The enemy wizard need ambush them only once before every failed perception check is imagined to be an unnoticed scry sensor.
No really, keep the pressure on. It's not that the party should never rest, it's that they should never enter into a session with the assumption that they are entitled to rest. I'm a big fan of recurring enemies who lie in wait for the PC wizard to blow all his best spells, then strike while they're at their weakest. This type of attack is also great for letting the martial PCs shine.
Players are smart and they will do what works. Going nova works until it doesn't. That means having the courage as GM to demonstrate this by starving the casters sometimes. Not every session. Sometimes. Just like spellbook loss, it is a potent spice that can ruin the dish.
And, just to mix it up, you should include a few times when going nova is the *right* thing to do!
|
There's a catch 22 here.
on one hand... nobody really WANTS to blow through their whole spell list/wand/potion in the first battle. On the other hand, nobody wants to be the guy who died holding onto those resources for 'later'.
I have had similar things like this happen in PFS play - my character doesn't use a spell because I figure we might have tougher foes later that day but then we don't and we get to rest.
It hasn't led to a TPK, but I didn't get a chance to showcase my character's power by pulling out the big guns.
This is one thing I loved about D&D 4e - encounter powers; a middle ground between stuff you can always pull off and daily powers. Encounter powers allowed you to pull out some of your big guns knowing that you wouldn't be "wasting" them on a fight and leaving yourself out of ammo for a bigger encounter later that same day.
i wish i could say my group runs away. but we rarely do. and well, including absurdly overpowered foes, necessitates the need to nova. because nowadays, players rarely have the flight reflex and have the idea they can kill anything the DM puts before them. out of like 15 PCs, we have a good half of them motivated by a desire to hack and slash and less than a third whom will actually run away from dangerous foes or encourage a chance to make a bribe for safety against enemies they cannot kill if needed.
but the size of the party leaves us with few level appropriate mobs we won't ouright devastate in a single 4 hour combat, so Weekly William has converted over to Savage Worlds due to both his perceived lack of cheese and due to his perception of faster combat encounters. even with 15 players. Savage Worlds combats take like 40 minutes at most, an hour if you are unlucky and generally around 20-25 minutes. assuming the character knows their sheet. and leveling is fairly straightforward, even with unlimited access because minmaxing is more harshly punished than branching out. you really don't need minmaxed combat numbers because armor bonuses are minimal compared to the damage a weapon will generally deal. hulk smash builds generally die quickly.
Must be nice. I've tried that in my games; throw monsters that are supposed to be obviously more powerful than the group can handle, and they will fight it to the death. If they were 2nd level, and they met a (non-hostile) CR10 dragon, they'd still think is was somehow killable through some deus ex machina or something. I've written story segments that relied on the players evading disaster, only to have the same players face down the disaster.My players flee when needs dictate. But then they are all aware up front that I run a "living" world and the CR of the creature they encounter may be well beyond their ability.every time they nova, send a ludicrisly overpowered and near unkillable monster at them while they rest. Have the non novaing players escape, kill the nova players outright. Ends that quickly!.) When have you ever seen players actually flee from something? Every group I've played in fights to the death, because they trust that the DM is keeping CR's in check(even when the DM isn't).
What I did to "train" my players was...
First: I post up on my GM screen the following..."It is a fine line between bravery and stupidity.
The First will get you Paid as the Best.
The Second will get you Laid to Rest.
Be aware of the difference.
Secondly: I also reward EXP for more than just kills. (Oft times it will net out to more exp to avoid battling the critter than it would to kill it out right).
Thirdly: Defeat at the hands, claws, tentacles, Whatever of the beast does not always have to mean a TPK but do not let the players off easy...
using your Dragon example...
Have the dragon wipe the party; end the session; tell the players they will need a new character for next week.
Then when they show with new PCs tell them to put those on the back burner. And start up with their old characters in the Dragons lair.
Hanging upside down... by their ankles... naked...
The Dragon Speaks "Now that we have come to an understanding..."
2.) This sounds like a great way to destroy a gaming group. Kill troublesome PC's outright? Why not work with your players, and actually deal with what makes them so troublesome?I agree to a point. Sometimes even after discussing the issue the problem persists. An object lesson can sometimes make your point better than any number of conversations.Maybe so, but it just comes off as passive-aggressive to me. "Didn't take what I said to heart? Oh, I'll just kill your PC. That'll teach you!" I've seen it happen, and I've seen BIGGER problems arise, than what the initial problem in the first place was.
To each their own, though. Everyone's table is different.
Having in game consequences for in game actions is not being Passive/Aggressive; It is being a good GM.
