Developer
|
I recall, very fondly mind you, a time our GM did this. 3.5 was not yet out, still a few months away. We were playing an epic level campaign, and he decided to create an unkillable monster. A hydra whose regeneration of heads could not be stopped. I now forget the exact combination of templates, but it was quite clever, and quite legit RAW (we're sticklers in our group). He did it, and said this afterwards, to see how long we'd take to run. It took longer than it should have. None of us were mad. I was amused (the monster was especially ingenious). This was epic play, and we were all experienced, having played the system from its release, and 2nd ed before it.
There is no rule saying that everything players do need have a chance of victory. Just don't force them into such a situation. If they walk into it, though, of their of free will, the consequences are thiers as well. It seems to me this is such a situation, and you are far from being a jerk.
I meant "always coddled" I will edit to fix that.
I gave an extreme example but there is a point where a party has a high likelihood of dying. The encounter starting this post is an example of that. If you know your players and you have set something up to challenge their normal play style then you should say something. Give them a chance beforehand or you might end up with a dead party and dead campaign.
You are putting limits on "pulling no punches." So you do want some punches pulled or just not thrown. A GM can kill PCs with a CR appropriate monster. But most don't do that because he has to pull punches to make the game fun. Can the fight be hard? Sure! The DM is Muhammed Ali in his prime and you are a hobo with a glass jaw. He can spar with you and make it fun but difficult or he can pull no punches and end the fight in one hit. Even pulling punches can be cruel to players if you just toy with them, constantly beating them down. (Ali vs Ernie Terrell).
I'm not putting limits on not pulling punches. You're conflating running balanced encounters honestly (which is what I mean when I say "not pulling punches") with running imbalanced encounters honestly (which is lousy GMing, not because encounters shouldn't be run honestly, but rather because the GM's main job is to make sure the players CAN succeed if they play intelligently and maybe get a bit lucky). The two issues are NOT the same in any way, shape, or form. The issue isn't that the GM should fudge to make sure the 5th level party escapes the balrog; the issue is he should never have put the balrog there to begin with. It's pretty basic, really. The GM should design encounters the PCs have an excellent chance of succeeding in providing the players aren't oafish dullards and then run those encounters as brutally as he can. The GM should not design encounters the PCs have a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of succeeding in, period. Honestly I think this is just elementary common sense.
My point here(in this thread not this post really) is that players often have different expectations of how a game will be run and that open communication of how you plan to run games is important to keep it fun for everyone. I don't know why you think that is a bad idea or punch pulling. You just seem to want every fight to be Mike Tyson biting off an ear. Because that is pulling no punches (or bites).
I agree that communication is essential. Everyone needs to be on the same page. That's a lesson that everyone I've ever seen learns the hard way (myself included). And yes, every fight should be Mike Tyson biting off an ear. Remember, Evander Holyfield won that fight. :-) But look at the matchup: it was Tyson vs. Holyfield II: The Destruction of Jared-Syn. It wasn't Mike Tyson vs. me. It was a matchup of two professional boxers who could enter the fight with a reasonable expectation of being successful (though Tyson was deluding himself by that point), not the matchup of a professional sledgehammer and an amateur egg.
If you want to run a tough game then you have to let your players know because not every player is hard core or even that invested in the game. Some just play to hang out or because it is a nice way to spend time. If you expect a group of casual players to put up with a consistently stiff game then you have a surprise coming to you.
Hard core geeks can really enjoy a tough game as they work to eek out every little advantage for their character. But they still do not like to die consistently. I like this game but I just play for fun and so does my group. So we make interesting if flawed characters and play a game where death is unlikely but possible.
Agreed. That's why I don't game with casual gamers. I'm lucky enough to be in an area that has enough gamers that I can pick and choose my groups and play with people who expect me to sock them in the mouth and whom I expect to sock in the mouth in return.
