.
#2 Omegasupreme651 Mar 23, 2013 11:10:50	No.
#3 foxfireinferno Mar 23, 2013 11:56:52	Yes, it's a bad thing.  One of D&D's persistent faults, from day 1, is that there's virtually no way to lose a battle without a fatality, or a lot of fatalities.  With rare exception, monsters are faster than PCs, so running away is virtually pointless. I would recommend making 'dead' simply be 'unconscious' or some other form of defeated, unless the player chooses for his character to die, preferably in some appropriate, emotional, dramatic way.  Jumping in front of the dagger that's about to sacrifice the victim that will open the portal to Hell, that sort of thing.
#4 Centauri Mar 23, 2013 17:28:27	Yes, it's bad. The game is over, those particular creations - the player characters, and the story - are stopped short, and for no very good reason. There's nothing satisfactory about it, at least not without a lot of preparation for that occurrence. Some people prepare by rationalizing that at TPK can't be bad, because it's a possible outcome of the rules, so when it happens it's right and proper. Most people dislike it, mitigate any and all possible failure to avoid it, and will argue with the DM to prevent it. It's a major problem, and so are most of the solutions to it. As a player, there's not much you can do about it that makes for a fun game. You can play extremely cautiously, but that's boring. You can optimize so that the DM can't possibly beat your group, but that's boring too. At best, you can try to talk to your DM, and see if the stakes can be something else, such as a threat to a third party or a loss of treasure, or something else that lets the game and characters continue and either finishes the plot or lets the plot continue. The PCs don't always have to win, but losing never needs to mean an unsatisfactory ending. Good luck.
#5 Onikani Mar 23, 2013 18:06:22	Yes it sucks. We've all been there, and most of the time, no one loves it. But, it may not be the end...maybe you guys will continue the story in the afterlife? Or maybe it is an end. Which means a new beginning - new characters and new adventures!
#6 cannonfodder Mar 24, 2013 1:33:18	A new Group of heroes comes across a grisley sight... TPK's suck but its not always the end of the campaign.
#7 YagamiFire Mar 24, 2013 7:20:32	It only sucks when no one learns from it, just like any setback in any other game.
#8 Krusk Mar 24, 2013 12:32:32	If your whole group thinks its a lame outcome, why don't you suggest you just pretend you won.  Alternatively present your DM with a list of "Totally not dead scenarios". They are pretty common on most TVs shows and movies.  Everyone assumes he was dead but the wounds weren't fatal and he woke up in a pile of corpses after the fight. Everyone thought he was dead, but the enemy actually captured him and took him to their base to eat him/keep as a slave/ransom him. The heroes awaken from a coma X years later, only to discover the villain has succeeded. Stuff like that.
#9 Centauri Mar 24, 2013 21:13:17	With any luck, your DM will learn from this, as others have, that TPKs (and even the apparent risk of TPKs) are not necessary aspects of the game.
#10 RedSiegfried Mar 24, 2013 22:52:41	I just don't understand why a TPK has to be the end of those characters and that campaign unless you all want it to be, or your DM is a jerk who refuses to allow you some way back from the dead. To me, since TPKs are very rare when I DM, it would be an awesome opportunity to take the story and those characters in a different direction either temporarily or permanently.  If everyone wants to continue on but yet you're not doing it, you're having a massive failure of the imagination.
#11 foxfireinferno Mar 25, 2013 9:59:50	I just don't understand why a TPK has to be the end of those characters and that campaign unless you all want it to be, or your DM is a jerk who refuses to allow you some way back from the dead.  Not allowing characters to return from the dead is not a jerk DM move.  Some DMs don't like the Raise Dead Revolving Door, such as myself.  In my games, there is no way to return from the dead, period, end of discussion.  You can't do it, he can't do it, nobody can do it.  Dead is dead. I do, however, make dying MUCH more difficult.  You pretty much have to volunteer for it.
#12 CliveDauthi Mar 25, 2013 10:01:42	TPK is just part of the game. The alternative is having DnDLite; where you can just brush away your defeats without any real consenquence sure loosing treasure/xp and such would suck as well; but in the end its a cop-out imo; hey we don't want to die so take our stuff. Just make new characters and start anew; tis been the DnD way for many a years; and I honestly while hateing to see my babies die in combat; understand that if this risk was not present, I wouldn't have been nearly as invested in them as I was. Danger and Consequences give the game life.
