I need some help with a campaign i've been running for the past year. Without going into too much detail: For the last few sessions the party has been hounded by a powerful necromancer. The necromancer is introduced as an all powerful entity who is capable of killing the party by himself and fully intends to do so. The party managed to succesfully evade the necromancer so far, learning more about his strengths and weaknesses, growing stronger along the way and coming closer and closer to eventually finding a way to kill him.
In the last session, the party took a big risk and learned really significant information, but ended up cornered by the necromancer. The necromancer nearly killed the entire party in this encounter, but everyone escaped nonetheless with the information (I used the my DM screen to change some dice rolls so nobody would die).
The problem however, is that one of the players got a really lucky hit in that moderately wounded the necromancer. Now, the party (still near-dead) feels emboldened and (still near-dead) is now attacking the necromancer's tower head-on, somehow believing they can kill him now. An encouter with a party of goblins would already put some of the party in serious danger though, let alone the necromancer himself, wounded as he may still be.
I know some of my players invested a lot of time in their characters and I want to prevent a total party wipe, but I exhausted all my DM tricks (NPCs advising against it, talking to the players out of character, the 'are you sure?'-card, offering healing elsewhere, etc.) and I'm not sure how best to handle this. A confrontation would surely kill the party. I think I need a more experienced DM to give me some advice on this.
Can anyone give some advice to save my players (from themselves)?
I would say -- it sounds like you have done all you can at this stage. If they insist on being reckless and taking a crazy chance, they may just have to suffer the consequences.
You said in your post, "I used the my DM screen to change some dice rolls so nobody would die" -- so I guess I would ask, in the year you say this campaign has been running, do you do this a lot? To the PCs always make it out alive no matter what? Because if so then this would also embolden them. I'm not saying you were wrong to do it (I have been known to veto die rolls myself), but from years of experience, if you do this too much (which I used to do), the players start to feel like they cannot be defeated, and they will take crazy chances.
As mean as it feels at the moment, sometimes letting the dice fall where they may and killing a single character, miserable as it is for that player, teaches everyone at the table a valuable lesson about risks and consequences.
But of course, that is 20/20 hindsight and it is too late now.
The only other thing I might well do here is have a metagame talk with them, and say, "Look, your characters are half dead. If you're going to insist on doing this, I'll need to ask everyone to prepare backup characters before coming to the next session." Hopefully that will drive the point home. Especially if you have never called for backup characters before.
Yeah, I hate doing that too, but forewarned is forearmed. If they say eff it, we're going in, then roll the dice and let what happens, happen.
The other option you have is something Colville suggested. He had his party in a bad spot, same thing, they attacked a necromancer too early. (Why is it always a necromancer?) Anyway, he killed one PC, and then the villain said to the other PCs, "Now get out and don't come back." He did this to prevent a party wipe but the players all knew he was pulling punches with them, and that IC, the necro would have TPKed them.
Colville then said in hindsight, what he should have done was said, "OK, next session make up a new set of characters, we're going to take a break from this for a while," and they would have played a 2nd party who got into the dungeon from another route. They also fight their way to the necromancer's throne room, and time-wise, they arrive just as the one PC is killed. The players now have 2 PCs each (except the guy whose PC died) and together they can beat up the necro and defeat him. This would have made the players feel like they had earned the win themselves instead of him letting them off.
You could try something like this if you want. Have them make up a new set of PCs, have them adventure to the necro tower by another route/adventure string, and when they get there, it is right as the beat-up party also get there. Now the 2 parties together are strong enough (and maybe the 2nd party has some healing to help the first party with).
But to be honest, based on your description, I'm not sure I'd be willing to go through that. They seem to be insisting to go against all logic and DM advice so sometimes I just let the chips fall where they may.
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.
Define "moderately wounded". In context what does that mean? Loss of a limb? Destroyed some magical item he was using? Other? Or was it just they managed to deliver a large percentage of his health in damage (and what would that look like)?
I can see where the players got the idea where they might have a chance to kill him, though. You've portrayed this BBE as being "godlike" in his capabilities, so when he was "moderately wounded" by the party, which I'm guessing is kinda low to mid level... Well, they might think you're giving them a a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to deal a story driven deathblow and liberate the oppressed peoples from their immortal tyrant.