That said, another lesson I have learned through experience is that each and every RPG ever made has only one unalterable rule: HAVE FUN. Everything else is negotiable. If you and your group like the way you play (and you obviously do), then dungeon on! It's no more "right" or "wrong" than the way I or anyone else plays. :-)
Sounds like you are running Ravenloft. :)
|
I'm not putting limits on not pulling punches. You're conflating running balanced encounters honestly (which is what I mean when I say "not pulling punches") with running imbalanced encounters honestly (which is lousy GMing, not because encounters shouldn't be run honestly, but rather because the GM's main job is to make sure the players CAN succeed if they play intelligently and maybe get a bit lucky). The two issues are NOT the same in any way, shape, or form. The issue isn't that the GM should fudge to make sure the 5th level party escapes the balrog; the issue is he should never have put the balrog there to begin with. It's pretty basic, really. The GM should design encounters the PCs have an excellent chance of succeeding in providing the players aren't oafish dullards and then run those encounters as brutally as he can. The GM should not design encounters the PCs have a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of succeeding in, period. Honestly I think this is just elementary...
I am not conflating them but you seem to think I am. What you say you want is balanced encounters run honestly and then you also say you want no punches pulled. You say you want the opposition to be smart determined and ruthless. But I think that is exactly the opposite of what you want.
A ruthless enemy will take the round to coup de grace your unconscious PC because he is intelligent enough to know that magical healing can stand him right back up into the fight. He will take a 5ft step to the other side so you don't get the AOO or he might suck it up to make certain you stay out of the fight. A ruthless, determined, intelligent enemy could make your character's lives hell even if he is CR balanced. Your DM has to pull back or kill you constantly. I can pull punches and still make an amazing difficult fight. I have many many battles which my players still talk about years later. Yet I rarely end up with dead characters.
I have played with GMs who while running balance published adventures have managed to constantly kill party members by not pulling punches when needed. They then acted surprised when their game fell apart.
Have fun with your "tough" play style but know that your DM is always pulling his punches.
I am not conflating them but you seem to think I am. What you say you want is balanced encounters run honestly and then you also say you want no punches pulled. You say you want the opposition to be smart determined and ruthless. But I think that is exactly the opposite of what you want.
I'm trying to be very respectful of you, so I'd like the same in return. Please don't tell me what I want.
A ruthless enemy will take the round to coup de grace your unconscious PC because he is intelligent enough to know that magical healing can stand him right back up into the fight.
He'd better. That's common sense. I get offended when that doesn't happen. In fact, two nights ago the GM I'm currently playing with DIDN'T coup de grace a character when he had the chance, and I immediately suggested that he do so. He didn't, and it bugged me.
He will take a 5ft step to the other side so you don't get the AOO or he might suck it up to make certain you stay out of the fight.
Of course he will. I mean...of course he will. That's so obvious that I don't even know what else to say to that.
A ruthless, determined, intelligent enemy could make your character's lives hell even if he is CR balanced. Your DM has to pull back or kill you constantly.
Ahhh...A does not follow B. Sorry. I don't pull back constantly, or at all, and I don't have TPKs on my hands. I can count the number of TPKs I've presided over on one hand and I've been GMing this way for over 30 years. Other GMs I play with play their NPCs and monsters viciously and ruthlessly (and yes, constantly do all the things you mention and many things that are vastly more devious and deadly than that) and they don't end up with TPKs.
I can pull punches and still make an amazing difficult fight. I have many many battles which my players still talk about years later. Yet I rarely end up with dead characters.
I have played with GMs who while running balance published adventures have managed to constantly kill party members by not pulling punches when needed. They then acted surprised when their game fell apart.
Given that you think it's out of bounds for GMs to coup de grace PCs or 5' step to avoid being flanked, for heaven sake, I would suggest that you and I are used to two different levels of difficulty. I've been running and playing this game long enough to know when a GM is softballing me, and believe me I get irritated. I would respectfully suggest that the groups I play with would roll through your combats like crap through a goose, because we've honed our skills in a harder school than you seem to play in. I'm not saying your way is wrong, because if the people playing it are having fun then it couldn't be righter. I AM saying that my way demands a lot more of players in combat, and therefore we've developed the skills necessary to use our abilities more optimally and to use every tactical trick we can think of -- when we don't, we roll up new chartacters. A challenging combat to a casual group will not be a challenge to a hard-core group that has been hot-forged to survive more rigorous encounters. It goes back to your comment on the need for communication -- if I expect to get socked in the mouth and I get softballed, I'm just as disappointed as you are when you expect the GM to cut you some slack and he doesn't.
Have fun with your "tough" play style but know that your DM is always pulling his punches.
Again, this is both utterly nonsensical and deliberately offensive.
The only thing i would encourage the DM to recall is that running away in PF is not always easy. Monsters can and do give chase, if they did not, then that, to me, would be an example of pulling punches.
Yes.
