The WHY in the high mortality rate is simply because players get a itch to play something, they are thinking about a character, they think about it for a while, then BOOM, they got an idea and off to the races they go.

If there's a long amount of play time in between those, then the player gets to rebuild his "CharGen Chi".  If he's going through characters like flies, it becomes harder and harder to come up with a guy that actually means something "out of the gate".

Which is where the trope of "never name your guy until third level" came from.  It's like 'Nam or anyplace where the Imperial Guard fights: "Why even bother to learn the name of the new guy?"

The self-interested "Neutral Fuck" is the easiest character to envision and get motivations for.  It's also the least likely to actually stay in the face of serious opposition, and be interested in party cohesion.

That's what's happening and that's the why.  

As one of your guys said, it's a suspension of disbelief issue, there's only so many random guys with the will and motivation to stand in the face of overwhelming death wandering through Hommlet.  The guys that are most likely to be wandering through Hommlet are not the guys most likely to finish the Temple, and coming up with not one character but 18 characters who can meet that criteria is straining the believability of the whole thing.

Quote from: CRKrueger;625029Sometimes Players and GM can't see the forest for the trees.

People can get so caught up in roleplaying a character who has conflicts or cross purposes to other members of the party that they forget that in most cases, that character would probably just walk away, or frag everyone take their stuff then walk away.

The unspoken, inherent metagame in roleplaying is, "My character should have some reason for being here, so I should make up a character who does, or my character should not be here."

Now everyone agreed beforehand that "We are doing ToEE.  We're not starting out doing ToEE, leaving, raping and pillaging a path north and setting ourselves up as a new Bandit Kingdom."  Everyone bought into the metagame restraint of doing ToEE, yet they are not making any attempt (it sounds like), to create characters that would do ToEE under current circumstances.

So, the party goes it's separate ways, the Evil remains undiscovered (and grows) fast forward a few days, weeks or months, and now another group might have the chance...

I see nothing wrong with it.  They all bought into the campaign, everyone knew what the goal was, and it's just not getting met.

Yeah, that's the conclusion I am coming too.

Drop the metagame 'need' to complete the temple: The temple has won, you have been defeated, move on.

Quote from: CRKrueger;625029Sometimes Players and GM can't see the forest for the trees.

People can get so caught up in roleplaying a character who has conflicts or cross purposes to other members of the party that they forget that in most cases, that character would probably just walk away, or frag everyone take their stuff then walk away.

The unspoken, inherent metagame in roleplaying is, "My character should have some reason for being here, so I should make up a character who does, or my character should not be here."

Now everyone agreed beforehand that "We are doing ToEE.  We're not starting out doing ToEE, leaving, raping and pillaging a path north and setting ourselves up as a new Bandit Kingdom."  Everyone bought into the metagame restraint of doing ToEE, yet they are not making any attempt (it sounds like), to create characters that would do ToEE under current circumstances.

So, the party goes it's separate ways, the Evil remains undiscovered (and grows) fast forward a few days, weeks or months, and now another group might have the chance...

I see nothing wrong with it.  They all bought into the campaign, everyone knew what the goal was, and it's just not getting met.

Totally agree with this especially the bolded (and the subsequent too)

I think Blackhand here is just pointing out that the new characters that the players have bought in really have no reason to be there beyond the fact that they are controlled by the players who agreed to play this game. If the players stood back and thought about motivation role playing or even jsut alignment the group would brobably disintigrate pretty fast.
I don't think posing that question is bad GMing. I might have an NPC ask the question in play but doing itas the GM is fine.

only up to post 20 on this, but i think blackhand's got it right.  if that's the premise of how you're running ToEE, (hooks needed, etc.) and they've created "free range greyhawk" characters, then the point has been lost and it's time to start over.  

now to catch up on the rest of the discussion. . . . :hmm:

Those of you telling me I'm running alignment wrong should read page 25 of the 1e DMG.

@Spinachcat - No, XP penalties are in 2nd Edition.  See p. 25 as above.

I like how you guys seem to miss that they really enjoy the campaign.

BTW, the Lawful Evil guy was playing his alignment right.  Everything he did was Lawful and Evil.

Yes I did allow Evil alignments.  That's a player choice.  I didn't ban the alignment, I just want character hooks if they are going to go that way.  It's like some of the players want to be good guys but have an Evil alignment because they think it's badass.

The rest is DM choice, such as dissolving the party to make a new one when they can't provide plot hooks for their own characters.

One more time, everyone loves this "meatgrinder".  The problem is the disparity between characters created at different points.  The entire party has been replaced a couple of times, and I'm convinced (as are most of my players) this is the correct course of action.