You might want to arrange for your next session to either start a little early, or run a little long, and really interrogate the party about how and why they are making this decision to race headlong into the heart of the necro-god's lair. Because I can also see it from the player side, if they take the time to Long Rest, so too will the Necromancer. That will make both the party and the bad guy recover from all health damage and most conditions. You need to make it clear to your players that you're not giving them a silver bullet. or some other plot armor method of killing the bad guy.
I don't save my players. I do try to save my monsters. Lol. Have zero problem killing they players and I open roll my dice to them.
One of the first agreements we all made was to never fudge the dice. Let them roll. The dice are the game. They control everything. Take that away and what do we have?
Players die, parties get wiped out. It's up to me to make the game as fun as possible regardless of the consequences.
In the script of Rocky 4.. if he dies, he dies. So if players do something dumb and they know it and they die. Their fault and my mob will go about his life.
You can always add an encounter with some sort of monster- something big, fearsome, and well above their level that's acting as a guardian for the necromancer's tower. Position it in such a way that they can't bypass it and make it clear that trying to fight it is suicide with delusions of survival.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I don't save my players. I do try to save my monsters. Lol. Have zero problem killing they players and I open roll my dice to them.
One of the first agreements we all made was to never fudge the dice. Let them roll. The dice are the game. They control everything. Take that away and what do we have?
Players die, parties get wiped out. It's up to me to make the game as fun as possible regardless of the consequences.
In the script of Rocky 4.. if he dies, he dies. So if players do something dumb and they know it and they die. Their fault and my mob will go about his life.
I get this is an old school approach and I play at tables where this is enforced but as a DM I don't do this to my group. Sometimes the dice are hot and it absolutely blows to have a really neat and creative game go up in smoke because random guard got 3 crits back to back to back on the party tank. If I notice my monsters are just absolutely after a guy who is playing careful and the party is actively protecting him I might lessen the blow. What fun is it for a player to just get railroaded by the dice?
Back on topic,
To BioWizards point, if you inform and inform and inform and the party still goes through? Screw it, they want the fight. Time to bring them what they want.
I think this is really what the question here is:
Is this the end you envisioned of this campaign or is this the ending your players want?
The way you are making this sound? This is the last battle. They're storming the castle because they think this is the best shot. I would too. They did the back work, learned his secrets, and think they are in the best position to do it. Maybe this is the end? They kill the necromancer, save the day, and become heroes of the realm. Seems legit.
If they think it's the end of that campaign, let them have their ending. Make it difficult, make it so that there is a real sense of potential defeat and a real chance to lose if they don't play right. If they don't play smart, they die. If they play smart? Then the Necromancer dies. If the table is happy? You did a good job. Even if it's not the ending you envisioned, the table is happy.
I agree with others, the point of the game is to have fun. And it's never fun to have your character die.
However, for most game groups, the possibility of death and consequence needs to still be there, or the fun will be lessened. That means if the party does something incredibly stupid, the possibility of a TPK needs to be on the table. Otherwise, the players can't lose. It's like playing a video game in 'god mode.' It's fun for a little while and then you get bored. If they are always protected from consequences by the DM, they will have less fun in the long run than if they are playing without the safety net.
It's hard to realize that when you are enduring the tail end of a TPK that's gone on for 2 hours, but... in the end it's sometimes really all you can do. Most particularly when the players are forcing your hand like this.
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.
The big bad can also take them captive instead of kill them.
I would be for doing this. The big bad could take them captive and do experiments on them. If you want to keep the threat of death you could have the big bad kill one of them while doing the experiments/in the fight. This could really help develop plot, and make the players hate the big bad more than they already do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The 6 most hated words in all of d&d history: make me a dex saving throw .
I’d like to offer an alternative solution: give them a way to kill the Necromancer now. Listen to what they think they know, how they’ve come to believe they have a chance, and make it real. Don’t make it easy, don’t hand it to them on a plate, but advance your timeline on this victory. Maybe one of them will die in the attempt, who knows? But let go of the reins a little. You are the world builder, yes, but once you’ve let the players into it they interpret it and understand it and it’s important to respond to what they see - collaborate a little.
