During Session0 I straight up told my players that statistically speaking at least one of them would most likely have died by 5th level. I will never intentionally kill or even attempt to kill a PC. I will throw plausible, but extremely dangerous encounters at them with no idea if/how they will overcome and inevitably they always have.
Currently in the campaign the Wiz is tapped for spells and Hit Dice, the Barb has already blown all their Hit Dice for the day and is using tools as weapons so has disadvantage on all his attacks (houserule I have because a log splitter is not balanced like a battle axe, but I refuse to use the same Improvised Weapon stats for a log splitter as I would for a broken bottle), the Cleric is running real low on spells as well, and they only have 2 healing potions for the whole party, and a couple of scrolls. All they have are swords, daggers, and improvised weapons (all other weapons are collected at the city gates and held until their owners’ departures) so they are not doing anywhere near as much damage as they normally would.
They have a left/right type decision ahead of them when we pick up next session. They will soon be entering an exceedingly deadly encounter either way they choose. I’m not gonna move the encounter, there simply are different encounters ahead of them either way. The encounters are what they are, I’m not gonna soften them up just because the PCs are in a pickle. I have absolutely no idea how they will make it through this dungeon without somebody dying. They will inevitably surprise me yet again with their ingenuity, creativity, and strategy. I don’t know how, but it’ll be fun to find out.
Should PCs be killable? Yes, absolutely. Without a real possibility for PC death it’s honestly not as fun. Ask 100 players at what setting they play video games and very few will tell you they like “easy mode” the best.
To answer the OP’s question I guarantee you a couple of things:
That player is rolling their PC all up in these encounters like that because they know they will not die. If next time you design your encounter in such a way that if they do such a risky thing they will get curb stomped and road hauled (make it deadly, but don’t tailor it against that particular character though or else it will be obvious that were gunning for them) and do not deviate then:
That player will probably be super salty about it and probably ***** and moan about how unfair it is. Politely smile and nod and agree that yes, it is unfair but no, you’re not going to retcon the situation because sometimes good heroes die on quests and if they don’t believe you tell them to watch Game of Thrones. And:
That player will probably think twice the next time.
PS-I also have a rule where players cannot use the same race/class combo two PCs in a row. They have to change at least one or the other for the next character. If they only change one then the next time they must change the other, and no matter what they cannot do the same subclass/subrace two characters in a row without a darned good story driven reason for it. Even if they only ever pick the same two races and the same two classes over and over that at least mixes it up enough.
I brought up Champions because it was published in 1981 and had extensive sections on “balancing” battles, to specifically rebut the claim that “balance” is something that was birthed by video games. It wasn’t. The Champions guys were talking about balance in 1981, and they did not just make the idea up. They got it from other RPGs that existed before Champions. So again, video games did not come up with this idea.
And of course, modules like Hommlet or B2 didn’t have every single encounter balanced exactly to a particular party. I never played or ran Hommlet so I cannot comment on it. But B2 had caves with things as weak as kobolds and as strong as a single Minotaur. A party of level 3s or 4s would be challenged by the Minotaur. A party of level 1s would have been TPKed. And again, I have no problem with that. These were the Caves of Chaos. Before you got there, you knew what you were getting yourself into conceptually. There were hints that the Minotaur labyrinth was what it was. If you ignored them, oh well, you died. But the individual cave networks (marked A, B, C, D, ... etc.) were designed to be explored by parties of levels 1 through 3. Not level 6s, or 12s. They balanced that module for a certain set of characters (4-6 or so, of level 1-3 or so). Video games did not create this concept.
What video games did, was make it possible to actually balance every encounter dynamically for the existing set of characters in a party. This was possible to do on a per-encounter basis because the computer is able to execute the generation of the monsters and track them much more efficiently than a human DM can possibly do. While you are still trying to find the page in the DMG that has the CR table, and then the page in MM with the state block, the computer has already generated a spawn of the right level, composition, and number of monsters, to “appropriately challenge” a party. I saw the computer do this better than I ever could back when I was writing NWN modules. But that is just the computer doing a more finely grained balancing than a human DM could or would do... the idea of balance is not new.
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 apply mechanics and dice rolls only when I plan to obey the results, if there is an outcome I want, I simply don't roll dice at all and narrate the outcome I want. To me, the concept of rolling the dice to see if I get what I want, then if I don't change it to what I want, doesn't make much sense. I'm the DM, if I want something to happen because I think it would be dramatic or interesting, I do, I don't roll the dice.
