Due to the fact that the party currently in my game has notoriously bad judgement and they foolishly following their over-confidant fighter into a bad situation, I am looking at the real possibility of a TPK or near TPK. How have others handled this kind of situation? How do you continue the adventure path if everyone in it dies?
Is this in general or are you looking at a specific place in the plot?
For me, I keep a Ghost Walk scenario in my head for cases like this. The PCs run through a surreal adventure and, if they beat that scenario, then they wake up from their comas and crawl to safety in the real world.
But that's for TPKs where the monsters are not likely to let them live. Generally, I keep in mind reasons why the monsters might capture them.
|
Due to the fact that the party currently in my game has notoriously bad judgement and they foolishly following their over-confidant fighter into a bad situation, I am looking at the real possibility of a TPK or near TPK. How have others handled this kind of situation? How do you continue the adventure path if everyone in it dies?
well that depends greatly upon the point of the TPK in the AP. in genarel, I belive that if your party's steel in Korvosa, than it is easy to replace them with new PC's that have something to do with the Krovosan Guard. if already out of town, than maybe Jolee recruted some of his old friends to back up the original PC's...
|
We had a TPK a few weeks ago at the end of a session. Took me all week to come up with a acceptable solution that seemed reasonable (for a fantasy role playing story of course). It happened during the underground temple of Urgathoa. I decided to use some intervention by Pharasma. It will eventually lead to a side quest I was not planning.
My PCs just rushed into a horrific situation. Outnumbered and surrounded they fought to the last man...and he surrendered. Not wanting a TPK, the thugs allowed the character to stabilize his dying friends.
They will be brought before the Boss for an opportunity to beg for their lives in the next session...personally, I see another TPK.
Is this in general or are you looking at a specific place in the plot?
For me, I keep a Ghost Walk scenario in my head for cases like this. The PCs run through a surreal adventure and, if they beat that scenario, then they wake up from their comas and crawl to safety in the real world.
But that's for TPKs where the monsters are not likely to let them live. Generally, I keep in mind reasons why the monsters might capture them.
Oh, that is really nice. Like a harrowing in wraith, i will have to remember that.
If the players persist in stupid actions and earn themselves a TPK - then wipe them out, they've earned it.
THEN you ask them what they want to do, perhaps after pointing out the Great Tragic Comedy that they stepped into with their characters.
|
|
How to handle a TPK?
Laugh
Well, using your inside voice. Otherwise I agree with Turin. Kill them and then ask them 'now what?"
Caution is a learned trait and one of the ways of learning it is having the party die.
Continuing of the AP can be tricky and is usually up to what and how you want to deal with it.
They're looking at taking on the Arkonas. I don't think the party can take them all on, and there is no logical reason why Bahor wouldn't have his flunkies nearby to help out. I kitted out the flunkies with a little extra equipment, and between four regular rakshasa and Bahor, I just don't see the party being able to take them. Even though they have an idea about who and what Vimanda is, they're actually going along with her.
Heck, they've even indicated that they know what Vimanda is. However, they're going along with her plan, so why not wait until after Bahor is dead before finishing them. So, even if they do kill Bahor, she's just going to turn on them. They have saved Neolandus and Orisini, they have a way out and can walk away, but they've decided Bahor is a bad enough evil that he needs to be taken care of right now. So, this is really a no-win situation. Especially since the party is hardly at full strength.
That about sums up the situation. Ignoring the mission to go do a side thing against an opponent who is likely vastly superior. If they get wiped out, they're wiped out. I'm just trying to figure out how to replace them. Neolandus and Orisini are not going with them into this fight, so they'll get away.
Due to the fact that the party currently in my game has notoriously bad judgement and they foolishly following their over-confidant fighter into a bad situation, I am looking at the real possibility of a TPK or near TPK. How have others handled this kind of situation?
Personally I like doing the mocking jig but some DMs of my acquantence feel this takes things to far and just leave it at pointing, laughing and heckling.
I would much rather damage a PC than kill one. I don't mean inflicting hit points worth of wounds (though I do lots of that), but instead I'll do stuff that adds role-playing hooks.
Let's assume that Bahor and his flunkies defeat the PCs. Bahor controls the manor and the buildings above ground, and Vimanda controls the Vivified Labyrinth. Bahor wants Vimanda dead, preferably in a way that doesn't look like he's behind any failed attempts.
Maybe he'll stabilize any PCs who survive until the end of combat, take their stuff, and send them down into the Labyrinth. Maybe he'll even heal them first. He'll tell them where to find Vimanda and make them a deal that if they kill her then he'll let them go. He'll ask them to swear by Abadar and Asmodeus and any deities whose holy symbols they're carrying. If they succeed, he'll give them nice new clothes, masterwork equipment bearing the Arkona crest, and a pat on the head. They're free to go.
After this, have them meet him on the street occasionally, where he'll be polite but condescending. Have him prepare an illusion or item of some sort that he can activate to replay them swearing their oaths in cast they ever decide to doublecross him. Maybe it's even a dramatization, where they're actually quaking with fear and gibbering a little.