Thanks for the replies.

Quote from: Blackhand;624902So what you're saying is you have a problem with the ruleset? In the same breath you intimate that this is all my fault as DM.

Well someone has to fix the problem, right?

Whose responsibility is that?

(Honest question, I'm not baiting promise )

Quote from: Piestrio;625088Well someone has to fix the problem, right?

Whose responsibility is that?

(Honest question, I'm not baiting promise )

What problem is it exactly?  Better yet, what's your solution?

I'm sure it will be quite different from what I would choose and what my players want.

If the problem is character death, that's a player problem.  They need to be more mindful and careful.  I didn't write this adventure, I'm refereeing it.

I'm not making house rules about living past 0 hp or fudging dice rolls, period.

No one in Hommlett can resurrect the dead.  I'm not changing that either, that's part of the scenario.

Whatever gains they make during this scenario, they will win it by themselves.  They'd demand we play wargames instead of RPG if they thought I was making things up on the fly or changing things so they could cope, or making up stories from "some place deep within me" on the fly.  I know this for a fact, as I've seen it happen more than once.  I have a certain baseline set of precepts to uphold, and I won't be seen doing otherwise.  

• The rules must be adjudicated RaW.
• I must not make up shit as I go along.
• I must let the dice fall where they may.
• I must stay true to the scenario and referee it as written.
• If I make adjustments to the scenario, they will be written into it before the session starts.
• All such adjustments must be within the purview of the scenario.

We've played for years and years with most of these assumptions, but we're trying something different.  We are playing a published campaign in the manner it was published...not haring off after another campaign based on the written one where I create entirely different adventures.

We've done that, I've got a long track record of successful campaigns where the players clamor for more, and most of it is because of the precepts above, except instead of running someone else's work I always write my own.

That's basically the entire thesis of the campaign, so we are encountering an issue we never have before.  That's why I put a thread on the board - I thought many would be interested in the circumstances.

However, a lot of the standard answers simply do not work for us.

Quote from: Blackhand;625091What problem is it exactly?  Better yet, what's your solution?

Your problem. My question is, if you have a problem with a particular rule that is making things less fun who is responsible for making it better? (Assuming we want to fix problems).

QuoteI'm sure it will be quite different from what I would choose and what my players want.

That's the beauty of RPGs with flesh and blood GMs.

QuoteIf the problem is character death, that's a player problem.  They need to be more mindful and careful.  I didn't write this adventure, I'm refereeing it.

I tend to agree, but not to the point where people stop having fun. This is, after all, a pastime.

I tend to view the rules as just one part of the game and just as open to adjustment for the betterment of the game as any other part.

In my view metagaming the group out of existence is more disruptive to the game than house rules. So in my case I would start with the least disruptive options and move to more disruptive if those prove unsuccessful in fixing the problem.

I get that you find this unacceptable and that's fine and more than likely why I can't help you. Most of my advice would revolve around adjusting playstyles, modifying the adventure and making house rules. All of which you are unwilling to do.

That's why I was curious, in your veiwpoint who is supposed to fix problems when they pop up because I assume you don't just throw your hands in the air and say, "well I guess we don't get to have anymore fun!"

Quote from: Piestrio;625105Your problem. My question is, if you have a problem with a particular rule that is making things less fun who is responsible for making it better? (Assuming we want to fix problems).

See?  You point at a rule and say "change it!".  That's not the issue, and I think only lesser DM's will go that route.  Sorry.

That's the beauty of RPGs with flesh and blood DM's.  I'm not going to change the game, because then there'd be a problem.

Quote from: Piestrio;625105I tend to agree, but not to the point where people stop having fun. This is, after all, a pastime.

Again, you miss the part where the game is still going strong and everyone is having fun.  The issue is that of character disparity and disassociation.

Quote from: Piestrio;625105I tend to view the rules as just one part of the game and just as open to adjustment for the betterment of the game as any other part.

We don't have a tendency, we have a predisposition.  That proclivity is that the rules are the rules, the GM cannot alter them.  That's just how we play, and we all enjoy it very much because nothing can be dragged out from under us.

Quote from: Piestrio;625105In my view metagaming the group out of existence is more disruptive to the game than house rules. So in my case I would start with the least disruptive options and move to more disruptive if those prove unsuccessful in fixing the problem.

For us, creating or implementing house rules WILL destroy the game.

Quote from: Piestrio;625105I get that you find this unacceptable and that's fine and more than likely why I can't help you. Most of my advice would revolve around adjusting playstyles, modifying the adventure and making house rules. All of which you are unwilling to do.