...
Players don't know what an encounter is, they don't know how much HP a monster has or what motivates them. Anytime I make a mistake like this I correct it by redesigning the encounter on the fly rather then fudging dice. Aka, lower AC, lower HP, lower damage or reduce attacks.
So you use DM Fiat (simply narrating rather than using dice for uncertain outcomes) and Plot Armor (modifying monsters to protect your party from a TPK) when you feel it works better for the story (ie the party isn't wiped out by random goblins that aren't supposed to be that hard of a fight).
Sounds a LOT like what all of us have been saying all along....
Except that no one on this thread has said that we protect all characters all the time no matter what. You’re the one who keeps saying we do that.
OP implied it as a possibility. And a lot of people suggested ways that are all but bending over backwards to keep the character alive, if you want to talk about the OP’s topic rather than the side discussion.
the party had a chance to react. They didn’t. The character failed their check. Failure consequences need happen.
all the intervention suggestions for second, third, 4th chances, are “protecting The character”
Except that no one on this thread has said that we protect all characters all the time no matter what. You’re the one who keeps saying we do that.
OP implied it as a possibility. And a lot of people suggested ways that are all but bending over backwards to keep the character alive, if you want to talk about the OP’s topic rather than the side discussion.
the party had a chance to react. They didn’t. The character failed their check. Failure consequences need happen.
all the intervention suggestions for second, third, 4th chances, are “protecting The character”
That's why, when I played that homebrew/homemade 1st edition's campaign of D&D ( 37 years ago ), both 2 GMs implemented the rule "as it could happens IRL". So, if MY dices failed in any throw, the GMs applied the serious threat over it. Or, as we call it here, = You fail --> pay the consequences.
Imo, it was a nice homebrew/homemade campaign, and nowadays I'm anxious to find a party in where I could join in.
Except that no one on this thread has said that we protect all characters all the time no matter what. You’re the one who keeps saying we do that.
OP implied it as a possibility. And a lot of people suggested ways that are all but bending over backwards to keep the character alive, if you want to talk about the OP’s topic rather than the side discussion.
the party had a chance to react. They didn’t. The character failed their check. Failure consequences need happen.
all the intervention suggestions for second, third, 4th chances, are “protecting The character”
The biggest problem I have is that some of people seem to insist, incredibly loudly, that "consequences = death".
No one here has said that consequences are not a thing, or shouldn't be a thing. Or that finding ways to allow people to creatively mitigate damage from the consequences is same as "Bending over backwards to protect a character".
Giving the party more chances to intervene. Is bending over backwards.
they had their chance when the player announced it. And they did nothing. They had time while the player was actively running towards the kid. And they did nothing.
anything between the bard, the kid, the lava. Sure. Good there. But re-involved the party that had ample time and chances to help or intervene. That’s bending over backwards.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
During Session0 I straight up told my players that statistically speaking at least one of them would most likely have died by 5th level. I will never intentionally kill or even attempt to kill a PC. I will throw plausible, but extremely dangerous encounters at them with no idea if/how they will overcome and inevitably they always have.
Currently in the campaign the Wiz is tapped for spells and Hit Dice, the Barb has already blown all their Hit Dice for the day and is using tools as weapons so has disadvantage on all his attacks (houserule I have because a log splitter is not balanced like a battle axe, but I refuse to use the same Improvised Weapon stats for a log splitter as I would for a broken bottle), the Cleric is running real low on spells as well, and they only have 2 healing potions for the whole party, and a couple of scrolls. All they have are swords, daggers, and improvised weapons (all other weapons are collected at the city gates and held until their owners’ departures) so they are not doing anywhere near as much damage as they normally would.
They have a left/right type decision ahead of them when we pick up next session. They will soon be entering an exceedingly deadly encounter either way they choose. I’m not gonna move the encounter, there simply are different encounters ahead of them either way. The encounters are what they are, I’m not gonna soften them up just because the PCs are in a pickle. I have absolutely no idea how they will make it through this dungeon without somebody dying. They will inevitably surprise me yet again with their ingenuity, creativity, and strategy. I don’t know how, but it’ll be fun to find out.