You're not a jerk dm for having an artifact that the players need.
You're not a jerk dm for putting an encounter that the party can't beat and needs to run away from.
You ARE a jerk dm for COMBINING those. If the party thinks they absolutely have to kill the guy or gloom and doom will occur, that's a hint from you, the gm, to them, the players, that the person is supposed to die.
In essence, this.
I think the big issue I have here is that generally speaking, retreat is almost always a horrible tactical option. Strategically it can be sound, but the raw mechanics almost always mean someone in the party is slower than the enemies, so unless you want to leave them behind...
The numbers play out that retreat almost always screws you.
Given that generally speaking the parties I end up with are fairly tightly knit, and given that they tend to be pretty good aligned, that isn't an option.
The only thing i would encourage the DM to recall is that running away in PF is not always easy. Monsters can and do give chase, if they did not, then that, to me, would be an example of pulling punches.
It may well not be if BY giving chase, the monster knows it will put itself into a situation where it loses the advantages it has while standing its ground. For example, the Mongol armies slaughtered their way across Asia largely by means of the 'false retreat,' whereby they would pretend to be beaten and panicking, thus luring the foe into leaving their prepared defensive positions to give chase, then turning on them and slaughtering them when they could bring their own advantages (mobility and ranged attack) to bear. A dumb brute like an owlbear would automatically give chase. A smarter foe knows that there can be plenty of advantages to be had by NOT pursuing away from its prepared base.
An in-game example, masked to avoid spoilers. I'm currently running an AP, and in it, the PCs tried a nigh assault on the fortified base of the BBEG of the book and failed (due partly to a surprise enemy they didn't realize would be in play, partly due to poor party composition, and partly due to just dumb old tactics in splitting the party). One PC died and the rest managed to retreat, badly battered. I could have had the enemy sally out and try to squash them, but I didn't for the following reasons:
1. The enemies had no low-light vision in their ranks, while the PCs obviously did, so chasing the PCs would mean fighting at a disadvantage.
2. It would mean leaving the protection of their fortified base for a fight in the open against a group whose capacities were not known, thus throwing away a known strength in pursuit of an uncertain objective.
3. The PCs had just retreated, thus demonstrating that they were no particular threat to the enemies so long as the enemies stayed inside their fortification -- the enemies had WON; therefore, there was no gain to be had, from the perspective of the enemies, by risking themselves in a situation where the PCs could have a chance to turn the tables.
In this case, it would have been pulling punches for the enemies to blindly charge into the open and fight the PCs on terms more favorable to them instead of staying safe and warm inside a fortress that the PCs had just shown they couldn't take.
Jerk ? No. You are EXACTLY the kind of DM, that I would LOVE, and id be happy to play with
There is no rule saying that everything players do need have a chance of victory. Just don't force them into such a situation. If they walk into it, though, of their of free will, the consequences are thiers as well. It seems to me this is such a situation, and you are far from being a jerk.
+1
The only thing i would encourage the DM to recall is that running away in PF is not always easy. Monsters can and do give chase, if they did not, then that, to me, would be an example of pulling punches.It may well not be if BY giving chase, the monster knows it will put itself into a situation where it loses the advantages it has while standing its ground. For example, the Mongol armies slaughtered their way across Asia largely by means of the 'false retreat,' whereby they would pretend to be beaten and panicking, thus luring the foe into leaving their prepared defensive positions to give chase, then turning on them and slaughtering them when they could bring their own advantages (mobility and ranged attack) to bear. A dumb brute like an owlbear would automatically give chase. A smarter foe knows that there can be plenty of advantages to be had by NOT pursuing away from its prepared base.
An in-game example, masked to avoid spoilers. I'm currently running an AP, and in it, the PCs tried a nigh assault on the fortified base of the BBEG of the book and failed (due partly to a surprise enemy they didn't realize would be in play, partly due to poor party composition, and partly due to just dumb old tactics in splitting the party). One PC died and the rest managed to retreat, badly battered. I could have had the enemy sally out and try to squash them, but I didn't for the following reasons:
1. The enemies had no low-light vision in their ranks, while the PCs obviously did, so chasing the PCs would mean fighting at a disadvantage.
2. It would mean leaving the protection of their fortified base for a fight in the open against a group whose capacities were not known, thus throwing away a known strength in pursuit of an uncertain objective.