#13 iserith Mar 25, 2013 11:14:36	I would find dull a game where the only risk comes in the form of potential loss of life and limb. There are many ways to create tension and risk in a game without permanent death ever being on the line.
#14 foxfireinferno Mar 25, 2013 11:34:34	..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Danger and Consequences give the game life. "Danger and Consequences" and "Death" are two entirely different things.  You should be able to lose without dying. I find myself more invested in my characters when I know death is rare, because it means I'll actually get to roleplay them explore them.  If I knew my character can kick off at any moment, I'm not going to put any effort into the background or personality, because it will just be wasted energy.
#15 Centauri Mar 25, 2013 12:35:09	I just don't understand why a TPK has to be the end of those characters and that campaign unless you all want it to be, or your DM is a jerk who refuses to allow you some way back from the dead. Not allowing characters to return from the dead is not a jerk DM move.  Some DMs don't like the Raise Dead Revolving Door, such as myself. Yes, the game acknowledges that death is problematic and gives various ways back from it as standard rules. One of the first things many DMs do is overrule those options because they apparently remove the fun of the game. What I tend to see is that those DMs feel that if Raise Dead is available, they have no way to "teach" the players to play the game the way the DM wants. There's never any reason not to do "dumb" stuff, like not check for traps, or challenge dragons, or kill townsfolk. Those DMs feel like the only way to punish "dumb" behavior is to take away the player's character. Pretty soon, those players realize that it's pointless to become invested in a character, and they make goofier and more foolhardy characters, forcing the DM to kill them or imprison them or otherwise put the player in the penalty box. I'm not saying anyone in this dicussion is doing that. I just see that a lot on these boards. In my games, there is no way to return from the dead, period, end of discussion.  You can't do it, he can't do it, nobody can do it.  Dead is dead. Cool. So, if a player's character dies, what happens? How long are they out of the game? I do, however, make dying MUCH more difficult.  You pretty much have to volunteer for it. Interesting. I don't make dying any harder, but my monsters tend not to be interesting in killing the PCs. Players who do think their characters should die to essentially have to elect to have it happen. All I ask is that they have a "trapdoor" prepared - that is, another character ready to be inserted into the party - so that the game can continue. TPK is just part of the game. Not necessarily. The alternative is having DnDLite; where you can just brush away your defeats without any real consenquence That's not the only alternative. There are some defeats which, unlike death, can't be brushed aside with a ritual. sure loosing treasure/xp and such would suck as well; but in the end its a cop-out imo; hey we don't want to die so take our stuff. There are consequences that can't be replaced with money and time, or even by rolling up another character. Just make new characters and start anew; Sure, and I'll definitely put a lot of work into developing this one. You bet.  tis been the DnD way for many a years; Yet never, to my knowledge, has any rulebook for D&D offered that advice explicitly, or any other advice for how to insert a character that a player wants to play (rather than some schlub henchman) into a group as a replacement. Sure, there are ways, but if it really were an expected occurence, a "part of the game," I'd think the rules would address it thoroughly. If I'm wrong, I'd love to read quotes from the rules that explain how to keep everyone engaged and enjoying the game in the event of a TPK.  and I honestly while hateing to see my babies die in combat; understand that if this risk was not present, I wouldn't have been nearly as invested in them as I was. Interesting. Others become much less invested in their character when death is a real possibility. Many DMs come to this board looking for ways to provide the illusion of risk to characters, because they get that death is a major flaw with the game, because it wrecks stories, breaks player engagement, promotes over-caution, and generally isn't very fun unless one spends a copious amount of time rationalizing it to themselves. Danger and Consequences give the game life. Danger and consequences are not the same thing. If you think it's appropriate for your character to die, go for it. That's cool. I'm the same way. But saying it's part of the game does nothing to address the very real problems it causes. Edit: some quotes had the wrong attribution.
