I’d go with something similar to pangurjan. A tpk means the good guys lost. It’s sad but it happens. If you let them live or bring in a new party, then there were no real stakes in the campaign.
I’d say think through the consequences. The BBEG won. What does that mean for the world? Set the next campaign 10 or 30 or 50 years later. Then the new party has to deal with the fallout, of the world the BBEG created, and they have an opportunity to make things right.
I'd say it's depends on the campaign. Sure, if the TPK happens right at the climactic "stop the bad guy before the clock reaches zero or the ritual will be complete" then yeah, the good guys lost. On the other hand, it would be rather weird if the world is threatened by certain doom and there was only one group of people trying to stop it.
I do like the idea of player (and not only character) failure that leaves consequences. Hell, you don't even need to advance the time that much depending on the situation.
I agree that it’s weird that only one group is trying to stop the big bad, but isn’t it often what happens? Part of it is how many adventuring types there are in the world you’re playing in. In games I play, and DM in, once you start getting above level 3-5, there are fewer and fewer people (obviously, other tables will work differently). It could be that no one else is really in a position to save the world. Also, if you have a second (or third) group doing the same thing, then the PCs aren’t as important, as I said before it undercuts the stakes. It could also be I don’t play in FR, where everyone would wonder why elminster and drizzt don’t step in and save the day.
And definitely the time frame can change. You could start it the day after the BBEG finishes their plan. Or the day or week before to let the player invest in their new characters in their regular lives, then bam; the world falls apart. Whatever is going to work for the story you come up with.
Usually the PCs are the only ones who can stop something.
Kind of how Luke is the only one who could blow up the Death Star. Or the Fellowship was the only group able to take the Ring to(ward) Mordor. Or Harry, Hermione, and Ron were the only ones who could stop Voldemort.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Other groups trying to deal with impending evil don’t have to be represented by PCs. If the DM wants to shift the world forward a decade or two before the players take another crack at it with other characters, nothing says others haven’t pitched in in those intervening years.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Usually the PCs are the only ones who can stop something.
Kind of how Luke is the only one who could blow up the Death Star. Or the Fellowship was the only group able to take the Ring to(ward) Mordor. Or Harry, Hermione, and Ron were the only ones who could stop Voldemort.
Well, besides forgetting about Neville (and there were quite a few candidates for the Fellowship), your examples are all far into "last chance to stop the threat before it's too late"-territory. Leia could probably also have blown up the Death Star, for example.
And not even Luke didn't attack by himself, which was kind of my point. The plan wasn't "let's throw all of our Rogue squadrons away so that Luke can win the game for us". Heck, when the plans were stolen no-one involved even knew that he existed. If he would have been killed after freeing Leia the adventure could still continute. Would the rebels be worse off than if he was alive? Sure, but he wasn't their only hope. There is another. ;)
Usually the PCs are the only ones who can stop something.
Kind of how Luke is the only one who could blow up the Death Star. Or the Fellowship was the only group able to take the Ring to(ward) Mordor. Or Harry, Hermione, and Ron were the only ones who could stop Voldemort.
Well, besides forgetting about Neville (and there were quite a few candidates for the Fellowship), your examples are all far into "last chance to stop the threat before it's too late"-territory. Leia could probably also have blown up the Death Star, for example.
And not even Luke didn't attack by himself, which was kind of my point. The plan wasn't "let's throw all of our Rogue squadrons away so that Luke can win the game for us". Heck, when the plans were stolen no-one involved even knew that he existed. If he would have been killed after freeing Leia the adventure could still continute. Would the rebels be worse off than if he was alive? Sure, but he wasn't their only hope. There is another. ;)
Not to beat the Star Wars analogy to death, but it’s actually a good example of not a tpk, but the first party (yoda, obi-wan, padme(and let’s not quibble over who was in the party, it’s not important to the analogy)) failed. The emperor won. Then the original trilogy is the second party (Luke, Leila, Han) dealing with the fallout years later.
It makes for a much more compelling story than if some Jedi no one heard of before swooping in to save the day and stop the emperor at the end of episode 3.
Harry Potter, too. Lily, james and Sirius black didn’t win, they just delayed things. It took the second party to actually win.
I haven't run a TPK in a while (my most recent was in 4e), but there are a few options
Capture the PCs can work, if you're willing to run a prison escape scenario. I wouldn't rely on it though.
Continue with new PCs is an option. There's two models of this: either the new party comes in immediately (at high level) and continues the existing storyline, or the BBEG has won and you get new level 1s playing in the world of "and this is why it was important for the PCs to win".