"Random monster you can't kill punishment muhahahaha" is not an "in-game consequence" it's out of game pettiness creeping into the game itself.
Might as well say "Rocks fall" and save everyone time.
"Random monster you can't kill punishment muhahahaha" is not an "in-game consequence" it's out of game pettiness creeping into the game itself.
Might as well say "Rocks fall" and save everyone time.
agreed
but Weekly William at least knows enough to not send excessively difficult challenges to a party that can't defeat them, in fact, savage worlds does a better job of the living campaign by giving generic foe types generic stat blocks anybody can face due to the limited scaling. removing both the need for minmaxing and the need for nova.
he includes APL +14 encounters, designed for a 15 person party, or APL +29, but he designs the APL from a series of lesser yet level appropriate monsters, because he can only really do one encounter per session, so he merges 4-6 encounters together as one encounter.
"Random monster you can't kill punishment muhahahaha" is not an "in-game consequence" it's out of game pettiness creeping into the game itself.
Might as well say "Rocks fall" and save everyone time.
Combat is not the only option available.
Avoiding, fleeing, and parlay are valid methods of overcoming an encounter.
If you opt to fight a "no win" battle it is not the GMs fault if you die.
it is a fine line between Bravado and stupidity.
Stupidity kills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is the GMs fault for throwing a no-win battle at you just because he can, however.
There's no mincing around the fact that that's horrible GMing.
"F@~+ you for novaing, now die" is not a good GMing style, and it's not a MATURE GMing style.
Especially when, in this game, retreat from a combat that's already started (especially with resources spent) is nigh on impossible because monsters are usually faster than you, or AS FAST as you, but have Reach, or can Teleport/Dimesnion Door at will, or use ranged attacks, etc.
"Random monster you can't kill punishment muhahahaha" is not an "in-game consequence" it's out of game pettiness creeping into the game itself.
Might as well say "Rocks fall" and save everyone time.
Combat is not the only option available.
Avoiding, fleeing, and parlay are valid methods of overcoming an encounter.
If you opt to fight a "no win" battle it is not the GMs fault if you die.it is a fine line between Bravado and stupidity.
Stupidity kills.
actually, i don't blame the party for failing to avoid a "No-win" Battle but i blame the "DM" for including an antagonistically designed obstacle the party cannot overcome.
usually, in my own Experience, when a "DM" says they want to run a "Living World", it means they want to justify sending a CR25 Great Wyrm Dragon to kill a 1st level party as an Antagonistic maneuver. it's the same as saying "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies" based on the following theoretic critera
1. how the hell is a 1st level party going to negotiate with bribe a CR25 dragon? any attempts at negotiation will most likely fail due to the dragon being hungry and not care about a meager party of rookies.
2. how the hell is a party going to avoid or run away from such a monster, you are talking about a monster that can close more distance than the party can gain, and likely has nastier abilities and special senses on top of that
3. what stops the dragon from swooping down and eating the lowly first level adventurers one by one and causing a TPK on the spot.
4. Either way, short of Fiat, that Dragon is going to result in a dead party, even if the party tries to negotiate, run away, or avoid it.
It is the GMs fault for throwing a no-win battle at you just because he can, however.
There's no mincing around the fact that that's horrible GMing.
"F*$+ you for novaing, now die" is not a good GMing style, and it's not a MATURE GMing style.
Especially when, in this game, retreat from a combat that's already started (especially with resources spent) is nigh on impossible because monsters are usually faster than you, or AS FAST as you, but have Reach, or can Teleport/Dimesnion Door at will, or use ranged attacks, etc.
so true
"Random monster you can't kill punishment muhahahaha" is not an "in-game consequence" it's out of game pettiness creeping into the game itself.
Might as well say "Rocks fall" and save everyone time.
Combat is not the only option available.
Avoiding, fleeing, and parlay are valid methods of overcoming an encounter.
If you opt to fight a "no win" battle it is not the GMs fault if you die.it is a fine line between Bravado and stupidity.
Stupidity kills.actually, i don't blame the party for failing to avoid a "No-win" Battle but i blame the "DM" for including an antagonistically designed obstacle the party cannot overcome.
usually, in my own Experience, when a "DM" says they want to run a "Living World", it means they want to justify sending a CR25 Great Wyrm Dragon to kill a 1st level party as an Antagonistic maneuver. it's the same as saying "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies" based on the following theoretic critera
You can believe that way... but... How do you explain a party that never leaves a 100 mile radius from their base of operations only encountering APL appropriate CRs?
1. how the hell is a 1st level party going to negotiate with bribe a CR25 dragon? any attempts at negotiation will most likely fail due to the dragon being hungry and not care about a meager party of rookies.