#16 CliveDauthi Mar 25, 2013 13:26:36	I am a bit surprised at the responses tbh. I understand all the counter arguments against my position but it’s just hard for me to swallow;  I find a game is a lot more enjoyable when I know the pressure is on, and that if me and my teammates don’t pull it together we are toast. I guess I’m just an odd ball; but when I know that even if we lose this encounter, I will still get to play my character next week (with less money/power or story consequences) it just  takes away the magic for me. Personal preference I suppose. I don’t think dyeing is a problem in DnD I think it is a merit; if you want to play a game that you never die in, invest in mmorpgs or other videogames. While I’m at it, I am in total favor for reviving people, or parties, but I don’t think it should be a normal practice. As for introducing new characters, I am aware that officially nothing is on paper; but I believe if a DM is worth their salt it shouldn’t be that hard to deal with; the same argument with players connection to the plot; just because player X dies shouldn’t ruin an entire plot; if it does then shame on the DM for tying his world to a killable character, in these circumstances you can still find plenty of RP ways around it. I guess what it comes down to; I haven’t seen a serious suggestion to negate player death that has gotten me to take combat serious; if I know the worse that can happen in losing a battle is some lost XP/items or something changes in the story plotline I won’t be nearly on edge as if I know that ****ing up will get my character killed.
#17 iserith Mar 25, 2013 13:45:30	Situation 1: All five characters are killed. To raise them, it takes 2500 gp and some time, both in-game and out to jump through the hoops necessary to get back into the action. Situation 2: All five characters are incapacitated, but left alive. Their foes take 2500 gp worth of stuff off them. Wake up, heal, and get back into the action right away. The only real difference here is how long it takes to get back to the heroic adventuring which is why I showed up to play in the first place. Given I have 4 hours to game per session, I'll take the latter. Alternatively, since the only way to "lose" at D&D is to be forced out of participation, you can simply let the player decide if death sticks when the mechanics go against them. Maybe the player thinks the death was awesome. Or has a new character he wants to try out. Or just prefers to abide by the base rules of the game and is killed. But someone who thinks that's not the way they imagined their hero going out, or doesn't have a backup character, or doesn't like the existing death rules can choose otherwise. This way, everyone can choose what makes them happy.
#18 Centauri Mar 25, 2013 13:58:34	I am a bit surprised at the responses tbh. You'll get used to them. They're becoming more and more common. Death has never been a fun part of the game, it's been a part that people tolerated and rationalized because they didn't see any other way to do things. Now new ways are being created. I understand all the counter arguments against my position but it’s just hard for me to swallow;  I find a game is a lot more enjoyable when I know the pressure is on, and that if me and my teammates don’t pull it together we are toast. What you don't understand is that no one is saying that there shouldn't be pressure, just that the pressure of keeping a character alive isn't the only kind of pressure. The default presence of Raise Dead is clear evidence that character death isn't meant to be a key driving force. I guess I’m just an odd ball; Unfortunately, you're not. but when I know that even if we lose this encounter, I will still get to play my character next week (with less money/power or story consequences) it just  takes away the magic for me. Personal preference I suppose. Yes, and it's worth considering where that preference came from. I don’t think dyeing is a problem in DnD I think it is a merit; if you want to play a game that you never die in, invest in mmorpgs or other videogames. I might, if I didn't have ways to make the game interesting without needing the threat of character death. While I’m at it, I am in total favor for reviving people, or parties, but I don’t think it should be a normal practice. Interesting. If you don't want your character raised, you're certainly not required to. I don't see why you should have any say on what others do with their characters. As for introducing new characters, I am aware that officially nothing is on paper; but I believe if a DM is worth their salt it shouldn’t be that hard to deal with; the same argument with players connection to the plot; just because player X dies shouldn’t ruin an entire plot; if it does then shame on the DM for tying his world to a killable character, in these circumstances you can still find plenty of RP ways around it. Here we see the core of the rationalization of death in the game "if a DM is worth their salt, it shouldn't be that hard to deal with." The problems inherent to character death are seen as problems inherent to DMs who haven't solved the problem for themselves, without any in-game guidance. It's good