There's something that's been bugging me for a longish while. Maybe you can help me out - or just post an opinion, if you have one.

As a GM, I basically use only two types of encounters. Combat encounters, that is. Flavor encouters, sort of to say 'this is the sort of thing that lives in this biome' - and boss fights. 

When designing boss fights, I try to design them so the villain has a credible chance at winning. Not so much in terms of difficulty (that too, but that's not the point) but more to say: This guy has an actual plan for how to win this fight. 

Now, luckily perhaps, generally the PC's win, despite mine and the villains combined best intentions of the opposite. 

But - and this is the question - is that wrong? Should the villains win more often?

Mind, I always have a way out. The villain winning a fight is generally never the end of the game. I have an out, even in case of a TPK (which is for the PC's to fight their way back out of the afterlife).

I think at least sometimes player characters should die (without coming back) to make sure that the players don't feel like they're invincible. Of course you shouldn't do it on purpose, but if a player makes some risky decisions then don't hold back with the attacks. Usually the players are stronger than you anticipate, so I often increase the difficulty of an encounter to make sure situations occur in which players could die if they are reckless.

You could also think of encounters in which killing the opponent is not the main purpose. There could be scene where 2 groups (players and enemies) are both trying to escape a crumbling castle.

Also make sure players understand when things are not going well for them so they have the option to leave. If they stay, then don't hold back, even if the enemy is very strong. I would never kill a player character if they had no choice at all and they just get overwhelmed.

Quote from Acromos >>

But - and this is the question - is that wrong? Should the villains win more often?

 How often the villains should win is largely a game style question (a good session zero issue).

In general the way I tune encounters is that an encounter where the objective of the bad guys is to kill the PCs should be difficult enough to be scary, but not difficult enough to make the bad guys actually win (because mistakes happen, I wind up with a modest rate of actual TPKs). Encounters where the bad guys can win without a TPK need less tuning.

I don't think villains "should" have times when they're scripted to win. I think villains should have a chance to win. And sometimes, I think players Leeroy Jenkins their way into fights they have no business being in, and they get appropriately demolished. As long as there's player agency and fair DM warnings for things that are out of their league (that players are welcome to ignore by choice or inattentiveness), I think it's fine.

Personally, I don't enjoy beating the crap out of my party. I want them to win. Sometimes, I want them to have to work hard for that win. And sometimes, when the story suits it, I want them to have no choice but to run away. I have killed PCs before, but I don't enjoy it when it happens. If the player just wants a clean break and a new character, I'll abide by their wishes, but I find it more rewarding to have resurrection quests. But close calls in combat, with people rolling death saves? Every once in a while, that's needed to keep things fresh.

It's also worth noting that combat is not the only place you can remind PCs of their mortality. I love me a deadly environmental encounter or fiendish dungeon trap, when appropriate. 

I think I last killed a character when years still started with 19-something. Risk of (unavoidable) reroll is not really part of my games. So my question isn't really about 'should PC's die?' It's more a question of 'does it make sense, narratively, for the villains to win now and then?'

The trouble is that players are often more OK with their character dying than they are with losing a fight and being taken captive, or left for dead, or whatever. 

Maybe it doesn't have to be ... villain defeats heroes. Maybe sometimes the villain can achieve his goal, but not defeating the heroes.

Can we establish the villain as powerful and scary, unless he actually demonstrates at some point that he is ... powerful and scary? Edging into campaign design, maybe, but still.

Quote from Acromos >>

 

Can we establish the villain as powerful and scary, unless he actually demonstrates at some point that he is ... powerful and scary? Edging into campaign design, maybe, but still.

 Either directly or indirectly, yes. This is necessary, otherwise you're just telling people they should be scared of/want to defeat something rather than crafting a story that allows these emotions to arise organically.

Combat is one direct way to do it, but it's not the only tool in the arsenal that gets the job done. Encountering the aftermath of the villain's handiwork - destroyed towns, blighted landscapes, emotionally scarred NPCs, advancing war, nightmares given to PCs, repeated run-ins with minions, etc. - can be equally if not more impactful than just having a combat encounter, as can first-hand encounters with BBEG powers that deviate wildly from PC abilities (e.g., crazy psychic prowess, regeneration, multiple forms, unnatural knowledge, rule-breaking magic, etc.). 

That said, there's also something rewarding about going toe-to-toe with the baddie and getting stronger as they do - after all, we love seeing Harry's repeated matchups with Voldemort, or Batman and the Joker duke it out. It just depends on your game and your table's preferences, I suppose. 

