Seriously.
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.
Translation: "I'd rather have the GM save me from my own stupidity, bad luck, or deliberate choices then be responsible for my actions because I put no more thought into this game then I do the random video game."
Me, I prefer roleplaying. Doom is always waiting and IDKFA still works.
Quote from: Herne's Son;806186But, 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...
When I've seen games where TPKs occur it is almost always a sandbox style game where there is no storyline (other than whatever the PCs do) and where the same campaign set up works for any number of groups of PCs. So the loss in GM time invested is pretty close to nil. These have also been games that do not use elaborate, time-intensive character creation systems or detailed point buy systems. So player time invested in character roll up and creation is also not that large.
A very mature, thought-out opinion that we should all accept as Gospel. BRAVO!
Quote from: CRKrueger;806191Translation: "I'd rather have the GM save me from my own stupidity, bad luck, or deliberate choices then be responsible for my actions because I put no more thought into this game then I do the random video game."
Me, I prefer roleplaying. Doom is always waiting and IDKFA still works.
Exactly.
"Death, when warranted." Sounds like reverse "mother may I." Perhaps you should try FATE? No one dies without consensus.
I'll play devil's advocate: For many groups, the knowledge that a TPK can happen is part of what makes the rest of the experience memorable and fun. Success is only meaningful if failure is possible. The drama is only powerful if hte stakes are real.
Which means that an actual TPK, while theoretically "ruining" all the hypothetical sessions which would have otherwise followed the TPK, will actually enhance all of the other RPG sessions you play.
Would I be sad if my D&D campaign that has been running for 7 years suddenly ended tomorrow in a TPK? Probably. OTOH, many of my memories from that campaign are greatly enhanced by the knowledge that they could have been TPKs, but weren't. That somehow the party managed to scramble its way free (or even to victory) despite the day looking dire. And that they managed to do that not because they had script immunity or because my thumb was on the scale for them, but because they actually did it.
What I will say, however, is that I think it is the mark of a mediocre GM when the only consequence for failure in their game is death. That's not a very realistic attitude and it results in a less interesting game even when it isn't ending in the TPKs which are statistically more likely as a result.
Wonder why the default stance isn't, "TPK--the mark of shitty player decisions?" Is it the GM's job to protect player ego?
Everyone's entitled to the occasional drunken post, as long as you are sufficiently mortified by it when you sober up!
Quote from: cranebump;806198Wonder why the default stance isn't, "TPK--the mark of shitty player decisions?" Is it the GM's job to protect player ego?
That'd be my stance. The crappiest GM I ever played under would not even let my character commit suicide (there was a reason) but our current Pathfinder GM has presided over plenty of TPKs and I can't say there was a single one we didn't earn... usually by picking off more than we could handle and not running away once we realized it.
Having been the near cause of a self TPK. I can say that it is NOT allways the DMs fault. Players are perfectly capable of wiping themselves out through various means. Usually unintentionally.
Nor should the DM be providing a "safety net" for the players willy nilly at every turn so death is impossible.
But that said. Most games provide a few possible built in fallbacks for individual death which despite some members claim here, is not the DM coddling the players. Nor is a TPK ever allways a thing desirable in every group. Theres just too much variance in prefferences. It is up to the DM to say where the line is and cleave to it as best they can.
Personally I am fine with a total loss on occasion. Sometimes the rolls just dont like you or your players. But. I have zero interest in it happening alot. And so far it has happened rarely. Starting the whole group over is sometimes the only recourse. But not allways even that due to how a DM might set things up.
For example the group I am a player in is VERY danger prone usually since two of the players tend to play gung-go fighter types with me usually the group caster. Previous go through with them saw, for once through no fault of our own, a gradual TPK with two characters eaten by animals which left me alone in a hostile swamp. Despite my best efforts at sneaking... didnt make it. So we were all back to start. Which was fine with us as we all had new ideas to try out from start.
But if the DM wants to provide options without actually tweaking rolls then there are ways to pull off a group save.
The group might be replaced by equally competent retainers of comprable levels.
The group might not be dead - Merely subdued and KOed.
Some wandering cleric might raise them all. Why? You are about to find out.
Someone else might pay for their recovery.
Some wizard might collect them and bring them to life for some mad experiment.
Some god might give them the option to fight their way out of the afterlife.
Or the afterlife IS their new adventuring setting.
etc.
Lots of approaches that arent a safety net.