This sort of thing strikes me as much more interesting than just killing them. Everyone is different, of course.
How have others handled this kind of situation?
With the greatest glee!
Seriously, though, over-confidence and notoriously bad judgement should not be treated with kid gloves, since some people catch on to the fact that the GM won't kill off their characters, and they stop caring. They'll go insult the king, stop looking for traps, and decide to go adventuring on the planes at 2nd level.
Better to kill off one badge of characters as an example to their spiritual inheritors. They will start to use their brains.
Seriously, though, over-confidence and notoriously bad judgement should not be treated with kid gloves, since some people catch on to the fact that the GM won't kill off their characters, and they stop caring. They'll go insult the king, stop looking for traps, and decide to go adventuring on the planes at 2nd level.
I agree with this completely. My response was more of a "To the death? NO! To the pain!" type of reaction than a suggestion that you softball.
|
Well I think the only thing you can do is have Neolandus and Orisini stress there's more important things than the party getting their pound of flesh. If they ignore that, let 'em have it. Neolandus and Orisini escape and if you end up with a TPK have them recruit a new, hopefully less rash, band of heroes to deal with the Shoanti menace/magic sword of killing BBEG.
Hmmm. Is there any option Bahor or Vimanda could use to raise the PCs as juju-zombie slaves to carry out their bidding (working towards deposing a troublesome monarch)? Although that could be a problem later on in PF #11.
That's what I was thinking as well! I use the Gheldan from an old Dragon magazine as a stand-by for TPK. Have a necromancer half-raise them from the dead as half-zombies, and give them a quest -- lots of opportunity for "Sean of the Living Dead" jokes, and I am always looking for another reason to play Jonathan Coulton's "Re: Your Brains"
In fact, in my party, that's not because my PC have bad idea or are foolish, but the mobs presented in PF are over-powerful. If i wasn't cool, Girrigz killed them all, and also the Druid in the Direption. Rolph, with his lightining bolt was near to kill 2 PC. In all cases, I decided to not apply the rale damage to my PC.
But to be honest, one of them told me that one time, I should force them to stabilize one of them, because they'll think that THEY are powerful! LOL!
But to play a story, I need my PC, so I prefer keep them save, in order to present et tell them this so cool story, rather than kill them :-)
In all cases, I decided to not apply the rale damage to my PC. . . But to play a story, I need my PC, so I prefer keep them save, in order to present et tell them this so cool story, rather than kill them :-)
This isn't how I run my games. I'd rather hurt a PC than kill one, but I'd rather kill one (and I did last session) than let the players think that I'm going easy on them.
My group fully intends to assault the Arkonas clan as an epilogue once they gakk Queen Ileosa. Naturally, I fully intend to make them 'earn' that particular bragging right.
But to play a story, I need my PC, so I prefer keep them save, in order to present et tell them this so cool story, rather than kill them :-)
I agree. I do not like when the game is easy, but the deaths break the continuity of the campaign. I try to have the smallest number of deaths in my campaign.
However, some challenges of CoCT are too strong for my taste. Rolth could have killed the whole group, but I made him to be condescending and mocking with the characters, calling "apprentice" to the party wizard, since he cast his spells (learned from the Vreeg's spellbook) and saying that he was going taught him true magic. Rolth repeatedly urged him to betray his friends, and demanded that he fell at his feet. Thus, I managed to irritate the party and Rolth hurt them, but without killing them (will... he killed the poor dwarf) I nerfed the leucodaemonio, too... I did not want to kill the whole group.
wspatterson, it is difficult to manage a TPK. How many the players love their characters? There are two possibilities: to do new characters, or to allow them to revive the old ones. How to achieve this is complicated, there is that to invent a good excuse and create a little story to make it credible.
What happens if you become bankrupt in Monopoly? That would be too awful, so just start giving people free money so they can continue to play.
If the characters die, then they die. It's part of the game. If you were fair, there is nothing to complain about. If a particular module or campaign is very difficult, the players need to know this before hand - as their playing style will change. But even a TPK is fair. It should never be the intent of the GM to kill characters. But if he adjudicates an encounter of challenge properly, then what happens is what happens.
If the players are still excited about playing the AP, I'd start them as new characters in a new party with a new hook. Players are understanbly loathe to start from level 1 again, but keeping them at their current level or one level less is fair. This approach will take a lot more work for the GM (and players too), but is doable.
And no, I don't expect anyone to follow my advice. ;)
What happens if you become bankrupt in Monopoly? That would be too awful, so just start giving people free money so they can continue to play.
I would argue that if you're playing D&D the same way you play Monopoly, you're doing one of them wrong.