You may be worried this leaves you with a big gap in the plot, but there are many possibilities that will let you use a lot of what it sounds like you already have planned. The simplest one I see is that on killing the necromancer - or wounding him enough to make him retreat - they realise he is empowered by something greater. Orcus would fit the bill, or an evil god associated with death maybe, or something else of your own design. Then that becomes the new objective, but they’ve bought themselves a bit of time. And the real power could always return their puppet to life, or raise up a new necromancer to take the failure’s place... And if the defeated necromancer doesn’t die, well, they could come back to haunt the players later on. Perhaps literally!
Do they think the Necromancer is still wounded? A powerful wizard is going to have healing potions. Or some other way to heal, like Vampiric Touch on villagers/creatures kept in the tower/minions. If they have never run into an enemy that can heal they might not even be thinking it's possible, and are focused on fighting before the Necromancer can long rest, which I can understand to a certain degree.
On a side note, Wizard Towers, if properly set up with glyphs and wards, should almost never be attacked by a weakened party. Do they know this from their gathered info? One magical trap could take them out if they're that close to dying already.
Hello everyone, thanks for the great replies I think I have found a way to incorporate all your feedback into one 'ultimate solution' [see below]. First though, some answers to stated questions:
1) Do I fudge dice rolls often and do players all make it out alive every time? I know fun is the most important part of the game and I know some of my players really wont enjoy their characters dying. While others dont mind, i think it's also in my benefit to keep my players alive because the campaign has run quite long now [players have friends, allies, assets, titles, and information, and player deaths make balancing things out complicated]. My usual MO is that i 'convert' fatal damage into a lasting handicap [they wake up, but - e.g. - they lose a limb]. This makes for cool character development and sometime results in cool side-quests (for instance where the players find a magical replacement limb), while still making them suffer the consequences of their "death" [they have semi-permanent penalties and they miss out on the encounter's unique reward). Sometimes the handicaps can even be beneficial [think: "scars for intimidating role-play" and "no legs for impersonating a 'helpless' beggar"].
2) Define 'moderately wounded'. Through almost unbelievable luck and good damage rolls about half his hp was shaved away. The players know this because - as this was an 'all-or -nothing'-roll - I allowed the player to roll the dice instead of me, so they know it was super lucky.
3) Is this the end (I envisioned)? While the players were of course always meant to confront the necromancer in the end, this is a bit soon. Ideally the players first have to learn his ultimate weakness and what makes him so powerful in the first place. Overall, this is one chapter of a saga that has gone on for quite some time now and I still have several other chapters in store. As my chapters often link back to characters, allies and npcs from previous chapters, this makes player deaths all the harder for me to compensate for.
4) Do they think the necromancer is still wounded? Yes, and he is.
5) Do the players know about tower securities? Yes. They know the tower is well-protected.
For my 'ultimate solution' i think I'll scale the necromancer down a bit in order to make him defeat-able by the players in their current state while still making him a challenge. From there on there are a two different general endings (open to changes according to player choices of course):
1) the players defeat the necromancer. The risk paid off and they are suitably rewarded. However, the players haven't discovered the source of his power yet, so (as GuyBrush42 suggested) the power is transferred to another who will hound them instead, which will still make the solving of that mystery "mandatory".
2) the players are defeated by the necromancer which will result in the necromancer taking them captive (as suggested by Houligan and Helmbuckman123), experimenting on them and giving them handicaps (e.g. additional limbs that don't respond to the player)(please don't think I have a thing for taking away/adding limbs: they are very basic examples of near-infinite possibilities)
In both scenarios I agree with BioWizard that the risk of player deaths should be present, which is why - in this (possibly) chapter-ending battle - I'll ready the 'player-death'-card. If the party has a neat strategy then I'll keep it in reserve, if they blindly charge in and expect victory I might be tempted to play it. That said, I I also really like the idea of Helmbuckman123 of killing only one (because, as previously said, this will save me a lot of fixing).
Sorry for the long story. Please let me know what you think and if there are some things you agree/ disagree with. I want to be good at this so any feedback you could give me would help a lot.
Thanks a lot!
