I'll point out that this is why I like games where power curve is flatter and with more natural events.

I don't like 'land where everyone is level 12-14' and weird artificial set-ups like that, common to 3e.

In my games... well, first, I don't use 'random encounter tables,' generally. But sometimes enemies are really powerful... or really weak.

The bandits jumping the party and going 'oh fuuuuck, these are high level adventurers' and begging for their lives, for example.

Animals generally flee if they take any significant damage or get credible threat (with a few exceptions).

This is very simple: games in which a judge manipulates outcomes to serve some personal preference or meta-goal are shitty games. This is true of real sports, board games, crosswords, war games ... and roleplaying games. So, if your game involves combat that is resolved by random die rolls, you obviously face the prospect of death in every fight, and that threat extends to all of the party members participating in the fight. If you don't like that, then play some game that doesn't have combat. Or watch TV or jerk off or something.

Quote from: Herne's Son;806186Seriously.

I get that players need to be smart, and walk away from encounters that are too tough.

Know when to hold them, know when to fold them, etc.

But, my (possibly slightly drunken) opinion is that TPKs are just a waste of everyone's fucking time. You spend all this time setting up a campaign, players invest lots of time in their PCs, you get an interesting storyline going with the PCs and whatever NPCs they've been interacting with...

And then, "Dur-hur-hurr.... yer all dead, fuckkas!" And the game has to reset to level 1, 25%, whatever 'beginning' stats are in your game.

Fuck that shit. PC death once in a while when warranted? Yeah, no worries. Killing off the entire party because of bad die rolls, and setting everything back at 0? No. I'm a fucking grown-ass man, and don't have time for that shit.

Fuck you, your TPKs, and the horse you rode your shitty ass in on.

Yeah, you're drunk.

The GM is not there to save the Players from their own stupidity.

Quote from: Larsdangly;806303This is very simple: games in which a judge manipulates outcomes to serve some personal preference or meta-goal are shitty games. This is true of real sports, board games, crosswords, war games ... and roleplaying games. So, if your game involves combat that is resolved by random die rolls, you obviously face the prospect of death in every fight, and that threat extends to all of the party members participating in the fight. If you don't like that, then play some game that doesn't have combat. Or watch TV or jerk off or something.

You said it. Plus made me laugh. Kudos.

Quote from: Larsdangly;806303This is very simple: games in which a judge manipulates outcomes to serve some personal preference or meta-goal are shitty games. This is true of real sports, board games, crosswords, war games ... and roleplaying games. So, if your game involves combat that is resolved by random die rolls, you obviously face the prospect of death in every fight, and that threat extends to all of the party members participating in the fight. If you don't like that, then play some game that doesn't have combat.

  Or play a game that doesn't involve a total fail state as a result of one or two die rolls. There are RPGs that involve combat that don't typically end in death--superhero games, Castle Falkenstein IIRC--and that's without getting into the vast array of games that aren't nearly as lethal as [strike]True Gygaxian[/strike] Old School D&D.

Quote from: The Butcher;806262Death, where is thy sting.

Thy sting is one giant frog, one giant weasel, and one damn lucky bullywug with a spear. In that order. ow...

Sigh.

I'm sorry.

I thought I was posting in the '5e gaming leads to gaming damage' thread and Tyndale's opening post for that thread.

...

...

Yeah, I'm a fucking idiot, sorry.

(Rum and holidays with six year olds are also factors)

I've played a lot of frp games since 1976, and I recall only one 'tpk'. That was of two characters, by an assassin pc who came with the dm (and seemed to be allowed to break normal rules) in a brief pick-up game at a convention. It was brief because the other player bumped us off literally at the door into the dungeon!

I think low-level TSR-era D&D offers plenty of potential for tpk, but I don't think it took incredible luck for us to learn the hard lessons with fewer casualties. Think about what you would do, and figure fairly bright monsters will do the same; and don't do the stupid things you hope the monsters will do.

I can easily imagine people used to playing stupid and steam-rolling over even stupider opposition getting a rude awakening in a game that's not like that.