Which I have stated several times over the last five years.  This isn't just me - this is the view of the entire club.  We play RPG's as we play Wargames - everyone has a manual and knows how to use it.

Quote from: Piestrio;625105That's why I was curious, in your veiwpoint who is supposed to fix problems when they pop up because I assume you don't just throw your hands in the air and say, "well I guess we don't get to have anymore fun!"

I am responsible for the game.  I am fixing the problem.

It doesn't seem to be sinking in, even when they come here and tell you, that my players are still having a blast with the game.  Most of that is directly because I am completely inflexible when it comes to how I run the game.

Actually, as of Tuesday morning, the anticipation of dissolving the party and beginning the next leg of the campaign is building not just with me, but in my players.  There will be great expectations of the next party, and a "reboot" is exactly what we need at this point.

However, if I change ANYTHING about how I'm running it...I'll not just be letting myself down, but all the people who gather on Sunday night to play my game will feel like the whole game has gone to shit.  This applies to every single game the club plays.

That is no exaggeration.

Quote from: Blackhand;625107See?  You point at a rule and say "change it!".  That's not the issue, and I think only lesser DM's will go that route.  Sorry.

If you can't have a discussion without implying that people who don't pretend to be an elf the same way as you are somehow "lesser" than you then I have no desire to continue the conversation.

Good day.

Quote from: Piestrio;625108If you can't have a discussion without implying that people who don't pretend to be an elf the same way as you are somehow "lesser" than you then I have no desire to continue the conversation.

Good day.

Good day.

That's one less time I'll have to repeat myself.

Trust me, sometimes it's hard to look a player in the eye and tell them they are dead.  Usually, I don't make eye contact until I say "I'm sorry."  I then continue the combat.

I understand why some DM's would not want to go through this, but like I've said before - that's the implicit job of the DM.

Quote from: Blackhand;624902I could have implemented house rules saying that you don't die at 0 hp.  \

Just poking in my head to point out that not dying at 0hp is RAW in 1e AD&D.  (It's an option left to the DM, but it's there in black and white - a single blow taking the character to anywhere from 0 to -3hp will put them down, and they'll bleed out unless tended to, expiring at -10.  Going down to -4 in one blow is still dead, though.)  Your choice, though.  Carry on.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;625130Just poking in my head to point out that not dying at 0hp is RAW in 1e AD&D.  (It's an option left to the DM, but it's there in black and white - a single blow taking the character to anywhere from 0 to -3hp will put them down, and they'll bleed out unless tended to, expiring at -10.  Going down to -4 in one blow is still dead, though.)  Your choice, though.  Carry on.

Yeah, I should point some things out about that.  On page 105 of the PHB, it states "Any creature that reaches 0 hp or less is dead."

We elected not to use the optional rule, but to address it simply it wouldn't have mattered at all anyway.  The rule you are talking about (p. 82 of the DMG) applies only to those left with exactly 0 hp from an attack.  Note that it doesn't say "Zero or Less Hit Points" and it specifically maps out that only if you are left with 0 hp from an attack (optionally 0 to -3) will you fall unconcious and bleed to death.

In the whole splatterfest, only the last two characters died with exactly 0 hp in this manner, and their bodies were immediately abandoned during the retreat.

• In almost every case, retreat was required and the bodies left where they fell.
• Even if you survive 0 hp, Cure spells applied will still mean the character is down for at least a week, ending that player's current session (except for limping from one encounter to another).  Heal spells are not available at this level.
• Most deaths were overkill, and I do not use the optional rule about -3.  That has to be the same blow that brought it to 0, by the way - even if I did use it.  -4 hp still kills you outright, even with that optional rule.
• In other cases, no aid could be administered before -10 was hit.

The characters are higher level, and the new characters they start will start at 10,000 XP.  I've added a few magic items to the generator list that will help alleviate that particular problem, including Elixirs of Life.

In this manner, the -10 clause might affect play more going forward.  Only in specific circumstances, however.  In most cases, aid will not be necessary.

To my players, DestroyYouAlot has a point.  I will allow unconciousness at 0 hp, but only at EXACTLY 0 hp.

Speaking of death - I thought this was D&D.  Don't they have mitigations available for that?

Quote from: CRKrueger;625029The unspoken, inherent metagame in roleplaying is, "My character should have some reason for being here, so I should make up a character who does, or my character should not be here."

Thing of it is, that should never be left unspoken. It should be explained by the referee right from the giddyup at chargen.