DMrookie
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello everyone,
I need some help with a campaign i've been running for the past year. Without going into too much detail: For the last few sessions the party has been hounded by a powerful necromancer. The necromancer is introduced as an all powerful entity who is capable of killing the party by himself and fully intends to do so. The party managed to succesfully evade the necromancer so far, learning more about his strengths and weaknesses, growing stronger along the way and coming closer and closer to eventually finding a way to kill him.
In the last session, the party took a big risk and learned really significant information, but ended up cornered by the necromancer. The necromancer nearly killed the entire party in this encounter, but everyone escaped nonetheless with the information (I used the my DM screen to change some dice rolls so nobody would die).
The problem however, is that one of the players got a really lucky hit in that moderately wounded the necromancer. Now, the party (still near-dead) feels emboldened and (still near-dead) is now attacking the necromancer's tower head-on, somehow believing they can kill him now. An encouter with a party of goblins would already put some of the party in serious danger though, let alone the necromancer himself, wounded as he may still be.
I know some of my players invested a lot of time in their characters and I want to prevent a total party wipe, but I exhausted all my DM tricks (NPCs advising against it, talking to the players out of character, the 'are you sure?'-card, offering healing elsewhere, etc.) and I'm not sure how best to handle this. A confrontation would surely kill the party. I think I need a more experienced DM to give me some advice on this.
Can anyone give some advice to save my players (from themselves)?
I would say -- it sounds like you have done all you can at this stage. If they insist on being reckless and taking a crazy chance, they may just have to suffer the consequences.
You said in your post, "I used the my DM screen to change some dice rolls so nobody would die" -- so I guess I would ask, in the year you say this campaign has been running, do you do this a lot? To the PCs always make it out alive no matter what? Because if so then this would also embolden them. I'm not saying you were wrong to do it (I have been known to veto die rolls myself), but from years of experience, if you do this too much (which I used to do), the players start to feel like they cannot be defeated, and they will take crazy chances.
As mean as it feels at the moment, sometimes letting the dice fall where they may and killing a single character, miserable as it is for that player, teaches everyone at the table a valuable lesson about risks and consequences.
But of course, that is 20/20 hindsight and it is too late now.
The only other thing I might well do here is have a metagame talk with them, and say, "Look, your characters are half dead. If you're going to insist on doing this, I'll need to ask everyone to prepare backup characters before coming to the next session." Hopefully that will drive the point home. Especially if you have never called for backup characters before.
Yeah, I hate doing that too, but forewarned is forearmed. If they say eff it, we're going in, then roll the dice and let what happens, happen.
The other option you have is something Colville suggested. He had his party in a bad spot, same thing, they attacked a necromancer too early. (Why is it always a necromancer?) Anyway, he killed one PC, and then the villain said to the other PCs, "Now get out and don't come back." He did this to prevent a party wipe but the players all knew he was pulling punches with them, and that IC, the necro would have TPKed them.
Colville then said in hindsight, what he should have done was said, "OK, next session make up a new set of characters, we're going to take a break from this for a while," and they would have played a 2nd party who got into the dungeon from another route. They also fight their way to the necromancer's throne room, and time-wise, they arrive just as the one PC is killed. The players now have 2 PCs each (except the guy whose PC died) and together they can beat up the necro and defeat him. This would have made the players feel like they had earned the win themselves instead of him letting them off.
You could try something like this if you want. Have them make up a new set of PCs, have them adventure to the necro tower by another route/adventure string, and when they get there, it is right as the beat-up party also get there. Now the 2 parties together are strong enough (and maybe the 2nd party has some healing to help the first party with).
But to be honest, based on your description, I'm not sure I'd be willing to go through that. They seem to be insisting to go against all logic and DM advice so sometimes I just let the chips fall where they may.
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.
The big bad can also take them captive instead of kill them.
Site Info: Wizard's ToS | Fan Content Policy | Forum Rules | Physical Books | Content Not Working | Contact Support
How To: Homebrew Rules | Create Homebrew | Snippet Codes | Tool Tips (Custom) | Rollables (Generator)
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Feats | Spells | Magic Items
Other: Beyond20 | Page References | Other Guides | Entitlements | Dice Randomization | Images Fix | FAQ
Define "moderately wounded". In context what does that mean? Loss of a limb? Destroyed some magical item he was using? Other? Or was it just they managed to deliver a large percentage of his health in damage (and what would that look like)?