I'm just going to copy over what I said in the other thread:
"Honestly, I'm not into random encounter TPK. I prefer not to have TPKs happen at all.
I mean, they happen, sometimes because I misjudged things, sometimes because my players misjudged things, and sometimes because the dice just fall that way."
Usually if I misjudged something wildly, I might soften the blow a bit. If I literally made an encounter I thought was a fairly even match and I was wrong about it, I might tone things down midfight. But if I made an encounter that was supposed to be a bloody mess, and it turns into a bloody mess, and the PCs are being idiotic, welp, that is on them. If the dice just turn on them, well, it happens. I can't say anything, it just does.
I'm not a hardcore DM, I'm not dogmatic about the whole "death around every corner' thing, or "fantasy Vietnam" or anything like that. I mostly run heroic adventure type stuff. But there has to be some real threat. And yes, there are other threats than just death. There are plenty of bad things that can happen without it, but you know, if you are running around swinging swords against dragons... you might die.
Quote from: Omega;806210But if the DM wants to provide options without actually tweaking rolls then there are ways to pull off a group save.
The group might be replaced by equally competent retainers of comprable levels.
The group might not be dead - Merely subdued and KOed.
Some wandering cleric might raise them all. Why? You are about to find out.
Someone else might pay for their recovery.
Some wizard might collect them and bring them to life for some mad experiment.
Some god might give them the option to fight their way out of the afterlife.
Or the afterlife IS their new adventuring setting.
etc.
Lots of approaches that arent a safety net.
I've had GMs do most of those... and once in a while they're good fun. Some evil demigod rezzing you so you can do his bidding is not exactly a free giveaway.
I'd like to see more non-magical outs like the KO'ed, followed by ransom demands.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;806200Everyone's entitled to the occasional drunken post, as long as you are sufficiently mortified by it when you sober up!
:) like that one.
Either you invested a lot of time and thought into your character, or you didn't.
If you did invest a lot of time and thought into creating your character, it shouldn't be any trouble to invest a lot of time and thought into playing your character, so they're unlikely to get killed just like that.
If you didn't invest a lot of time and thought into creating your character, then you won't care much if they get killed.
In some ways, worse than a TPK is a partial party kill. If you keep having characters killed, well eventually it's like one of those music bands where every member has changed since the start, is it really the same band anymore? You lose continuity and the care factor, things can kind of fizzle out.
Of course, most campaigns fizzle out, but that's another story...
If you're hardcore enough to let the chips fall where they may, I'd hope you'd have the balls not to let 'the book somewhat implies people don't like to play the same way as me' make you clutch your pearls.
Grow the fuck up.
Also, it's not always easy or practical to extricate from a combat, particularly if it's not going your way. Particularly if it's random and come upon you suddenly. 'Random encounters' tends not to give you a lot of leeway in determining whether to engage.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;806196I'll play devil's advocate: For many groups, the knowledge that a TPK can happen is part of what makes the rest of the experience memorable and fun. Success is only meaningful if failure is possible. The drama is only powerful if hte stakes are real.
Which means that an actual TPK, while theoretically "ruining" all the hypothetical sessions which would have otherwise followed the TPK, will actually enhance all of the other RPG sessions you play.
Would I be sad if my D&D campaign that has been running for 7 years suddenly ended tomorrow in a TPK? Probably. OTOH, many of my memories from that campaign are greatly enhanced by the knowledge that they could have been TPKs, but weren't. That somehow the party managed to scramble its way free (or even to victory) despite the day looking dire. And that they managed to do that not because they had script immunity or because my thumb was on the scale for them, but because they actually did it.
What I will say, however, is that I think it is the mark of a mediocre GM when the only consequence for failure in their game is death. That's not a very realistic attitude and it results in a less interesting game even when it isn't ending in the TPKs which are statistically more likely as a result.
I think this nails it. One of the things I realized a while back from the tyranny of fun days is that making things 100% fun all the time, is impossible because you stop enjoying it. It is like eating nothing but chocolate cake all day. You have to taste something bitter on occasion to appreciate the sweet. This is something that is obvious if you ever used the invincibility codes in a video game when you were a kid. It really takes away from the pleasure of the game.
Aw, how cute, a cross thread avenging of the "random stat roll thread".
Quote from: Will;806215If you're hardcore enough to let the chips fall where they may, I'd hope you'd have the balls not to let 'the book somewhat implies people don't like to play the same way as me' make you clutch your pearls.