The 4e D&D game rules seemed designed to create a pretty routine illusion of a desperate situation, which players quickly learned not to fear because with "second wind" and such they would come back and come out on top. I think it might be hard sometimes to recognize when it's not an illusion and break the "never retreat" habit.

I don't like the hand of god saving me in my games. I like everyone getting killed if there's a chain reaction or something. Role-players can make a good time of it all, dying their heroic deaths and such.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;806316Or play a game that doesn't involve a total fail state as a result of one or two die rolls. There are RPGs that involve combat that don't typically end in death--superhero games, Castle Falkenstein IIRC--and that's without getting into the vast array of games that aren't nearly as lethal as [strike]True Gygaxian[/strike] Old School D&D.

Part of the reason I play HERO and in a superhero Setting. It defaults to "knocked out" not dead.  A failure state in which death is not really on the table leads to all sort of interesting roleplaying - whether tactical (getting out of a deathtrap) or personal "Oh, I lost! my action figures will never sell again!"

In most games it's not the easiest thing to wipe out a whole squad. Since the victors are probably also not eager to get killed, retreat or surrender tends to have a good chance of yielding survivors. Live prisoners make better bargaining chips than dead bodies, too.

If you  make your characters rabid dogs who ought to be hunted down and eliminated even at great cost, then you choose that likely end and I have a hard time feeling sorry.

Quote from: Phillip;806373The 4e D&D game rules seemed designed to create a pretty routine illusion of a desperate situation, which players quickly learned not to fear because with "second wind" and such they would come back and come out on top. I think it might be hard sometimes to recognize when it's not an illusion and break the "never retreat" habit.

My actual experience of 4e says that's bollocks. The closest my group has ever come to defeat or even a near-TPK was in 4th edition; where engaging in a third encounter that day, with no more Dailies and healing surges low meant all the buffers and safety nets were gone.

This wasn't "stupid PC behaviour", this was a case of having only one shot at taking out an enemy while they were relatively unprepared and we were already inside their fortress. In the end we retreated having hurt them, but didn't succeed.

Quote from: Kiero;806414

Quote from: Phillip;806373The 4e D&D game rules seemed designed to create a pretty routine illusion of a desperate situation, which players quickly learned not to fear because with "second wind" and such they would come back and come out on top. I think it might be hard sometimes to recognize when it's not an illusion and break the "never retreat" habit.

My actual experience of 4e says that's bollocks. The closest my group has ever come to defeat or even a near-TPK was in 4th edition; where engaging in a third encounter that day, with no more Dailies and healing surges low meant all the buffers and safety nets were gone.

This wasn't "stupid PC behaviour", this was a case of having only one shot at taking out an enemy while they were relatively unprepared and we were already inside their fortress. In the end we retreated having hurt them, but didn't succeed.

This is the weakest rebuttal using a specifically selected partial quote I've seen in a while. It doesn't rise to the level of our resident non sequitur queen, but it's still deserving of a golf clap.

I used to think the internet was a series of interconnected tubes, and the words in them came from people on the other end. More and more I am convinced it's a cluster of paper bags, and the words come from people who are trapped inside.

Quote from: Kiero;806414My actual experience of 4e says that's bollocks. The closest my group has ever come to defeat or even a near-TPK was in 4th edition; where engaging in a third encounter that day, with no more Dailies and healing surges low meant all the buffers and safety nets were gone.

This wasn't "stupid PC behaviour", this was a case of having only one shot at taking out an enemy while they were relatively unprepared and we were already inside their fortress. In the end we retreated having hurt them, but didn't succeed.

your anecdotal experience is nice, but not terribly relevant and certainly doesn't address what he said.  He said 4e was designed a certain way, and that certainly seems true when you look at the rules of each edition.  I can totally see why he would say the danger sense in 4e is an illusion, because after so many battles of the same thing happening, that sense of danger lessens greatly.. When you do that, it seems 4e was designed more than any other edition to avoid tpk or pc death in general.  We can point to things like inflated HP, everyone can heal themselves, etc.  That is not saying that you couldn't have a tpk (which is what you're arguing against), but that it was designed to be less likely over previous editions.  Imo anyway