I have never understood the glee some DMs get from killing entire parties. Indeed, I really hate it when even one of the PCs in my games dies. I really do my best to write encounters that will challenge the PCs without killing any of them, and sometimes I fudge dice rolls when they hit a streak that really imperils the party. I do this only rarely and never tell the players I am doing so, and even with this extra bit of help, characters are frequently knocked unconscious and even sometimes die. I have never felt that the players in my campaigns become 'overconfident' or start acting like they are too big for their britches because of my less than lethal instincts. Problems like this sound the result of poor role-playing, not less-lethal campaigns. If your players can't play their 2nd level characters as people who know better than to take on Tiamat, that's not the DM's fault, no matter how lethal his campaign is.
At the end of the day, the game exists for a group of people to tell a COOPERATIVE story (with challenge and tension, of course, which relies on the THREAT of death), which is impossible when one part of the group is 'out to get' the other part. In the latter case, you really are starting to play something like Monopoly, which IMO is the most boring 'game' on Earth.
To the OP, avoid the TPK at all costs. Make it clear to the party (even if you have to break character to do so) that attacking Bahor is suicide. They can hear stories from other prisoners, witness a display of Bahor's power, be convinced by Neolanthus and Vencarlo that something elsewhere urgently requires their assistance, whatever ... but don't let a tremendous story get derailed because you feel like you have to play the 'opponent.' That's Bahor's job, not the DM's.
O
|
easy fix: have vencarlo and the other guy ramble on about how bad-arse the clan is...scare the pc's off the trail, for now (see about about turin's group going after them AFTER they are also bad-arse)
slightly more complicated: let them assault the group, getting as far as they can. when they confront big-daddy-catty, he slaughters 1 of the pc's (preferably the hardest-to-hit or one with the most HP) with relative ease. they are now his property, to do with as he pleases, and he wants them to continue the AP (have the dead one revived and the cost assigned to the party as a penalty)
easiest to run: let them run the adventure, let the party fight who they want, and slaughter them mercilessly.
-t
What happens if you become bankrupt in Monopoly? That would be too awful, so just start giving people free money so they can continue to play.
I would argue that if you're playing D&D the same way you play Monopoly, you're doing one of them wrong.
I have never understood the glee some DMs get from killing entire parties. Indeed, I really hate it when even one of the PCs in my games dies. I really do my best to write encounters that will challenge the PCs without killing any of them, and sometimes I fudge dice rolls when they hit a streak that really imperils the party. I do this only rarely and never tell the players I am doing so, and even with this extra bit of help, characters are frequently knocked unconscious and even sometimes die. I have never felt that the players in my campaigns become 'overconfident' or start acting like they are too big for their britches because of my less than lethal instincts. Problems like this sound the result of poor role-playing, not less-lethal campaigns. If your players can't play their 2nd level characters as people who know better than to take on Tiamat, that's not the DM's fault, no matter how lethal his campaign is.
At the end of the day, the game exists for a group of people to tell a COOPERATIVE story (with challenge and tension, of course, which relies on the THREAT of death), which is impossible when one part of the group is 'out to get' the other part. In the latter case, you really are starting to play something like Monopoly, which IMO is the most boring 'game' on Earth.
This is really a 'different strokes for different folks' type situation. Essentially campaign lethality is something that should be dealt with at the start of a campaign along with such things as what happens to Dead PCs gear and whether the DM fudges results or always lets the dice fall as they may.
The level of lethality in a campaign effects how the players run their characters to a fairly significant extent. In a highly story driven campaign players may be nearly unable to die - essentially death becomes something that the PCs and the DM agree on and it only occurs when it will provide lots of tension and drama to the unfolding plotline. While tension is reduced in such a campaign role playing tends to be enhanced with lots of background put into the PCs and webs of relationships built up - since the players know that their character is basically safe and will be around, probably for a long time, they'll spend a lot of time making them deep and interesting with loads of back ground details.
On the other extreme you have Killer DMs and the players know their characters life expectancy might be extremely short. This type of play will focus characters on tactical choices and will make them into extremely effective players. When death lurks around every corner they learn quickly to play extremely well since 'mistakes' are severely punished - I play in this style and my players act like crack commandos. Interestingly enough with this style of play full on TPKs are rare because the players will be extremely good at extracting themselves from a bad situation. My players tend to split up to flee an encounter with some teleporting out of Dodge while others go Ethereal and flee through the floor and yet others try to fly away or have extremely high ground speeds and just flee. Most players have at least two different ways they can try in order to get out of Dodge fast and because all their methods are highly diverse I've found that I can kill one player fairly easily its essentially impossible to kill all of them since its unlikely that my monster(s) can fly and go ethereal and stop a teleport and run really fast all at the same time. On the downside this kind of lethal style of play will generally reduce the amount of depth and background detail your players will put into their characters. They are focused on staying alive and not so much on the background story - plus they could end up dead any second so putting a ton of work into a characters background could just be wasted effort and make it hurt all the more when the inevitable happens and the Grim Reaper comes calling.
Obviously most groups play somewhere between these two extremes with a general rule that the less lethal your game is the more depth the players will go into with their characters and less time and effort will be spent on tactical acumen.