I can see where the players got the idea where they might have a chance to kill him, though. You've portrayed this BBE as being "godlike" in his capabilities, so when he was "moderately wounded" by the party, which I'm guessing is kinda low to mid level... Well, they might think you're giving them a a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to deal a story driven deathblow and liberate the oppressed peoples from their immortal tyrant.
You might want to arrange for your next session to either start a little early, or run a little long, and really interrogate the party about how and why they are making this decision to race headlong into the heart of the necro-god's lair. Because I can also see it from the player side, if they take the time to Long Rest, so too will the Necromancer. That will make both the party and the bad guy recover from all health damage and most conditions. You need to make it clear to your players that you're not giving them a silver bullet. or some other plot armor method of killing the bad guy.
I don't save my players. I do try to save my monsters. Lol. Have zero problem killing they players and I open roll my dice to them.
One of the first agreements we all made was to never fudge the dice. Let them roll. The dice are the game. They control everything. Take that away and what do we have?
Players die, parties get wiped out. It's up to me to make the game as fun as possible regardless of the consequences.
In the script of Rocky 4.. if he dies, he dies. So if players do something dumb and they know it and they die. Their fault and my mob will go about his life.
You can always add an encounter with some sort of monster- something big, fearsome, and well above their level that's acting as a guardian for the necromancer's tower. Position it in such a way that they can't bypass it and make it clear that trying to fight it is suicide with delusions of survival.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I get this is an old school approach and I play at tables where this is enforced but as a DM I don't do this to my group. Sometimes the dice are hot and it absolutely blows to have a really neat and creative game go up in smoke because random guard got 3 crits back to back to back on the party tank. If I notice my monsters are just absolutely after a guy who is playing careful and the party is actively protecting him I might lessen the blow. What fun is it for a player to just get railroaded by the dice?
Back on topic,
To BioWizards point, if you inform and inform and inform and the party still goes through? Screw it, they want the fight. Time to bring them what they want.
I think this is really what the question here is:
Is this the end you envisioned of this campaign or is this the ending your players want?
The way you are making this sound? This is the last battle. They're storming the castle because they think this is the best shot. I would too. They did the back work, learned his secrets, and think they are in the best position to do it. Maybe this is the end? They kill the necromancer, save the day, and become heroes of the realm. Seems legit.
If they think it's the end of that campaign, let them have their ending. Make it difficult, make it so that there is a real sense of potential defeat and a real chance to lose if they don't play right. If they don't play smart, they die. If they play smart? Then the Necromancer dies. If the table is happy? You did a good job. Even if it's not the ending you envisioned, the table is happy.
Welcome to DMing. The story never goes YOUR way.
I agree with others, the point of the game is to have fun. And it's never fun to have your character die.
However, for most game groups, the possibility of death and consequence needs to still be there, or the fun will be lessened. That means if the party does something incredibly stupid, the possibility of a TPK needs to be on the table. Otherwise, the players can't lose. It's like playing a video game in 'god mode.' It's fun for a little while and then you get bored. If they are always protected from consequences by the DM, they will have less fun in the long run than if they are playing without the safety net.
It's hard to realize that when you are enduring the tail end of a TPK that's gone on for 2 hours, but... in the end it's sometimes really all you can do. Most particularly when the players are forcing your hand like this.
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 would be for doing this. The big bad could take them captive and do experiments on them. If you want to keep the threat of death you could have the big bad kill one of them while doing the experiments/in the fight. This could really help develop plot, and make the players hate the big bad more than they already do.
The 6 most hated words in all of d&d history: make me a dex saving throw .
I’d like to offer an alternative solution: give them a way to kill the Necromancer now. Listen to what they think they know, how they’ve come to believe they have a chance, and make it real. Don’t make it easy, don’t hand it to them on a plate, but advance your timeline on this victory. Maybe one of them will die in the attempt, who knows? But let go of the reins a little. You are the world builder, yes, but once you’ve let the players into it they interpret it and understand it and it’s important to respond to what they see - collaborate a little.