I'll reiterate.
Quote from: CRKrueger;806158Does this make the DMG a bad product? No.
Does this make 5e a bad system? No.
Does it reinforce the CR paradigm present in all WotC version of D&D? Yes.
...Call me crazy, but a book with GMing advice should be capable of being criticized on the nature and worth of that advice, whether experienced GMs use it or not.
Quote from: Will;806215Grow the fuck up..
Says the guy introducing the manhood snark into the thread to begin with because he's still sore everyone laughed at him in the random stat thread. Oh the irony, it is thick.
Quote from: Will;806215Also, it's not always easy or practical to extricate from a combat, particularly if it's not going your way. Particularly if it's random and come upon you suddenly. 'Random encounters' tends not to give you a lot of leeway in determining whether to engage.
What's your point?
Don't have them at all?
Have them be always level inappropriate?
Always give the players an "engage or not" choice regardless of the situation?
Quote from: Simlasa;806212I've had GMs do most of those... and once in a while they're good fun. Some evil demigod rezzing you so you can do his bidding is not exactly a free giveaway.
I'd like to see more non-magical outs like the KO'ed, followed by ransom demands.
Most recently my players whose characters died due to bad judgment found themselves awake and alive on the slab in a mad warlock's dungeon. They also rolled up new PC relatives of their erstwhile dead PCs, and said new PCs will search for their lost relatives last seen near the monastery (which the warlock took over--long story). So there are plenty of ways to make a "TPK" not end a campaign.
Quote from: cranebump;806198Wonder why the default stance isn't, "TPK--the mark of shitty player decisions?" Is it the GM's job to protect player ego?
It could just be my age, but I often feel there is a dividing line and one side are the players who grew up on video games where you can just replay any part at which you failed/died/whatever...the folks who buy those bizarre "how-to-beat-video-game-X" books...instead of just playing the damn game...wouldn't be surprised if they also want trophies for showing up.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;806196Which means that an actual TPK, while theoretically "ruining" all the hypothetical sessions which would have otherwise followed the TPK, will actually enhance all of the other RPG sessions you play.
Would I be sad if my D&D campaign that has been running for 7 years suddenly ended tomorrow in a TPK? Probably. OTOH, many of my memories from that campaign are greatly enhanced by the knowledge that they could have been TPKs, but weren't. That somehow the party managed to scramble its way free (or even to victory) despite the day looking dire. And that they managed to do that not because they had script immunity or because my thumb was on the scale for them, but because they actually did it.
Yay, sanity.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;806218One of the things I realized a while back from the tyranny of fun days is that making things 100% fun all the time, is impossible because you stop enjoying it. It is like eating nothing but chocolate cake all day. You have to taste something bitter on occasion to appreciate the sweet. This is something that is obvious if you ever used the invincibility codes in a video game when you were a kid. It really takes away from the pleasure of the game.
Yay, more sanity. Also ties into my point above, if I want the OMFGIWIN!! experience without wasting any time on anything less then total success, there's a ton of games out there I can get it from.
Now, for those people who do enjoy playing a game where a TPK absolutely, positively can not happen, FINE.
But realize the opposing posts to the OP, just like the PvP thread are NOT saying "TPKs make the corpse of Gygax get a stiffy." They are saying having a TPK isn't the "Mark of a shitty GM" and that TPK's are not
objectively bad, period.
Again it's not about "X all the time", it's about "X even possible". The fact that this needs to be iterated every fucking thread makes me think this place has been attending Fox News School of Logic and Debate.
Quote from: CRKrueger;806223Says the guy introducing the manhood snark into the thread to begin with because he's still sore everyone laughed at him in the random stat thread. Oh the irony, it is thick.
You would say that, considering how often you proclaimed your love of felching goats in that thread.
Oh wait, that didn't happen, either.
Quote from: CRKrueger;806223What's your point?
Don't have them at all?
Have them be always level inappropriate?
Always give the players an "engage or not" choice regardless of the situation?
People have brought up in this thread that 'sheesh, you can just run away.' And I'm pointing out the experiences people have, IE: a lot of people tend toward fighting to the death because other options have failed or seem unlikely.
(I had a near TPK due to a random encounter where we literally couldn't win or even run away, because the enemies could go through walls and we couldn't. GM had to basically decide the shades or whatever decided not to pursue us, because otherwise game was just over.)