2. how the hell is a party going to avoid or run away from such a monster, you are talking about a monster that can close more distance than the party can gain, and likely has nastier abilities and special senses on top of that
3. what stops the dragon from swooping down and eating the lowly first level adventurers one by one and causing a TPK on the spot.
4. Either way, short of Fiat, that Dragon is going to result in a dead party, even if the party tries to negotiate, run away, or avoid it.
Hmmm... so the dragon is just a mindless killing machine? It has no plots or machinations in progress?
Plus you are ignoring some thing about the example...
Josh M clearly stated the CR10 dragon the APL2 party encountered was non-hostile until the players chose to engage it in combat.
Not every encounter has to be antagonistic.
Nor does it have to be APL appropriate.
I am not sure what kind of world you play in; But the ones I play in many "monsters" are extremely Machiavellian in nature; not mindless hyper-aggressive killing machines.
If the PCs choose to escalate an "APL inappropriate" non-aggressive encounter to hostile that is on them; not the GM when the inevitable Party Defeat conclusion occurs.
Having in game consequences for in game actions is not being Passive/Aggressive; It is being a good GM.
Let's agree to disagree. I still think "I don't like your playstyle, so I'll just kill your PC's until you play my way" is still passive-aggressive, control freak DM-ing.
Handle that crap outside of the game, or don't handle it at all. Handling things like that in-game is a cheap cop out to boost your own ego. Again, in my opinion.
For the record, I'm not arguing against in-game consequences for in-game actions, but we were talking about handling a certain playstyle("going nova"). There are already tons of ways to handle that, in-game, but you implied just offing the offending player, which to me, is pretty lame.
For the record, I'm not arguing against in-game consequences for in-game actions, but we were talking about handling a certain playstyle("going nova"). There are already tons of ways to handle that, in-game, but you implied just offing the offending player, which to me, is pretty lame.
ok... there is the disconnect...
I do not advocate just killing them.I do however advocate putting them into a situation that shows them that "going nova" for every conflict is not the wisest decision. (that should be reserved for the final climatic battle).
For the record, I'm not arguing against in-game consequences for in-game actions, but we were talking about handling a certain playstyle("going nova"). There are already tons of ways to handle that, in-game, but you implied just offing the offending player, which to me, is pretty lame.ok... there is the disconnect...
I do not advocate just killing them.
I do however advocate putting them into a situation that shows them that "going nova" for every conflict is not the wisest decision. (that should be reserved for the final climatic battle).
See, that I agree with.
I'm going to apologize right now, because I got your comment confused with Sinckersimba's from the previous page. I post here from work, and have been only at my desk sporadically, and got the comments mixed up.
Sorry 'bout that. I kinda went off on a tangent on something you didn't even say.
For the record, I'm not arguing against in-game consequences for in-game actions, but we were talking about handling a certain playstyle("going nova"). There are already tons of ways to handle that, in-game, but you implied just offing the offending player, which to me, is pretty lame.ok... there is the disconnect...
I do not advocate just killing them.
I do however advocate putting them into a situation that shows them that "going nova" for every conflict is not the wisest decision. (that should be reserved for the final climatic battle).See, that I agree with.
I'm going to apologize right now, because I got your comment confused with Sinckersimba's from the previous page. I post here from work, and have been only at my desk sporadically, and got the comments mixed up.
Sorry 'bout that. I kinda went off on a tangent on something you didn't even say.
To be fair, I did not exactly make that very clear in my initial post.
it's not so easy to justify but, i level up my NPCs alongside the need to challenge the players and include relatively monstrous creatures. i didn't say that the super dragon was a mindless killing machine, just that there is nothing a party could offer the dragon to please it. unless the dragon where a quest giver or something. but in my own experiences with a few negative DMs, they see "Dragon" and think "better kill the PCs" because if a dragon were truly hostile towards a low level party, there is no bribe that low level party could use to please to powerful dragon and now way they could really escape it.
if the dragon truly isn't hostile, give some obvious hints, modern players tend to assume "Dragon = Phat Bag of Loot" and a lot of them are of that modern mindset
you can include a semi living world without needing to use a level 10 dragon against a level 2 party. start the dragon as a level 5 wyrmling, and if the party doesn't kill it, have it come back when they reach level 10 as a young adult
it's not that the dragon can't be defeated in combat that happens to be the problem, it is that there is no way to avoid a creature with a movement speed faster than any PC can attain, a massive blindsight range to autofoil stealth, and nearly unlimited access to either dimension door or teleport.
it's not that the dragon is a mindless killing machine, it is that most DMs i have experienced whom include a CR 10 Dragon against a level 2 party as part of a "living world" tend to be of an antagonistic nature.