3. The PCs had just retreated, thus demonstrating that they were no particular threat to the enemies so long as the enemies stayed inside their fortification -- the enemies had WON; therefore, there was no gain to be had, from the...
Metagaming on the part of the DM could be called here as many entrenched forces do keep a part of their forces in reserve for pursuit and recon. But hey, i am sure the PCs learned their lesson in a sense as did the bad guys. Still, while i agree the DM should not hold any hands, i dont think the situation you outlined and that of the op are 1 to 1.
|
The only input i'll give is that despite what one would say about PCs playing smart, trying to show them their limits, or playing wickedly smart omnipotent monsters in the end it's always the DMs fault...
If you're having fun and their having fun no matter how you do it it will be okay. But, the DM designs the world... he puts things places and builds structures and if something does go horribly wrong and everyone dies.... despite if it was the characters flaw or they forgive the DM it still the DMs fault and players remember when they GG lose. There are other forms of lose but a GG lose is pretty frustrating.
I can't find any fun in a game where my characters get constantly killed.
Interesting. I get really angry and then bored out of my mind if I realize that my characters can't get killed.
I like a game in which I have to stack the deck heavily in my favor -- by gathering intelligence, misdirecting enemies, whittling away at the edges -- in order to have any chance at all of survival later on.
|
|
I can't find any fun in a game where my characters get constantly killed.Interesting. I get really angry and then bored out of my mind if I realize that my characters can't get killed.
I like a game in which I have to stack the deck heavily in my favor -- by gathering intelligence, misdirecting enemies, whittling away at the edges -- in order to have any chance at all of survival later on.
I did not say "can't" I said "constantly." I have played games where death was impossible and I agree. At one point in that game I had to call my own character dead because the GM always tried to find a way to let you live.
I have also played games where I died almost every game and getting to 2nd level was an accomplishment because the DM pulled no punches and stomped on you with clever trap happy kobolds.
I do not like either extreme.
So, by intentionally presenting an encounter that is impossible to beat head-on, does that make me a jerk GM? I'm curious what other people think.
If this makes you a jerk, then I'm a total a&!&~&%. (could be)
I love APs because I don't have to assume the blame for the design. I try to run things the way I think they would play out, given the organization and intelligence of the NPCs. I also love to portray a world with a range of challenges, many which are far above or below the party's capabilities. You are most certainly NOT meant to fight every dragon you see!
In PF#4, this meant that the players got routed. Badly. It's been months, and they haven't recovered. Once the enemy became aware of their involvement, they dispersed, carried out their plans to the best of their ability, and have opposed the PCs in far more effective ways than were written because they are now responding.
This is a situation that RPGs can handle quite well, but you would never really see it happen in a video game mission. Most video games are just not sophisticated enough to generate infinite consequences of failure. Thus, many players (even experienced ones) who have become accustomed to finite missions need to learn that retreat is an option and success through direct force is not guaranteed.
Now, once they learn that, the fun really begins.
I guess there are extremes.
If the PC's are traveling and see a dragon large enough to present an "overwhelming" challenge (aka, near auto TPK) then it behooves them to avoid the danger. It presents itself as an "encounter" that really just serves for them to realize.. the world doesn't exist for them alone. There are things above their CR just as there are things below their CR.
However, that changes when the DM has "pointed" them at said dragon with the intention and instruction that they must defeat said dragon or bad things will happen. You've been sent to save the ailing princess and the powdered heart of that dragon is the cure or the dragon itself is a menace to the country side and you have not only been made "passingly" aware of it but have been hired to seek out the dragon and slay it.
When the DM steers you towards something there is an implication that you have the ability to defeat said creature. Not necessary the 'easy' ability but at least the thought that you can actually go in and kill it or otherwise solve the problem. If the DM sets the PC's on the *direct* path to an encounter they can only win if they essentially read the DM's mind because he has decided to teach them how to play, then I call foul.
Maybe I am mistaken, but it seems to me that this is exactly the scenario the OP has laid out. "Go get the horn of X". this isn't some randomly passing creature they decided to go kill even though it was bigger then them- you've painted a red X on its proverbial forehead and then designed the encounter around making sure they run away from it or they die.
"these wandering trolls are too tough, retreat!" is different from "we need this creature to die to accomplish our mission, but lets get out of here he's too tough for us!". Especially with your deux ex machina "retreat control" provided to make sure they can actually escape.
