Quote from: jibbajibba;335523This sandbox style approach is okay but if the party ends up dying horribly because it turns out that 3 hobbit fighters can't defeat the lich king and there was nothing else for them to do but try to defeat the lich king then the TPK is your fault. Might have been fun and all and the fact they are all dead may not matter but its your fault.

Bollocks.

They can say, "Screw this, we need to wait until there are more people with us before tackling this opponent," decide to do something else, and then it's my responsibility to improvise based on the actions they take.

Assumed plot responsibility is a nice trick I use against my players. They line up and volunteer for all sorts of abuse they really don't have to take because they think that's what they're supposed to do...

Quote from: Soylent Green;335601Based on the results of the poll I am guess there are a lot of mstly GMs here :-)

Most RPG players I know that aren't GMs are too lazy or disinterested to actually visit an RPG forum, let alone vote in a poll or leave comments about the topic at hand.

Quote from: JimLotFP;335616Bollocks.

They can say, "Screw this, we need to wait until there are more people with us before tackling this opponent," decide to do something else, and then it's my responsibility to improvise based on the actions they take.

Assumed plot responsibility is a nice trick I use against my players. They line up and volunteer for all sorts of abuse they really don't have to take because they think that's what they're supposed to do...

I'll buy this- but I don't buy that the payers are always going to understand the danger level in a given hex (or encounter, or whatever) ahead of time- at least not in my game. Some places are well known, others a like a blind date.

As an aside: I haven't done a lot of TPK's- but I have had players that run away a lot.

Quote from: JimLotFP;335616Bollocks.

They can say, "Screw this, we need to wait until there are more people with us before tackling this opponent," decide to do something else, and then it's my responsibility to improvise based on the actions they take.

Assumed plot responsibility is a nice trick I use against my players. They line up and volunteer for all sorts of abuse they really don't have to take because they think that's what they're supposed to do...

Nice use of the word bollocks. Not used nearly enough on this site.
I agree with you what I was saying is if you were not prepared to make that ad libed alternative for the party then if they followed the only goal you set them and they died it would be your fault.

Quote from: The ShamanAgain, you're assuming facts not in evidence.

In a status quo campaign, if the adventurers, reagardless of level, head off into a stretch of forest where they know an ancient green dragon lurks, and they encounter said dragon, then it's a function of the players' choices to put their characters in the situation where they are likely to meet the dragon. If they head off into that same stretch of forest without taking the time to learn something about it first, then the consequences once again are theirs.

Saying that the "only genuine . . . option" available to the characters is to face the dragon implies that nothing about their situation is the result of player and character choice, which means you're talking about railroading the adventurers. I don't like railroading, either, but not every circumstance in which player characters may find themselves in over their heads is the result of railroading, particularly in sandbox-type settings.

I agree its a railroad but it probably wouldn't look like one to a neutral observer as the choices are freely made by the characters and there may be lots of other avenues to explore. It's only when you add the dimention of knowing he characters that it becomes a railroad.
In a true sandbox environment I would foreshadow stuff that was just too tough for the party and I would probably cheat and throw them an alternate path (ie as they are kitting out for their expedition to Dragon pass. A traveller rides into town screaming that his wife and daughter have just been kidnapped by orcish raiders and won't someone please come to his aid) but I rarely run true sandbox games.

Quote from: Maddman;335611And this works reasonably well at low level.  Most of the time, I'm hitting PCs for about 10 points of damage at a whack.  So while I can go through them pretty easily if they're not careful, they're still in the stabilizing range and can live to fight another day, if someone comes to help them.  And they might do it on their own.

This is one of the areas where 3e breaks down at high level though. Once you get up in the levels, the monsters are hitting you for 30-40 points at a time.  The chance of falling into that range is pretty low, and it becomes easy to kill PCs without really meaning to.

This is true, but then at those levels the PCs tend to have a lot more outs that let them avoid that hit (maybe force a re-roll or a contingency spell or the like).  You are right though, the mechanic does start breaking down.  On the other hand we are getting sidetracked from the TPK discussion.  This isn't about the survivability of any one character.  Also, at high levels, especailly in 3.5, death really is just a minor inconvenience (though the level loss hurts).