Depending on level, allies, etc, the PCs might be returned to life. This usually requires someone to retrieve the bodies, though Reincarnate only requires a piece and Clone is prepared ahead of time instead of behind. Undeath is also a possibility, though that is generally more plot device than standard spell.
In 4e, there was a campaign outline that started with the players being generally down on their luck and in the shadow of greater adventurers that culminated in the PCs being brutally murdered in a boss fight at the end of the first arc. The second arc would begin with the players, now dead, floating in the astral sea and being exiled from their rightful afterlife due to a flaw in the fundamental fabric of the multiverse. The players would then set about correcting the multiverse for the remainder of the campaign. Needless to say that in this campaign, the players remain dead.
This is all to say that, as noted above, death is not the end in D&D, nor is it necessarily permanent.
If you are interested, the campaign outline is laid out on page 17 of the 4e supplement "The Plane Above".
Usually the PCs are the only ones who can stop something.
Kind of how Luke is the only one who could blow up the Death Star. Or the Fellowship was the only group able to take the Ring to(ward) Mordor. Or Harry, Hermione, and Ron were the only ones who could stop Voldemort.
Well, besides forgetting about Neville (and there were quite a few candidates for the Fellowship), your examples are all far into "last chance to stop the threat before it's too late"-territory. Leia could probably also have blown up the Death Star, for example.
And not even Luke didn't attack by himself, which was kind of my point. The plan wasn't "let's throw all of our Rogue squadrons away so that Luke can win the game for us". Heck, when the plans were stolen no-one involved even knew that he existed. If he would have been killed after freeing Leia the adventure could still continute. Would the rebels be worse off than if he was alive? Sure, but he wasn't their only hope. There is another. ;)
Not to beat the Star Wars analogy to death, but it’s actually a good example of not a tpk, but the first party (yoda, obi-wan, padme(and let’s not quibble over who was in the party, it’s not important to the analogy)) failed. The emperor won. Then the original trilogy is the second party (Luke, Leila, Han) dealing with the fallout years later.
It makes for a much more compelling story than if some Jedi no one heard of before swooping in to save the day and stop the emperor at the end of episode 3.
Harry Potter, too. Lily, james and Sirius black didn’t win, they just delayed things. It took the second party to actually win.
And let's not forget Rogue One which is the very definition of a mixing success with a TPK.
Anyway - all those examples are good and fine for a compelling story. And it works because it is appreciated by outside party (viewer/reader). It is not the same as being appreciated by players.
You know all those soft rules that every beginning DM learns from other DMs? Like "never try to arrest your party", "don't ever remove player's abilities/steal your wizards components", "try not to throw an undefeatable force against players with the expectation that they will run"
Those are all there not because using those elements is considered a poor narrative - they are there strictly because they are not fun for the players.
There are different types of players - some of them appreciate the narrative and the story being told more than they value their own character. Those players will try to defy their ever smothering warlock patron and will gladly lose some of their abilities because it makes up a cool story. You can maim their characters, throw them in jail, steal their spellbook - they will gladly accept it because they have watched and read enough that they know that adversity makes for a strong hero
But most of them are focused on themselves. It doesn't matter whether something makes a cool story overall if they have to sacrifice their personal fun to get there. And losing their abilities or getting arrested is not fun for them.
Getting killed after 2 years of playing and being told that it's a part of life and now let's change things up and create a new group to avenge might also not be fun.
What I mean to say is this - if the group is not tight and the trust between players and the DM is not yet established firmly, don't ever presume that the players will see a TPK as a part of an interesting story being told collaboratively. They might do so or they might not.
I am not advocating fudging your game to avoid TPK though. If it happens, it happens. If it happened to me, I'd probably be sad, told my players "Sorry, it's part of the game, sometimes it happens. Let's take two weeks break now and decide how we are going to proceed" - I don't know if I would dare to tell them "think about how compelling story it can make" :))
I am not advocating fudging your game to avoid TPK though. If it happens, it happens. If it happened to me, I'd probably be sad, told my players "Sorry, it's part of the game, sometimes it happens. Let's take two weeks break now and decide how we are going to proceed" - I don't know if I would dare to tell them "think about how compelling story it can make"
I completely agree with this. I wouldn't argue it made the "story more compelling." But I would say, in the game of D&D, this is a possibility. It happens sometimes. Now we figure out how to deal with it.
This is the nature of the RPG, not just with TPKs. Unexpected things happen, and you have to figure out how to deal with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I agree that it’s weird that only one group is trying to stop the big bad, but isn’t it often what happens? Part of it is how many adventuring types there are in the world you’re playing in. In games I play, and DM in, once you start getting above level 3-5, there are fewer and fewer people (obviously, other tables will work differently). It could be that no one else is really in a position to save the world.