Have I read your posts incorrectly? Please correct me if I have- as it is not my intent to misrepresent your posts.
-S
So, by intentionally presenting an encounter that is impossible to beat head-on, does that make me a jerk GM?
Not necessarily, but it increases the odds. Especially when the only way to acquire the macguffin they must have to succeed at the quest is to kill the BBEG. Add on to that the extreme difficulty of getting a BBEG to leave its lair. And the party knowing it has left. And the party knowing where it went/is. And the party being able to get to it to fight and kill it before it returns home. And the party being able to confront it on terms that are favorable enough that they have a reasonable chance of killing it.
Then you top it off with the ‘jerky cherry’ that is this statement, “The encounter is designed to force them to think differently: retreat, live to fight another day, and draw the enemy out rather than facing him where (and when) he is strongest.” If killing off multiple characters and almost TPKing them multiple times hasn’t worked, I highly doubt an actual TPK will make them do what you want.
Which leads me to ask - why are you trying to get them to play the way you think they should? You say, “I have been clear with the players about my dungeon design philosophies, especially that the world around them isn't shaped to their level… All the facts will be on the table from the onset.” I’ll say the same to you. They have been clear with you that they (either the players or the characters, maybe both) are not interested in running away or ‘tactically retreating’ even if it means permanent death. They may reevaluate that preference when half the party is down, but they may not. Just try not to double down on the jerkiness and get bent out of shape when they have fun on their own terms, not yours.
Metagaming on the part of the DM could be called here as many entrenched forces do keep a part of their forces in reserve for pursuit and recon. But hey, i am sure the PCs learned their lesson in a sense as did the bad guys. Still, while i agree the DM should not hold any hands, i dont think the situation you outlined and that of the op are 1 to 1.
They aren't. I wasn't even commenting on the OP at that point, but rather on your discussion of follow-up sorties by fortified defenders. And they were reminded of the lesson they already knew: that splitting the party in the face of a superior enemy tends to lead to defeat in detail. And exactly one round into the fight, they began saying, "Dammit, why did we split the party?"
As far as keeping a back-up force for sortieing, these guys weren't that skilled or organized -- they were a rabble with one good leader in a highly defensible position. If you subscribe to the APs (or have played this one) you probably know who I mean.
I'll just point out that if you want the PCs to run, you should throw in a hint that they will be protected if they do - maybe two rounds into combat they hear the voice of the NPC that'll save them calling to them or something.
I'll just point out that if you want the PCs to run, you should throw in a hint that they will be protected if they do - maybe two rounds into combat they hear the voice of the NPC that'll save them calling to them or something.
That's a solid idea.
UPDATE: They didn't make it to the big encounter last night, but went on a wild goose chase instead. Later they explored a part of the detention area containing an inmate of more than double the APL, and they were warned not to go there in the strongest terms via in game means and chose to ignore it. Their conversation went something like this:
"Should we check it out?"
"No. Rixin warned us that she's extremely dangerous."
"So? He put this encounter in here, we must be meant to check it out."
[Looking warily over at me] "Not necessarily. You know that's not his philosophy."
NPC Rixin: "I'm telling you again: Don't. Go. In. There. You're no match."
"Well I at least want to see what we're up against!"
Character rounds the corner and looks through the glass at the chamber, which is covered in the inmate's symbols of persuasion. "What a nice lady!" the character reported to the team a few rounds later. "She's obviously been wrongfully incarcerated, she wouldn't lie to me about that. Let's set her free! She told me she can help us on our quest!"
They eventually got away without the inmate getting out, but not before she placed a geas-quest on the monk to let her out. He must comply within 24 hours.
This is NOT the big encounter I originally posted about. This NPC is far more powerful than that one. I justified it, though, based on the history of the prison, and the fact that it's not designed as a fatal encounter. She is there, end of story: it fits with the whole history of the region, in fact. She can't get out on her own (teleport doesn't work in this prison), which gave them a huge advantage. But the main thing is, she's more manipulative than murderous. She is a non-fatal encounter, even if she gets out. Visiting her is opening a pandora's box (and introducing a little more chaos in an already turbulent regional situation), not a can of immediate whoop-ass.
I guess I'll update this thread next week with the results of the main event. They will almost certainly face him then.