Now, yeah, sometimes it's because people are trying to emulate fiction or whatever, and heroes don't typically go 'uh, yeah, let's slink away.' But sometimes, not.
Also re:
QuoteDoes this make the DMG a bad product? No.
Does this make 5e a bad system? No.
Does it reinforce the CR paradigm present in all WotC version of D&D? Yes.
...Call me crazy, but a book with GMing advice should be capable of being criticized on the nature and worth of that advice, whether experienced GMs use it or not.
Sure. We agree, which is why you need to climb up my fucking ass.
And if the OP had 'criticized' rather than acting all fucking dramatic about 'OMFG they are suggesting a lot of people don't like the opportunity of TPKs in two sentences!', it wouldn't have been worth comment.
(And yes, 3 days of dealing with whiny 6 year olds has left me a little frayed to dealing with manbabies on the internet)
((And this rum is very tasty))
ya'll got trolled
Quote from: Sacrosanct;806232ya'll got trolled
D'OH
Some of us enjoy to roleplay in a world that, despite being fantasy, has realistic consequences.
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.
Some of us enjoy to roleplay in a world that, despite being fantasy, has realistic consequences.
Your argument comes down to, once again, "badwrongfun", and that's just not cool.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;806232ya'll got trolled
nah im gonna go with the drunken post theory
Quote from: TristramEvans;806252Some of us enjoy to roleplay in a world that, despite being fantasy, has realistic consequences.
Your argument comes down to, once again, "badwrongfun", and that's just not cool.
well to be fair there are 2 things that are badwrongfun but this is not one of them
although on the other hand even the few things i consider badwrongfun i dont get on peoples case about (well not here anyway maybe on /tg/)
Quote from: tuypo1;806259well to be fair there are 2 things that are badwrongfun but this is not one of them
A GM is "bad" for playing "a way the poster doesn't like"; pretty much the definition of badwrongfunning. IF the OP had simply been about: "I don't like it when that happens", thats all well and good. But the onetruewayist "this is the mark of a shitty GM!" assuming some universal standard based on the OP's personal storygaming inclinations is what
badwrongfun means.
Death, where is thy sting.
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;806414Quote 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
I have no problem with people having a good time with 4E; if it were a bit simpler and faster moving I might even agree. But this particular 4E-centric argument about this particular point seems backwards. Basically, you are saying that 4E is a game of edgy near TPK's once some of the rules that most distinguish it from other editions get turned off.
Quote from: cranebump;806198...Is it the GM's job to protect player ego?
Yes, it is. Exactly to what degree will vary from group to group and even from session to session, but a good GM gauges the mood at the table and tweaks things on the fly if needed. Even in the most brutal campaigns, a whole lot of death coming at the wrong time may spoil the fun.
Ego may not be much involved, but fun sure is.
Quote from: Larsdangly;806444I have no problem with people having a good time with 4E; if it were a bit simpler and faster moving I might even agree. But this particular 4E-centric argument about this particular point seems backwards. Basically, you are saying that 4E is a game of edgy near TPK's once some of the rules that most distinguish it from other editions get turned off.
does anyone else recall that chart a year or so ago where someone compared how many goblins the average 1st level fighter would kill before dying himself, broken out by edition? 4e is clearly the more "heroic" edition, where lethality takes a back seat to epic powers. Nothing wrong with that of course, but it seems silly to me to claim 4e is as gritty or lethal as previous editions
Quote from: AteTheHeckUp;806457Yes, it is. Exactly to what degree will vary from group to group and even from session to session, but a good GM gauges the mood at the table and tweaks things on the fly if needed. Even in the most brutal campaigns, a whole lot of death coming at the wrong time may spoil the fun.
Ego may not be much involved, but fun sure is.
Well, I DO see what you mean, but I feel a group pursuit requires some sublimation of ego, especially in a game that doesn't really have winners and losers, per se. I mean, your character dying doesn't mean you've lost anything but the time it takes to create a new one. Assuming you're playing with semi-mature folks, ego, one presumes, fades into the background (unless you're playing with people who brag about their "builds," I assume).
Quote from: Larsdangly;806444I have no problem with people having a good time with 4E; if it were a bit simpler and faster moving I might even agree. But this particular 4E-centric argument about this particular point seems backwards. Basically, you are saying that 4E is a game of edgy near TPK's once some of the rules that most distinguish it from other editions get turned off.