Also, if you have a second (or third) group doing the same thing, then the PCs aren’t as important, as I said before it undercuts the stakes. It could also be I don’t play in FR, where everyone would wonder why elminster and drizzt don’t step in and save the day.
And definitely the time frame can change. You could start it the day after the BBEG finishes their plan. Or the day or week before to let the player invest in their new characters in their regular lives, then bam; the world falls apart. Whatever is going to work for the story you come up with.
Usually the PCs are the only ones who can stop something.
Kind of how Luke is the only one who could blow up the Death Star. Or the Fellowship was the only group able to take the Ring to(ward) Mordor. Or Harry, Hermione, and Ron were the only ones who could stop Voldemort.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Other groups trying to deal with impending evil don’t have to be represented by PCs. If the DM wants to shift the world forward a decade or two before the players take another crack at it with other characters, nothing says others haven’t pitched in in those intervening years.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Well, besides forgetting about Neville (and there were quite a few candidates for the Fellowship), your examples are all far into "last chance to stop the threat before it's too late"-territory. Leia could probably also have blown up the Death Star, for example.
And not even Luke didn't attack by himself, which was kind of my point. The plan wasn't "let's throw all of our Rogue squadrons away so that Luke can win the game for us". Heck, when the plans were stolen no-one involved even knew that he existed. If he would have been killed after freeing Leia the adventure could still continute. Would the rebels be worse off than if he was alive? Sure, but he wasn't their only hope. There is another. ;)
Not to beat the Star Wars analogy to death, but it’s actually a good example of not a tpk, but the first party (yoda, obi-wan, padme(and let’s not quibble over who was in the party, it’s not important to the analogy)) failed. The emperor won. Then the original trilogy is the second party (Luke, Leila, Han) dealing with the fallout years later.
It makes for a much more compelling story than if some Jedi no one heard of before swooping in to save the day and stop the emperor at the end of episode 3.
Harry Potter, too. Lily, james and Sirius black didn’t win, they just delayed things. It took the second party to actually win.
I haven't run a TPK in a while (my most recent was in 4e), but there are a few options
In 4e, there was a campaign outline that started with the players being generally down on their luck and in the shadow of greater adventurers that culminated in the PCs being brutally murdered in a boss fight at the end of the first arc. The second arc would begin with the players, now dead, floating in the astral sea and being exiled from their rightful afterlife due to a flaw in the fundamental fabric of the multiverse. The players would then set about correcting the multiverse for the remainder of the campaign. Needless to say that in this campaign, the players remain dead.
This is all to say that, as noted above, death is not the end in D&D, nor is it necessarily permanent.
If you are interested, the campaign outline is laid out on page 17 of the 4e supplement "The Plane Above".
And let's not forget Rogue One which is the very definition of a mixing success with a TPK.
Anyway - all those examples are good and fine for a compelling story. And it works because it is appreciated by outside party (viewer/reader). It is not the same as being appreciated by players.
You know all those soft rules that every beginning DM learns from other DMs? Like "never try to arrest your party", "don't ever remove player's abilities/steal your wizards components", "try not to throw an undefeatable force against players with the expectation that they will run"
Those are all there not because using those elements is considered a poor narrative - they are there strictly because they are not fun for the players.
There are different types of players - some of them appreciate the narrative and the story being told more than they value their own character. Those players will try to defy their ever smothering warlock patron and will gladly lose some of their abilities because it makes up a cool story. You can maim their characters, throw them in jail, steal their spellbook - they will gladly accept it because they have watched and read enough that they know that adversity makes for a strong hero
But most of them are focused on themselves. It doesn't matter whether something makes a cool story overall if they have to sacrifice their personal fun to get there. And losing their abilities or getting arrested is not fun for them.
Getting killed after 2 years of playing and being told that it's a part of life and now let's change things up and create a new group to avenge might also not be fun.
What I mean to say is this - if the group is not tight and the trust between players and the DM is not yet established firmly, don't ever presume that the players will see a TPK as a part of an interesting story being told collaboratively. They might do so or they might not.
I am not advocating fudging your game to avoid TPK though. If it happens, it happens. If it happened to me, I'd probably be sad, told my players "Sorry, it's part of the game, sometimes it happens. Let's take two weeks break now and decide how we are going to proceed" - I don't know if I would dare to tell them "think about how compelling story it can make" :))
I completely agree with this. I wouldn't argue it made the "story more compelling." But I would say, in the game of D&D, this is a possibility. It happens sometimes. Now we figure out how to deal with it.
This is the nature of the RPG, not just with TPKs. Unexpected things happen, and you have to figure out how to deal with it.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
denial.
anger.
bargaining.
depression.
acceptance.