if a DM can deal with it, but that doesn't mean that the way the game handles death (or doesn't) isn't a problem. But while we're on the subject of what the DM should do, why doesn't that DM who's worth his salt just figure out ways to challenge the players without having to kill them? That's just as easy as and somewhat less jarring than reworking a plot. I guess what it comes down to; I haven’t seen a serious suggestion to negate player death that has gotten me to take combat serious; if I know the worse that can happen in losing a battle is some lost XP/items or something changes in the story plotline I won’t be nearly on edge as if I know that ****ing up will get my character killed. It sounds like the only suggestion you've heard is to take away XP and items. I agree that that's pretty easily waved off. A player can be pretty well assured that the DM will replace those losses eventually, because it's not to a DM's advantage just to hold characters back. DMs need something they can threaten and then follow through on that threat, permanently. This is why Raise Dead is removed or complicated or discouraged: they want the threat to be permanent. Well, since we're assuming that the players are invested in their characters, why not changes to the world? Fail, and Kingdom X is gone, wiped out, off the map. Everyone you knew there, every advantage you had there, is gone. You are now in enemy territory and will be for the foreseeable future. The game continues, and the game is even fun, but a change has taken place that there's no ritual to reverse, and while the PCs might help bring another kingdom about, the old one is gone forever. Yeah, a player who doesn't care about the world isn't going to care about that. But that's an example of something that is more than just XP or treasure, that's a permanent thing the DM can destroy when the players fail. The trick is simply to find the thing that the players care about and are interested seeing threatened. For many players that's their character, and that's fine if the game can easily continue after the loss of a character, but for many games killing characters is counterproductive to the fun of the game.
#19 foxfireinferno Mar 25, 2013 15:15:35	..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">I don’t think dyeing is a problem in DnD I think it is a merit; if you want to play a game that you never die in, invest in mmorpgs or other videogames. Your opinion is now invalid.
#20 Centauri Mar 25, 2013 15:21:48	I don’t think dyeing is a problem in DnD I think it is a merit; if you want to play a game that you never die in, invest in mmorpgs or other videogames. Your opinion is now invalid. There should be a Godwin's Law for discussions about games: If you suggest that the person holding the opposite opinion about Game A should play Game B instead, you automatically lose the argument.
#21 foxfireinferno Mar 25, 2013 15:34:33	I don’t think dyeing is a problem in DnD I think it is a merit; if you want to play a game that you never die in, invest in mmorpgs or other videogames. Your opinion is now invalid. There should be a Godwin's Law for discussions about games: If you suggest that the person holding the opposite opinion about Game A should play Game B instead, you automatically lose the argument. Pretty much the way I look at it already.
#22 CliveDauthi Mar 25, 2013 15:58:29	Wouldn’t be the first time I invalidate myself lol
#23 Krusk Mar 25, 2013 17:01:10	I guess what it comes down to; I haven’t seen a serious suggestion to negate player death that has gotten me to take combat serious; if I know the worse that can happen in losing a battle is some lost XP/items or something changes in the story plotline I won’t be nearly on edge as if I know that ****ing up will get my character killed. So when your DM says "actually it turns out you were gravely injured but then captured. You wake up and now need to free yourself" you can respond with "Eeeh, Krusk dies from his injuries."
#24 GingerJack Mar 26, 2013 0:05:45	I don't really see what the problem is. I have a game where when a character dies, he takes a hit to EXP and either gets revived or a new char is rolled. If a TPK were to ever occur, players would most likely just find themselves in a side quest to be brought back to life through a dungeon in a different plane. If the players roll bad, then give them a second chance; if it's from stupidity, punish them but allow them to continue the story. And punishment doesn't always have to be bad, facing an optional boss of dungeon can be fun and extend that campaign, give more depth into the world you’re in and even introduce new plot lines and NPCs. Hell, even a session where the party have become ghosts and they must convince a local cleric to revive them might prove challenging. DnD isn't just some game with a finite amount of rules, it's a story that you are telling to the protagonists of that story. If any book ended with "and then they all died. -The End" would be horribly depressing and somewhat of a letdown. Awesome as Hamlet was, there are tools that can fix these problems. tell your DM to be a good story teller and challenge him to find a logical way for the story to continue.