I sort of like the powers system, as far as At-Wills and such. I like the action economy, as well. There was just a bit too much going on when we began to hit higher levels. Play slowed to a rate that hurt our overall campaign, in my opinion. We were meeting twice a month at most, so spending a session doing one combat (which happened a couple times), was more than I was willing to sacrifice. Of course, I never got around to adopting some of the speedier play player-suggestions, so that may have been my fault, as well. Then again, I felt like we almost had to have the online tools to run the thing, so that was a drawback for me, as well. I think the players generally liked it, though all but one agreed it was ridiculously slow for us. The guy who enjoyed it was the one who had like 20-something little colored cards all spread out in front of him. I think he liked colors...
Quote from: AteTheHeckUp;806457Yes, it is. Exactly to what degree will vary from group to group and even from session to session, but a good GM gauges the mood at the table and tweaks things on the fly if needed. Even in the most brutal campaigns, a whole lot of death coming at the wrong time may spoil the fun.
Ego may not be much involved, but fun sure is.
I agree somewhat with this.
Groups are all different. I generally make it clear that we play a very lethal RPG, and one that mimics the thrill of survival and and the feeling of accomplishment of having a character lasting for a while of some of the earlier games. And that a combination of bad rolls and poor decisions will very often be lethal.
So I've presided over 2 real TPKS and a few near TPKS in the last decade. Before that there were a more. But everyone has been warned and expects it in a dangerous game. On the other side, when I felt a players enjoyment was going to take a real hit not due to his own fault, like losing a character when they did the right things and the dice just hated them that night...
However, I roll most of mine in front of them...
I've never had a tpk in a fantasy game. The potential is there, though. I wouldn't artificially prevent it.
I've had numerous tpks in Call of Cthulhu, but that's par for the course. Actually felt bad about it till one of my players was like "no, thats the awesome part. Dont pull punches. It makes the successes mean something"
I reckon I haven't played CoC enough; there's always been someone left to tell the tale (if only from a lunatic asylum).
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.
You seem to be not denying but ignoring the point I actually made. My supposition regarding the difficulty of distinguishing the real imminent catastrophes might be mistaken; someone with more experiehce than I could speak with more confidence to that.
It would make your remarks clearer and less needlessly contentious if instead of "that" (which implies reference to what I actually wrote) you were to state explitly the proposition that you regard as bollocks.
Quote from: Phillip;806487I reckon I haven't played CoC enough; there's always been someone left to tell the tale (if only from a lunatic asylum).
Been playing regularly for a few years now. TPKs about 25% of the time. 25% one person survives. About 5% no one dies.
CoC is a good highlighting of genre expectation.
I think the problem people often run into is when you sit down to a fantasy game, that actually straddles several genres/sub genres.
So when people seem to strangely wuss out about a character dying, it's probably due to this clash of expectations -- they are playing Xena: Warrior Princess and you're playing Game of Thrones.
I mention CoC because, in my experience, people are more likely to be on the same page about what the genre is, since there are way fewer influences on the game. Folks who might have gotten pissed about their character dying after a bad spill from a horse may laugh out loud as pieces of their investigator rains down on the survivors.
It was the most exciting 4e session of my experience that inspired my speculation regarding potential difficulty in assessing danger. An expedition started out looking like just a good workout, but pretty suddenly went pear-shaped with a number of our figures incapacitated and the rest in a closing noose. I think our urging of them to get out while they could was strategically sound, that it really was luck that saved the day when they insisted on death or glory.
Mechanically, there is I suspect a more powerful ratchet in 4e both in levels and in numbers than in older D&D: When you're outclassed, you get outclassed a lot prettty fast. But I'm going on only a little experience and reading.
Thats a good point Will.
Torg is a fun game in generating a feeling of threat but swinging toward success, if you know how to run it well.
The system uses a card deck, and as you play you build a 'hand.' Trying different things gains you cards.
So while you struggle, you build a hand. And what looks overwhelming can lead to great rolls and leveraging them with cards.
Mind you, I think our GM was really adept at the system and it could easily go wrong, but it created a lot of fun tension.
Quote from: Will;806490CoC is a good highlighting of genre expectation.
I think the problem people often run into is when you sit down to a fantasy game, that actually straddles several genres/sub genres.
So when people seem to strangely wuss out about a character dying, it's probably due to this clash of expectations -- they are playing Xena: Warrior Princess and you're playing Game of Thrones.