Should PCs be killable? Yes, absolutely. Without a real possibility for PC death it’s honestly not as fun. Ask 100 players at what setting they play video games and very few will tell you they like “easy mode” the best.
To answer the OP’s question I guarantee you a couple of things:
PS-I also have a rule where players cannot use the same race/class combo two PCs in a row. They have to change at least one or the other for the next character. If they only change one then the next time they must change the other, and no matter what they cannot do the same subclass/subrace two characters in a row without a darned good story driven reason for it. Even if they only ever pick the same two races and the same two classes over and over that at least mixes it up enough.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I brought up Champions because it was published in 1981 and had extensive sections on “balancing” battles, to specifically rebut the claim that “balance” is something that was birthed by video games. It wasn’t. The Champions guys were talking about balance in 1981, and they did not just make the idea up. They got it from other RPGs that existed before Champions. So again, video games did not come up with this idea.
And of course, modules like Hommlet or B2 didn’t have every single encounter balanced exactly to a particular party. I never played or ran Hommlet so I cannot comment on it. But B2 had caves with things as weak as kobolds and as strong as a single Minotaur. A party of level 3s or 4s would be challenged by the Minotaur. A party of level 1s would have been TPKed. And again, I have no problem with that. These were the Caves of Chaos. Before you got there, you knew what you were getting yourself into conceptually. There were hints that the Minotaur labyrinth was what it was. If you ignored them, oh well, you died. But the individual cave networks (marked A, B, C, D, ... etc.) were designed to be explored by parties of levels 1 through 3. Not level 6s, or 12s. They balanced that module for a certain set of characters (4-6 or so, of level 1-3 or so). Video games did not create this concept.
What video games did, was make it possible to actually balance every encounter dynamically for the existing set of characters in a party. This was possible to do on a per-encounter basis because the computer is able to execute the generation of the monsters and track them much more efficiently than a human DM can possibly do. While you are still trying to find the page in the DMG that has the CR table, and then the page in MM with the state block, the computer has already generated a spawn of the right level, composition, and number of monsters, to “appropriately challenge” a party. I saw the computer do this better than I ever could back when I was writing NWN modules. But that is just the computer doing a more finely grained balancing than a human DM could or would do... the idea of balance is not new.
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.
So you use DM Fiat (simply narrating rather than using dice for uncertain outcomes) and Plot Armor (modifying monsters to protect your party from a TPK) when you feel it works better for the story (ie the party isn't wiped out by random goblins that aren't supposed to be that hard of a fight).
Sounds a LOT like what all of us have been saying all along....
"Teller of tales, dreamer of dreams"
Tips, Tricks, Maps: Lantern Noir Presents
**Streams hosted at at twitch.tv/LaternNoir
Except that no one on this thread has said that we protect all characters all the time no matter what. You’re the one who keeps saying we do that.
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.
OP implied it as a possibility. And a lot of people suggested ways that are all but bending over backwards to keep the character alive, if you want to talk about the OP’s topic rather than the side discussion.
the party had a chance to react. They didn’t. The character failed their check. Failure consequences need happen.
all the intervention suggestions for second, third, 4th chances, are “protecting The character”
OK, that’s fair enough. I’ll stop now.
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.
That's why, when I played that homebrew/homemade 1st edition's campaign of D&D ( 37 years ago ), both 2 GMs implemented the rule "as it could happens IRL". So, if MY dices failed in any throw, the GMs applied the serious threat over it. Or, as we call it here, = You fail --> pay the consequences.
Imo, it was a nice homebrew/homemade campaign, and nowadays I'm anxious to find a party in where I could join in.
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
The biggest problem I have is that some of people seem to insist, incredibly loudly, that "consequences = death".
No one here has said that consequences are not a thing, or shouldn't be a thing. Or that finding ways to allow people to creatively mitigate damage from the consequences is same as "Bending over backwards to protect a character".
"Teller of tales, dreamer of dreams"
Tips, Tricks, Maps: Lantern Noir Presents
**Streams hosted at at twitch.tv/LaternNoir
Giving the party more chances to intervene. Is bending over backwards.
they had their chance when the player announced it. And they did nothing. They had time while the player was actively running towards the kid. And they did nothing.
anything between the bard, the kid, the lava. Sure. Good there. But re-involved the party that had ample time and chances to help or intervene. That’s bending over backwards.