You may be worried this leaves you with a big gap in the plot, but there are many possibilities that will let you use a lot of what it sounds like you already have planned. The simplest one I see is that on killing the necromancer - or wounding him enough to make him retreat - they realise he is empowered by something greater. Orcus would fit the bill, or an evil god associated with death maybe, or something else of your own design. Then that becomes the new objective, but they’ve bought themselves a bit of time. And the real power could always return their puppet to life, or raise up a new necromancer to take the failure’s place... And if the defeated necromancer doesn’t die, well, they could come back to haunt the players later on. Perhaps literally!
Do they think the Necromancer is still wounded? A powerful wizard is going to have healing potions. Or some other way to heal, like Vampiric Touch on villagers/creatures kept in the tower/minions. If they have never run into an enemy that can heal they might not even be thinking it's possible, and are focused on fighting before the Necromancer can long rest, which I can understand to a certain degree.
On a side note, Wizard Towers, if properly set up with glyphs and wards, should almost never be attacked by a weakened party. Do they know this from their gathered info? One magical trap could take them out if they're that close to dying already.
Hello everyone, thanks for the great replies I think I have found a way to incorporate all your feedback into one 'ultimate solution' [see below]. First though, some answers to stated questions:
1) Do I fudge dice rolls often and do players all make it out alive every time? I know fun is the most important part of the game and I know some of my players really wont enjoy their characters dying. While others dont mind, i think it's also in my benefit to keep my players alive because the campaign has run quite long now [players have friends, allies, assets, titles, and information, and player deaths make balancing things out complicated]. My usual MO is that i 'convert' fatal damage into a lasting handicap [they wake up, but - e.g. - they lose a limb]. This makes for cool character development and sometime results in cool side-quests (for instance where the players find a magical replacement limb), while still making them suffer the consequences of their "death" [they have semi-permanent penalties and they miss out on the encounter's unique reward). Sometimes the handicaps can even be beneficial [think: "scars for intimidating role-play" and "no legs for impersonating a 'helpless' beggar"].
2) Define 'moderately wounded'. Through almost unbelievable luck and good damage rolls about half his hp was shaved away. The players know this because - as this was an 'all-or -nothing'-roll - I allowed the player to roll the dice instead of me, so they know it was super lucky.
3) Is this the end (I envisioned)? While the players were of course always meant to confront the necromancer in the end, this is a bit soon. Ideally the players first have to learn his ultimate weakness and what makes him so powerful in the first place. Overall, this is one chapter of a saga that has gone on for quite some time now and I still have several other chapters in store. As my chapters often link back to characters, allies and npcs from previous chapters, this makes player deaths all the harder for me to compensate for.
4) Do they think the necromancer is still wounded? Yes, and he is.
5) Do the players know about tower securities? Yes. They know the tower is well-protected.
For my 'ultimate solution' i think I'll scale the necromancer down a bit in order to make him defeat-able by the players in their current state while still making him a challenge. From there on there are a two different general endings (open to changes according to player choices of course):
1) the players defeat the necromancer. The risk paid off and they are suitably rewarded. However, the players haven't discovered the source of his power yet, so (as GuyBrush42 suggested) the power is transferred to another who will hound them instead, which will still make the solving of that mystery "mandatory".
2) the players are defeated by the necromancer which will result in the necromancer taking them captive (as suggested by Houligan and Helmbuckman123), experimenting on them and giving them handicaps (e.g. additional limbs that don't respond to the player)(please don't think I have a thing for taking away/adding limbs: they are very basic examples of near-infinite possibilities)
In both scenarios I agree with BioWizard that the risk of player deaths should be present, which is why - in this (possibly) chapter-ending battle - I'll ready the 'player-death'-card. If the party has a neat strategy then I'll keep it in reserve, if they blindly charge in and expect victory I might be tempted to play it. That said, I I also really like the idea of Helmbuckman123 of killing only one (because, as previously said, this will save me a lot of fixing).
Sorry for the long story. Please let me know what you think and if there are some things you agree/ disagree with. I want to be good at this so any feedback you could give me would help a lot.
Thanks a lot!
DMrookie