How often in practice do parties utterly fail? In what pertentage of your games, despite the party's best efforts, does the murder remain unsolved, the damsel get eaten by the dragon, the Ring returned to Sauron and the Death Star completed on schedule and on budget?
How do your players react when they see all their effort go into smoke?
And do you, as GM, feel tempted to throw them a bone or give them a second chance?
Do some games systems or styles of play cope better with utter failure than others?
In the games I've been playing lately... not nearly enough. Our Deadland's GM is closing in on handing out free handjobs with every dice roll.
On the other hand, my old COC campaign was a constant stream of failure... despite lots of success. They were winning the battles but losing the war.
Quote from: Soylent Green;343311How often in practice do parties utterly fail? In what pertentage of your games, despite the party's best efforts, does the murder remain unsolved, the damsel get eaten by the dragon, the Ring returned to Sauron and the Death Star completed on schedule and on budget?
How do your players react when they see all their effort go into smoke?
And do you, as GM, feel tempted to throw them a bone or give them a second chance?
Do some games systems or styles of play cope better with utter failure than others?
I'd say my current group fails about a third of the time. I won't usually throw a bone to save the day, but if the group failed bad I'll usually make the next game easier and the one after that more combative with greater rewards. Failing once a month or so isn't too bad. I just sucks if it happens any more often.
My Pathfinder group tends to think epic failure is pretty funny. A couple of them get a little whiney when they think a combat is too hard, especially if what they are fighting requires magic items to hurt that they don't have. Even if they kick its ass they will still bitch a little.
Honestly, my players over the years fail all the time, to the point where I pretty much assume it and am pleasantly surprised on those rare occasions when they actually succeed. It's led me to design scenarios in such a way that failure doesn't mean the (literal or figurative) end of the world, but simply that the bad guys grow a bit stronger, the world becomes a bit worse of a place, and the stakes are a bit higher next time around (but still not so high that "failure isn't an option," because, unless I'm cheating in the players' favor, failure is an option, and I don't want that to render the campaign no-longer-playable).
I think a third of the time is about our norm. As far as throwing them bones, it depends on the magnitude of the failure. If they just fail to achieve whatever goal they are going for then I won't help them out. If it is a more catastrophic failure and they are all going to die then I might let them escape maimed but alive if they were just unlucky.
There has to be some consequence for failure IMHO or the successes don't mean anything. That said, wiping out the party over a few bad dice rolls too often is a bit harsh. I've done it, but not too often.
In recent games it's worked out something like:
20% of the time they succeed completely (accomplish all of the relevant goals, etc).
60% of the time they succeed partially (accomplish some goals, fail at others -- e.g., stop the evil cult from sacrificing the duke's daughter, but fail to stop the evil high priest from killing one of the PCs and escaping).
20% of the time they fail completely (TPK, or barely escape with their lives).
Depends what you mean by failure.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;343334Depends what you mean by failure.
RPGPundit
The murder remain unsolved, the damsel get eaten by the dragon, the Ring returned to Sauron and the Death Star completed on schedule and on budget.
Okay more to the point, the goal, that either the scenario or the players set for themselves, that the players have been working towards for potentially several sessions has been irrevocably lost. It doesn't have to be a TPK or end of the world scenario (although it could), but more certianly more than a temporary set back.
The party rarely totally fail as in wiped out or destitute. But they often need, eh, rehabilitation. Post-traumatic, limb regenerating, conscience searching rehabilitation. Or is that the players?
Quote from: Akrasia;343319In recent games it's worked out something like:
20% of the time they succeed completely (accomplish all of the relevant goals, etc).
60% of the time they succeed partially (accomplish some goals, fail at others -- e.g., stop the evil cult from sacrificing the duke's daughter, but fail to stop the evil high priest from killing one of the PCs and escaping).
20% of the time they fail completely (TPK, or barely escape with their lives).
That sounds about right for me as well. Maybe 10% more in the complete success category taken from the partial success category.
The goal of my players typically is to come away from an adventure with their hides intact and more loot than they started with. They succeed at this about 60 per cent of the time.
About half the time. Maybe a little less, though often they (they the players) are pleased with the failed result.
Not too often, but when it does it tends to be pretty memorable. At the climax of an 18 month campaign we failed to unravel the plot in time and an entire army was gated into hell. That was pretty awesome, especially as the next time we resume that game we may well follow it there to try and bring it back!
Depends upon the game.
Running Buffy, they did lose an NPC to vampirism right under their noses.... but they killed every "episode" big bad, and while trashing the school totoally ... they did lose a PC. Say, 5%
Running Traveller, they have given up on the task at hand many times; about 15% of missions (be they GM or Player origin).
Running WFRP, it's closer to 30%.
Prime Directive, 20%
Absent a TPK I don't think they really mind nor do we track it. You fail, pick your self up, dust yourself off, and move on or try again.
The problem with this kind of question is that success and failure are not black-and-white.
Failing to complete the goal doesn't mean that nothing was accomplished along the way. Perhaps the failure at least delayed the BBEG's plans, causing them to change, or if the Death Star is completed on time, the party has valuable intel regarding it that can be used to destroy it later.
The only way a party can utterly fail to have impact on what is going on is to do nothing about a given event. Even if they fail on a wider scope, they will almost always walk away with something potentially useful, if they put forth effort.
You would have to ask them. The only thing I know for sure after discussing a few incidents with my players perceptions of their success and failure do not match my views as the all-knowing-GM.
Quote from: Soylent Green;343311How do your players react when they see all their effort go into smoke?
Depends. They like to fail spectacularly instead of say, having bad luck with the dice. But they don't complain if the latter happens.
QuoteAnd do you, as GM, feel tempted to throw them a bone or give them a second chance?
If they want a second chance I give it to them. Normally though, they set the campaign goals and when they fail, they don't really feel it would do justice to the game if they had a redo.
Regards,
David R
My players very rarely fail in the overall sense. They're just too pigheadedly determined. Some of them will certainly choose death, TPK, and the end of the campaign over failure.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;343521My players very rarely fail in the overall sense. They're just too pigheadedly determined. Some of them will certainly choose death, TPK, and the end of the campaign over failure.
RPGPundit
Evidence A (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=182741).
Yup, that's a good example, but I was actually thinking most recently of the last session of RIFTS, where the PCs, their mechas reduced to almost scrap metal, were still willing to charge into a town with 300 vampire-cultists and an evil archmage, just so as not to "lose".
RPGPundit