I mention CoC because, in my experience, people are more likely to be on the same page about what the genre is, since there are way fewer influences on the game. Folks who might have gotten pissed about their character dying after a bad spill from a horse may laugh out loud as pieces of their investigator rains down on the survivors.
Taking one's thorazine cocktail on the verandah in the perfume of the jasmine, without the tedious bother of manually keeping oneself upright in one's chair is victory by any civilized man's measure, sir!
I find Classic Traveller nigh perfect for rpg, in that it's usually extremely unlikely (if not indeed impossible) to kill a character with a single shot; yet the first wound is very likely to make the victim hors de combat.
On the other hand, the frequency of serious wounds, and potential for death from follow-up shots, would be inconvenient for pacing of action and for long-term character development in such a combat-intensive game as D&D tends to be (hence the additional hit points for attaining experience levels, or other mechanisms in games of that sort).
Quote from: Will;806490CoC is a good highlighting of genre expectation.
I think the problem people often run into is when you sit down to a fantasy game, that actually straddles several genres/sub genres.
So when people seem to strangely wuss out about a character dying, it's probably due to this clash of expectations -- they are playing Xena: Warrior Princess and you're playing Game of Thrones.
I mention CoC because, in my experience, people are more likely to be on the same page about what the genre is, since there are way fewer influences on the game. Folks who might have gotten pissed about their character dying after a bad spill from a horse may laugh out loud as pieces of their investigator rains down on the survivors.
The assumption of universal uniform expectation can be one of the biggest stumbling blocks in running a successful game.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;806501Taking one's thorazine cocktail on the verandah in the perfume of the jasmine, without the tedious bother of manually keeping oneself upright in one's chair is victory by any civilized man's measure, sir!
You sir are a gentleman of style.
I admit that an advantage of playing GURPS is that while it's easy to incapacitate a character, short of slitting throats or hacking at downed bodies it's not easy to kill a character.
But that being said, and thinking over some of Will's comments ... look, this is about as YMMV a deal as exists in RPG gameplay.
TPKs happen because many players have no tactical sense.
TPKs happen because some systems are deadly, particularly where low-level/power characters are concerned.
TPKs happen because some GMs get off on killing characters.
TPKs happen because some gaming groups place a low priority on character survival, and the reaction to the loss of a character is no more than a shrug and a rollup of the replacement.
TPKs happen because the modus operandi of many gaming circles have is to surge into frontal assaults whenever possible, and to fight to the death once engaged.
And, sure, sometimes TPKs happen because the GM didn't know enough not to throw far too much at the PCs in a situation from which they couldn't withdraw.
Did I miss anything?
Sometimes the dice rolls really, really go against the party and for their opponents.
Oh god, low level 3.5e is ... obnoxious in that regard.
'Woops, the 1/2 level orc critted with a falchion. The thief takes... ... yeah, she's fucked.'
'You just missed 6 easy poison saves in a row. nnngh.'
Had a near wipe last night playing Rolemaster. Low level party of 5 (11 levels total) ran into 5 goblins led by a large ogre in the redwoods.
We knew they were coming, but not how many. We passed on the chance to retreat.
We failed our hide roles
The fighter who maneuvered for a rear attack on the ogre, critted but rolled poorly. N/E.
My mage got a spell stored sleep spell off the ogre, but no effect. He was too high level for that
Blows get exchanged for a few rounds. The goblins rolled well, the party doesn't.. most of the party gets stunned. The Ogre bashes two fighters around.
A second sleep goes off, but I roll poorly and only sleep one gobbo.
Next round, what's left of our line collapses, leaving the mage and a single PC fighter. We book.
Failed the mage's hard maneuver to run down a steep slope, opts to jump instead, and falling takes 6AK, is hurt some more and stunned for a few rounds, long enough for the single goblin archer to puncture him twice. K/O
The single fighter gets to the beach alone and onto a waiting jollyboat. Sole survivor. She sees more goblins in the hills as she rows away. Lucky.
Exciting end of session. Since these goblins are known to take prisoners, some of the survivors (including my mage) have a chance. The good news is that no one was bleeding to death. Regardless, my character is going to be retired for a while (dead or prisoner) and for next session I need a new PC.
It's all on the party. We made some bad choices and had some poor luck. The most important thing is that we're playing again in two weeks.
A TPK can be the mark of a shitty GM, if it was the GM's goal to kill the party for example. Or, if he sets them up in a situation where they literally can't possibly EITHER win or escape.
But in my experience, it's far more often the mark of incautious players.