 

 Either directly or indirectly, yes. This is necessary, otherwise you're just telling people they should be scared of/want to defeat something rather than crafting a story that allows these emotions to arise organically.

Combat is one direct way to do it, but it's not the only tool in the arsenal that gets the job done. Encountering the aftermath of the villain's handiwork - destroyed towns, blighted landscapes, emotionally scarred NPCs, advancing war, nightmares given to PCs, repeated run-ins with minions, etc. - can be equally if not more impactful than just having a combat encounter, as can first-hand encounters with BBEG powers that deviate wildly from PC abilities (e.g., crazy psychic prowess, regeneration, multiple forms, unnatural knowledge, rule-breaking magic, etc.). 

That said, there's also something rewarding about going toe-to-toe with the baddie and getting stronger as they do - after all, we love seeing Harry's repeated matchups with Voldemort, or Batman and the Joker duke it out. It just depends on your game and your table's preferences, I suppose. 

 

 Well - yes. 

What I mean is, if we claim 'this guy is more dangerous than an angry bear' - and then he's really a push-over - then we've lied, broken verismilitude, and all that stuff.

So sure, we can show him to be bad, burning villages and crops and stealing children and using bad grammer. But in the end, can he really be believably dangerous, if he never wins a fight?

Voldemort is a fine example: He hands Harry his hindside time and time again, beating him black and blue. Then he loses. 

(Apparently they only fight twice - but still)

One important thing is to consider win conditions.

For the PCs, 99% of the time the win condition they set themselves is "when the bad guy is dead, we have won".

For the BBEG, the win conditions can be any number of things:

1. If the PCs die, they win. This is what a lot of people run fights as, and it makes for an inevitable win for the PCs most of the time.
2. If the fight lasts for X rounds, then the PCs have been distracted, the ritual completed, and the BBEG has won (and can now flee).
3. If the BBEG escapes, then they have won.
4. If the BBEG kidnaps the important NPC, then they have won
5. If the fight even starts, then the BBEG has already won, because they have lured the party to the location for the fight as a distraction.

You will need to tailor the win conditions to the level of plotting the BBEG has undertaken, and how it went. They may also employ several clever tactics to achieve their goal, whilst the players are only trying to kill them. This is where the party having done the research is going to be key. A smart BBEG, for example a dracolich doing a ritual on the dormant volcano, might have an underling performing the ritual whilst he does battle on the slopes. For more twist, it is the dracolich's clone or simulcrum doing battle. 

Fo fanatical people, dying does not mean that they lost. It's perfectly possible for the enemy to know that the win conditions aren't about life or death, but timing, position, and so forth. Perhaps a ritual requires that the sacrifices are in the middle of the runes, so luring the party there is their "win" condition. In others, they might see dying as the win condition - "only a sacrifice slain by the pure of heart can bring back the evil Doobedoo from the grave". So, the "BBEG" lets the good party kill them as part of the ritual, successfully summoning the Evil Doobedoo.

Quote from ThorukDuckSlayer >>

...

In others, they might see dying as the win condition - "only a sacrifice slain by the pure of heart can bring back the evil Doobedoo from the grave". So, the "BBEG" lets the good party kill them as part of the ritual, successfully summoning the Evil Doobedoo.

 "The Evil Doobedoo" is a great name for the villain of a not-at-all-serious campaign. Or maybe just a one-shot.

Quote from Helmut_McQuack >>

Quote from ThorukDuckSlayer >>

...

In others, they might see dying as the win condition - "only a sacrifice slain by the pure of heart can bring back the evil Doobedoo from the grave". So, the "BBEG" lets the good party kill them as part of the ritual, successfully summoning the Evil Doobedoo.

 "The Evil Doobedoo" is a great name for the villain of a not-at-all-serious campaign. Or maybe just a one-shot.

 When the great Doo Be Doo rises from his grave, the dead rise with him... and they DANCE!

Powers... who knows, but at a minimum, the ability to cast danse macabre and Otto's irresistible dance.

Quote from ThorukDuckSlayer >>

One important thing is to consider win conditions.

For the PCs, 99% of the time the win condition they set themselves is "when the bad guy is dead, we have won".