I justified it, though, based on the history of the prison, and the fact that it's not designed as a fatal encounter. She is there, end of story: it fits with the whole history of the region, in fact. She can't get out on her own (teleport doesn't work in this prison), which gave them a huge advantage. But the main thing is, she's more manipulative than murderous. She is a non-fatal encounter...
I've done almost exactly the same thing. It's always fun to bring the escapee back in about 10 levels as a BBEG, just to see if they remember who it is.
Yes.
You're not a jerk dm for having an artifact that the players need.
You're not a jerk dm for putting an encounter that the party can't beat and needs to run away from.
You ARE a jerk dm for COMBINING those. If the party thinks they absolutely have to kill the guy or gloom and doom will occur, that's a hint from you, the gm, to them, the players, that the person is supposed to die. You are what you do though, so you can correct that.
I'd agree, except that he indicated that he's open to creative solutions. Still, that's probably not my preferred type of game; I'd prefer either less railroading or plausibly beatable enemies.
I've played in the kind of game before where the DM makes the PCs' powers irrelevant (by having some ultra-powerful enemy, for instance) and it becomes an exercise in having the DM give an arbitrary "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" to whatever contingency plan the players come up with. Not for me, thanks.
(I suspect I'm reading nuances into the original post that probably aren't there, though.)
I've played in the kind of game before where the DM makes the PCs' powers irrelevant (by having some ultra-powerful enemy, for instance) and it becomes an exercise in having the DM give an arbitrary "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" to whatever contingency plan the players come up with. Not for me, thanks.
(I suspect I'm reading nuances into the original post that probably aren't there, though.)
Actually, you're not off the mark. I do plan some encounters like that, forcing players to think outside the box, and it does sometimes lead to what could be seen as an arbitrary decision by the GM. Last night, one of the players used Shocking Grasp on her friend who was under a Symbol of Persuasion spell, thereby forcing him to confront the possibility of fighting her (his friend), allowing him a second save against the charm at +5. Is that the solution to the problem I had in mind? No. I had no solution in mind. And the player's solution was probably a bit of a stretch when you consider the RAW for Charm Person.* I guess I had blind faith that the characters would find a way, and they did, and the proposed solution was interesting and plausible. It seemed logical to me that a Shocking Grasp by a friend would be sufficiently jarring to allow a second saving throw.
(Before everyone jumps on me about players having to depend on my whims as GM, I'm fairly permissive in that way. I like outrageous moves like leaping out of the tree to tackle the flying ceustodaemon. If I wasn't so permissive, if I was a stickler for RAW, I also wouldn't be presenting them with these kinds of encounters.)
But most of my encounters aren't planned that way. Most of the time, even when the encounters are particularly tough, the characters have every opportunity to shine and put their full arsenal of feats and goodies on display.
* I should start a different thread, but in the heat of the moment, does anyone have a good system for quickly getting to the nitty gritty of a spell? She (the baddie) had cast Symbol of Persuasion, which says see Symbol of Death and also see Charm Monster, which says see Charm Person. And my internet connection decided to choose that encounter to proceed at a snail's pace. Ugh.
Solution must be Mac friendly and not be prep-time intensive.
I have played with REALLY bad GMs of the "Rocks fall"-school, except he said "You fall off your horse and drown". Yes, he LITERALLY said that.
I have played with killer GMs: "You fall, no save, then monsters surprise-attack you while you are down."
I have played with meta GMs: "Sure, the enemy has perfect hive-mind tactics, knowledge of your character and his strengths and weaknesses, and attacks the cleric decked out in the same attire as the fighter over all others because he is easier to kill."
But as long as you tell the players that you are not using kiddie gloves and that retreat is an option they SHOULD consider, such is fair.
I kill players who get drunk with overconfidence as well.
Metagaming on the part of the DM could be called here as many entrenched forces do keep a part of their forces in reserve for pursuit and recon. But hey, i am sure the PCs learned their lesson in a sense as did the bad guys. Still, while i agree the DM should not hold any hands, i dont think the situation you outlined and that of the op are 1 to 1.They aren't. I wasn't even commenting on the OP at that point, but rather on your discussion of follow-up sorties by fortified defenders. And they were reminded of the lesson they already knew: that splitting the party in the face of a superior enemy tends to lead to defeat in detail. And exactly one round into the fight, they began saying, "Dammit, why did we split the party?"
As far as keeping a back-up force for sortieing, these guys weren't that skilled or organized -- they were a rabble with one good leader in a highly defensible position. If you subscribe to the APs (or have played this one) you probably know who I mean.