#25 Centauri Mar 26, 2013 8:48:52	I don't really see what the problem is. I have a game where when a character dies, he takes a hit to EXP and either gets revived or a new char is rolled. It's still very unpleasant and most solutions to it, such as these ones are completely ad hoc and unsatisfying. If the players roll bad, then give them a second chance; if it's from stupidity, punish them but allow them to continue the story. Isn't is "stupidity" not to account for the possibility of bad die rolls? A DM need not, and should not, "punish" stupidity.  And punishment doesn't always have to be bad, facing an optional boss of dungeon can be fun and extend that campaign, give more depth into the world you’re in and even introduce new plot lines and NPCs. That's potentially very interesting, but it doesn't require the PCs to die. They could simply have failed and need to find a different approach to the problem.  Hell, even a session where the party have become ghosts and they must convince a local cleric to revive them might prove challenging. Yes, that would be an interesting challenge. Once. DnD isn't just some game with a finite amount of rules, it's a story that you are telling to the protagonists of that story. One way people rationalize death is to tell themselves that they aren't the protagonists, any more than any real people are "protagonists." If a character dies before succeeding, then they're just one of the bodies that the next adventurers stumble across. I don't hold with that, but it's one approach people use. If any book ended with "and then they all died. -The End" would be horribly depressing and somewhat of a letdown. Awesome as Hamlet was, there are tools that can fix these problems. tell your DM to be a good story teller and challenge him to find a logical way for the story to continue. And suggest to the DM that they make room for these logical ways upfront, so they can be incorporated into the story, rather than tacked on. And help the DM come up with those ways.
#26 KelvanNailo Mar 26, 2013 20:19:28	TPK's suck. No way around that. My thought is when something bad happens, it doesn't have to be uninteresting. As a DM I tend to put the players in an awful situation afterwards, but one that offers something cool. (captured by slavers, souls in hell, etc) That being said as a player I typically want to die and make it an awesome death scene. Either way the result has to be interesting and fun (but not fun for the CHARACTERS) or I'm not DMing under my motto,"Maximize Fun!"
#27 Roccoxyne Mar 30, 2013 16:43:46	Funny, I scanned this thread and saw post where the opinion of DM about death is stated, but I havent seen any stating what the group, player and DM, position is. The game can be its own punishment. Players throw themself in the middle of the action, just swarm them with hordes of flanking monsters isolating them. Might make them reconsider future encounters. While I enjoy a level of being carefull and thoughtful, I love playing Dungeon and Dragon, not SWAT-storming the Dungeon. If your group enjoy having to express clear tactical sequence for opening doors, storming rooms, dispatching monsters and checking for traps, then go for that. My group prefer heroic storming with basic plan and our DM adjust for that. The group's notion of fun should be the main goal, not only a few individuals or worst only the DM! Look for your own balance. In the situation described in the OP, where dices simply failed the group, the DM could stated that as the last of the characters falls below 0 hit points, another party on their trails jump in and rescue them. Once on a safe spot, they heal the party members that can be, and let them deal with the option of allocating ressources or not to raise their commarades back to life. Did the saving party act in an altruistic way, or did they expect payment for their labor. The reputation of the party might influence the outcome! Feel the players where careless and needs to work themself out of a bad place before resuming their adventures, then why not have their vanquishing enemies send them to the copper mines as slaves. Good slave are so hard to get by and when candidates are lying at your feet , even a third grade goblin administrator will see the commercial value of healing them back to life. Not bad enough to your taste, have them magically bound to the will of Evil Bad Dude and being forced on mission to destroy and sabotage the work of their previous adventures to further his own plans. How many missions before they hear of a way to break the bound and they are able to pursue it while under the binding literal interpretation of their imposed assignment. Even if the players regain consciousness moment before being put to shackles in the copper mines beside their equipment, their play session to get out of there and back to their original adventure IS a punishment. Having a DM allow this variety! If feel the game is enhanced if his role is greater than to be an arbirter of rules and an administrator of monsters. So before adressing issues such as the finality of death and the availability of raising mecanic, one might first need to address what are the group expectation. I rather enjoy the heroic fantasy feeling and death as a finality might ruin it for my group. What is your group expectations?