a world can be just as "living" by including NPCs and Monsters whom grow as the PCs grow. in fact, i feel it is more living to include a sense of progression amongst the NPCs than it is to include wildly overpowered monsters against a low level party
it's not so easy to justify but, i level up my NPCs alongside the need to challenge the players and include relatively monstrous creatures. i didn't say that the super dragon was a mindless killing machine, just that there is nothing a party could offer the dragon to please it. unless the dragon where a quest giver or something. but in my own experiences with a few negative DMs, they see "Dragon" and think "better kill the PCs" because if a dragon were truly hostile towards a low level party, there is no bribe that low level party could use to please to powerful dragon and now way they could really escape it.
if the dragon truly isn't hostile, give some obvious hints, modern players tend to assume "Dragon = Phat Bag of Loot" and a lot of them are of that modern mindset
you can include a semi living world without needing to use a level 10 dragon against a level 2 party. start the dragon as a level 5 wyrmling, and if the party doesn't kill it, have it come back when they reach level 10 as a young adult
it's not that the dragon can't be defeated in combat that happens to be the problem, it is that there is no way to avoid a creature with a movement speed faster than any PC can attain, a massive blindsight range to autofoil stealth, and nearly unlimited access to either dimension door or teleport.
it's not that the dragon is a mindless killing machine, it is that most DMs i have experienced whom include a CR 10 Dragon against a level 2 party as part of a "living world" tend to be of an antagonistic nature.
a world can be just as "living" by including NPCs and Monsters whom grow as the PCs grow. in fact, i feel it is more living to include a sense of progression amongst the NPCs than it is to include wildly overpowered monsters against a low level party
Difference in play styles...
The "super dragon" does not have to be automatically hostile. It could have just finished with a meal. Or it could let the party escape for any number of reasons.Dragons are vain... flattery can get you more than trinkets and trash would.
Never assume just because you are out classed by the beast you cannot talk your way past him.
the Dragon could also be a quest giver in disguise. but that generally requires the players to metagame a bit, because i'm not sure everyone expects to a dragon to be seeking adventurers.
the Dragon could also be a quest giver in disguise. but that generally requires the players to metagame a bit, because i'm not sure everyone expects to a dragon to be seeking adventurers.
That is an option. But my players get nervous any time a dragon says he has simple matter for them to deal with... it never turns out to be that simple.
Last time I did that to them they ended up in the middle of a 3 way game of intrigue between a Dragon, a Devil, and a High ranking Shide of the unseelie court.
For the record, I'm not arguing against in-game consequences for in-game actions, but we were talking about handling a certain playstyle("going nova"). There are already tons of ways to handle that, in-game, but you implied just offing the offending player, which to me, is pretty lame.ok... there is the disconnect...
I do not advocate just killing them.
I do however advocate putting them into a situation that shows them that "going nova" for every conflict is not the wisest decision. (that should be reserved for the final climatic battle).
I can agree with this.
I think it would be best, though, to doing this consistently from the beginning, rather than doing it (and potentially over doing) after a series of sessions where the players were rewarded for "nova-ing" and not punished for kicking back as soon as they finish a fight.
If a GM get's frustrated at players for doing this when they haven't required any different from them, I can't blame the players for that. I subsequently can't blame the players if they get upset that, suddenly, there's this monster that they can't beat in a fight after the GM created a pattern of always making combat an option.
the Dragon could also be a quest giver in disguise. but that generally requires the players to metagame a bit, because i'm not sure everyone expects to a dragon to be seeking adventurers.That is an option. But my players get nervous any time a dragon says he has simple matter for them to deal with... it never turns out to be that simple.
Last time I did that to them they ended up in the middle of a 3 way game of intrigue between a Dragon, a Devil, and a High ranking Shide of the unseelie court.
i'm sure the dragon could send the 2nd level party on a quest to kill the orcs that have been resting in his lair without his permission that he feels to beneath his stature to do himself. the reward could be some unwanted trinkets from his Lair tailored to the PCs' needs.
Firstly I tell them that the game isn't designed for them to nuke every encounter, rest up and repeat.
Secondly I tell them flat out tell that it's unbalanced for them to do so and as GM I won't let them.
My logic to the situation is: it's sorta like those times you wake up in the morning and lie in bed for hours trying to get back to sleep. Lying awake in bed is not the same as getting sleep.
So when my players try for a 15 minute day, I tell them they rest but gain no benefit, worse still time passes. Clerics do not get spells from their gods, Wizard heads are too full from studying previously to memorise anything else, others find their meditations fruitless or have too much energy to actually rest properly.