Indeed i do, howemver,I have made the group in question slightly more competent so they will take advantage of a very basic philosophy when you are entrenched. Also, i know it is a popular trope, but I have never encountered a don't split the party scenario - I have primarily encountered the don't be in lock step with one another situation.
Actually, you're not off the mark. I do plan some encounters like that, forcing players to think outside the box, and it does sometimes lead to what could be seen as an arbitrary decision by the GM. Last night, one of the players used Shocking Grasp on her friend who was under a Symbol of Persuasion spell, thereby forcing him to confront the possibility of fighting her (his friend), allowing him a second save against the charm at +5.
That's not really the kind of situation I'm thinking of; fighting your friend isn't really a "no-win" situation that can't be handled within the rules.
The perfect illustration of what I'm talking about is the novel "Dragons of Autumn Twilight", for instance. The characters constantly get thrown into situations where they can't use their class features to escape, so they have to come up with some kind of creative solution and the DM always has to say "yes" to it (otherwise the game will end in a TPK), no matter how dubious the plan is.
E.g. (warning: spoilers for a 27-year-old book below)
- "You're surrounded on three sides by an army of hundreds of goblins and draconians. On the other side is a haunted forest." "Uh, I guess we go into the haunted forest." "Okay, the army doesn't follow you."
- "Okay, once you're in the forest, there's a magic path that opens ahead of you and disappears behind you." "Uh, I guess we follow the magic path." "All right, it leads you deeper and deeper into the woods."
- "Okay, now you're camping for the night and an army of ghosts appears out of nowhere. Your weapons would be useless against them." "Uh...I guess I cast ESP and read the ghost's thoughts." "They're impressed by your wizardry and they take you to see the Forestmaster."
- "Okay, now you're talking to the Forestmaster, and he tells you to fly to this ruined city to stop an evil ceremony. You have two days to get there, so he'll lend you some pegasi." "Uh...okay, I guess."
- "You get on the pegasi and they begin to fly you to your destination." "I try to think of a way to escape." "Sorry, you fall asleep. No save."
- "The pegasi drop you off and you start walking towards the ruins. All but two of you are captured by another army of draconians. There are way too many to fight." "Um...I climb into their idol and try to fool them into thinking I'm their god." "They go crazy and you escape in the confusion!"
- "Okay, you made it to the ruins. All of a sudden, you're attacked by a dragon. You fight back, but your weapons are useless. Riverwind gets hit by the dragon's breath weapon and he's dying." "I guess I hit it with the magic staff." "The dragon and the staff explode in a burst of light!"
- "Okay, you go back home. But while you're there, you're captured by another army of draconians. There are too many to fight." "Uh...I guess we surrender, but I tell them our equipment is cursed." "They totally believe you!"
- "Okay, you're rescued by some elves. They tell you to go to a fortress and rescue some slaves." "Uh, I guess we agree."
- "Okay, now you're in the fortress. A giant slug attacks, but your weapons are pretty much useless." "I guess...we keep attacking?" "After a while, it loses interest and goes away."
- "Okay, you're still wandering around the fortress. You open a door, and there's a banshee behind it!" "I close the door." "Okay, good enough."
- "Okay, now you've found the slaves, but they refuse to leave unless you rescue their children. There's an army of draconians in the fortress, way too many to fight." "I have an idea -- we'll all dress up like women (including the dwarf, the 6'6" ranger, and the fighter with 18/70 Strength) and sneak the children out." "O....kay. It works, I guess."
- "Okay, now you're trying to escape, but you get caught by the head cleric and his pet dragon. Two of you are blind and one of you is almost dead. There's nothing you can do to his pet dragon, but luckily the dragon accidentally pisses off another dragon and they kill each other, allowing you to mop up the cleric. The end!"
Unfortunately (IMO), I've had DMs pretty much like that.
The characters constantly get thrown into situations where they can't use their class features to escape, so they have to come up with some kind of creative solution and the DM always has to say "yes" to it (otherwise the game will end in a TPK), no matter how dubious the plan is.
I like to think that there's a spectrum, rather than a binary array: for example, an occasional encounter that would result in a TPK in a straight-up fight, that can nonetheless be oovercome with ingenuity and/or tactics as opposed to a mindless frontal assault -- without the entire game automatically devolving into the kind of absolute crap you spoilered.