For the BBEG, the win conditions can be any number of things:

1. If the PCs die, they win. This is what a lot of people run fights as, and it makes for an inevitable win for the PCs most of the time.
2. If the fight lasts for X rounds, then the PCs have been distracted, the ritual completed, and the BBEG has won (and can now flee).
3. If the BBEG escapes, then they have won.
4. If the BBEG kidnaps the important NPC, then they have won
5. If the fight even starts, then the BBEG has already won, because they have lured the party to the location for the fight as a distraction.

You will need to tailor the win conditions to the level of plotting the BBEG has undertaken, and how it went. They may also employ several clever tactics to achieve their goal, whilst the players are only trying to kill them. This is where the party having done the research is going to be key. A smart BBEG, for example a dracolich doing a ritual on the dormant volcano, might have an underling performing the ritual whilst he does battle on the slopes. For more twist, it is the dracolich's clone or simulcrum doing battle. 

Fo fanatical people, dying does not mean that they lost. It's perfectly possible for the enemy to know that the win conditions aren't about life or death, but timing, position, and so forth. Perhaps a ritual requires that the sacrifices are in the middle of the runes, so luring the party there is their "win" condition. In others, they might see dying as the win condition - "only a sacrifice slain by the pure of heart can bring back the evil Doobedoo from the grave". So, the "BBEG" lets the good party kill them as part of the ritual, successfully summoning the Evil Doobedoo.

 Very insightful - thanks =)

I agree with all of that, but I'm not sure it answers my question. It moves the goal posts on what is a win and what isn't - but it doesn't really, necessarily, answer whether the villain should win more often.

See, in terms of narrative, I like the idea of the villain actually having the upper hand, racking up some solid wins (in whatever way, as you say). But in gameplay, I've found that to be ... difficult. Players don't like it, simply put =)

Quote from Acromos >>

Quote from ThorukDuckSlayer >>

One important thing is to consider win conditions.

For the PCs, 99% of the time the win condition they set themselves is "when the bad guy is dead, we have won".

For the BBEG, the win conditions can be any number of things:

1. If the PCs die, they win. This is what a lot of people run fights as, and it makes for an inevitable win for the PCs most of the time.
2. If the fight lasts for X rounds, then the PCs have been distracted, the ritual completed, and the BBEG has won (and can now flee).
3. If the BBEG escapes, then they have won.
4. If the BBEG kidnaps the important NPC, then they have won
5. If the fight even starts, then the BBEG has already won, because they have lured the party to the location for the fight as a distraction.

You will need to tailor the win conditions to the level of plotting the BBEG has undertaken, and how it went. They may also employ several clever tactics to achieve their goal, whilst the players are only trying to kill them. This is where the party having done the research is going to be key. A smart BBEG, for example a dracolich doing a ritual on the dormant volcano, might have an underling performing the ritual whilst he does battle on the slopes. For more twist, it is the dracolich's clone or simulcrum doing battle. 

Fo fanatical people, dying does not mean that they lost. It's perfectly possible for the enemy to know that the win conditions aren't about life or death, but timing, position, and so forth. Perhaps a ritual requires that the sacrifices are in the middle of the runes, so luring the party there is their "win" condition. In others, they might see dying as the win condition - "only a sacrifice slain by the pure of heart can bring back the evil Doobedoo from the grave". So, the "BBEG" lets the good party kill them as part of the ritual, successfully summoning the Evil Doobedoo.

 Very insightful - thanks =)

I agree with all of that, but I'm not sure it answers my question. It moves the goal posts on what is a win and what isn't - but it doesn't really, necessarily, answer whether the villain should win more often.

See, in terms of narrative, I like the idea of the villain actually having the upper hand, racking up some solid wins (in whatever way, as you say). But in gameplay, I've found that to be ... difficult. Players don't like it, simply put =)

What I was gettign at was that the win conditions are not always going to result in a TPK. Most DMs are concerned about just killing the party and "winning" as the BBEG because they will basically end the story, and to a lot of tables, that doesn't sit overly well. 

Whereas, what you can do is instead have the BBEG win without killing the party. The BBEG might complete stabilising a portal to the 9 hells, and then teleport away, leavign the party with nothing to fight and nothing they can do about the portal. The party lost, but the story doesn't end.

That's the key, I think - make sure that the story ends on the players terms, ish. Ending on a TPK is ok if it's a dramatic thing, or a sacrifice. Otherwise, try to make win conditions where the BBEG doesn't care about the PCs dying, they care about stopping them from interfering with their plans. Basically, unless the story absolutely needs it, make it so their failure won't end the story, it'll develop it. That way, the villain can win more often, because it won't be a game-ending feel-bad moment when they do!