Interestingly, for me the worst part of the things you spoilered was the blatant and insulting railroading, rather than the dubious "solutions."
Interestingly, for me the worst part of the things you spoilered was the blatant and insulting railroading, rather than the dubious "solutions."
Even more interestingly, I think they're both terrible. :-)
Seriously, I agree that without railroading, there's nothing wrong with a no-win situation (because you can always leave and go do something else). In fact, without no-win situations, I don't particularly mind railroading (as long as I'm being railroaded into an interesting story).
The party's basic plan was fine, except for the element they couldn't possibly have foreseen (you know which one) which made splitting the party an unfortunate choice, especially at night when the two parts of the party couldn't support each other.
For my part, I made the group disorganized rabble -- but even if they had been more organized, the group inside the fortification still had no low-light vision, and they still knew the group outside the fort did.
I look at it this way: The bad guys just wanted to sit in their fortification doing what they were doing. The good guys wanted to kill the bad guys. If the bad guys had left their fortification to pursue the beaten good guys (who had inflicted precisely zero damage on the bad guys and, in the minds of most of the bad guys, had proven they were no threat), they would have placed themselves in a situation where the good guys could have turned the tables and inflicted a defeat on them, or at the very least killed some of them. And what would the bad guys have gotten in return? The right to sit in their fort and do what they were doing...which is exactly what they would have been doing had they NOT sortied after the good guys. So, much risk for no reward.
Removed some posts - please take this time to review the policies that are below the post entry boxes.
Do not use profanity or vulgar speech;
Do not make bigoted, hateful, or racially insensitive statements;
Do not defame, abuse, stalk, harass, or threaten others;
Do not advocate illegal activities or discuss them with intent to commit them;
Do not post any content that infringes and/or violates any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary right of any third party.
In other words, please post civilly to each other.
Awh, my silly song got axed *sadface* I put like 15 minutes of work into that.
Oh well. Was never my intention to defame or flame, slight or smite. It was only to amuse, but it was seen as abuse...
Wait, did I infringe on Ozzy? *mind blown*
While I didn't agree with the tone, I did agree with the point of the post.
Never knew anyone read anything into my silly parody songs O_o
I would make a parody on "Frank Sinatra - My way" called "For lulz" but yeah, the changes are pretty obvious :P
I said I would update this thread with the result of the encounter, and so here I am.
As someone suggested, the players will always surprise you. In this case they surprised me by adding...ANOTHER PLAYER! The host's daughter wanted in, and I said sure, why not?
The monk got turned to stone by the gaze of the medusa's offspring, and as he had been standing in the door when he was petrified, that kind of clogged things up. The BBEG busted through a side door and tried to flank the party while most of them were being swarmed by morlocks. He got to gore one of the PCs on his unicorn's horn, and for a round the character was impaled on his horn like a piece of paper on one of those sharp, pointy things they used to keep on office desks. Another character with a sword of spell storing hit the BBEG with a shocking grasp, and I ruled (jerk!) that the impaled person suffered half damage from that too.
Long story short: we didn't have time to finish the encounter, but the characters turned the tide and are well on their way to emerging victorious. The extra PC made the difference. The poor monk, though...the druid has stone salve, so he'll be fine, but she's not going to use it on him until they've cleaned up the enemy.
So much for impossible. At least we had one person get impaled, which made for a cool visual. No fatalities among the party.
Stuff
I definitely don't think you're a jerk, you're trying to play a campaign with a sandbox type flavor and you explained that up front to the players.
The real question is "Do the players want (or can handle) this kind of campaign?"
It doesn't sound like it and a TPK will waste all of that time people spent making characters and backgrounds. TPKs are never fun and it usually ends your homebrew campaign, AP, or module. It might even end everyone's enthusiasm for playing Pathfinder.
Since you (and probably your players) are new to Pathfinder, you should consider "sticking to the basics" for now and running things in a more standard way, with encounters they can win. imo.
Edit: So I just read your update. Sounds like it was far from an impossible situation to beat, +1 player doesn't change things from impossible to "no fatalities". You might be setting yourself up for problems later if you truly wanted them to run, because your scenario seemed very messy and they still came out victorious, without a scratch. They're going to expect that in the future as well.
So much for impossible. At least we had one person get impaled, which made for a cool visual. No fatalities among the party.
Never underestimate the ingenuity of players... or sheer dumb luck.