In our current campaign we haven't yet had a TPK but we've come dangerously close. The discussion came up as to how we would handle it, but we didn't really have a clear idea. Throwing months of play in the bin and scrapping the campaign doesn't make sense, but allowing everyone to survive due to plot armour doesn't play well either. The solution I think I'd run with would be "you all wake up, bloodied and naked in a dungeon" then make a plot out of recovery. However that only works with combat to humanoids, TPK via magic, traps or beasts shouldn't go there. I have heard people use a rewind, jump back to the last save point kind of thing but that doesn't feel like it punished failure.
Any thoughts around how to keep it scary without it ending the campaign?
Do not dance upon the table yelling in your face. Your mom and the players get mad. You could kill 3/4 of the party and leave their bodies on their wives doorsteps. (John Wayne Western moment.) You could tpk and create a new party of similar level to recover the bodies or complete the mission. I totally allow TPKs. But I only had two of them. And even now my drop in players know they can generally run away and come back for the slow ones. This should been asked in your session 0.
(A) "Return to your last save point". Handwave the meta, and let the party try again.
(B) "It was just a dream". Pretend like it was a premonition/simulation/vision/etc...
(C) "Wake up in a dungeon". Even against non-humanoids, someone could find and resurrect their corpses. Maybe to interrogate, maybe to save, maybe to use in some nefarious plot.
(D) "Dark Gifts". Their work on this plane isn't done, and otherworldly forces won't let them die peacefully. They return, but with scars from the afterlife. (Gain horror themed power-ups / penalties)
(E) "B Team". The heroes are the heroes, but they usually aren't the only ones fighting. Maybe someone learns of the party's failure, and assigns a new team to pick up where they left off.
(F) "Borrowed time". The party revives in a pool of their own blood with words of warning lingering in the back of their mind. They've earned a second chance, but the clock is ticking. This life will only last a limited time. Time to settle your affairs.
(G) "Time Jump". Like a phoenix from the ashes, the party is immortal, but it takes them months or years to revive. Each time they die, the world is cast further into darkness.
(H) "One to tell the story". After a TPK, roll the dice to see which of the characters manages to barely survive and it's up to them to figure out how to save the others or start over.
(I) "Hell and Back Again". The afterlife is just a new adventure. The party wakes up somewhere terrifying and unfamiliar and must escape back to the material plane to reclaim their bodies.
For all the supposed brutality of 1st edition AD&D, basic set, etc., I don't think we ever had a complete wipe. Multiple PCs die, yes. But a few were always left to find a Ring of Wishing or a Res scroll or something along those lines and bring at least some of the others back. We had a party of 10, that after a ring of 3 wishes and a couple of res scrolls, walked out of the adventure with 6 still living, 4 permanently dead/gone. And all of those 6 were at least on their 2nd life. But the party never completely wiped.
In 5e so far, after 30 sessions, one character has had to make a death saving throw once (he was 1st or 2nd level). Other than that, nobody has hit 0 hp, and so I have literally never had a TPK happen.
I suspect under most circumstances, a complete party wipe *will* be the end of the party in my game, unless there is some reason why the enemy would be striking to subdue.
Throwing months of play in the bin and scrapping the campaign doesn't make sense, ...
Can I offer a dissenting opinion? A campaign ending prematurely doesn't mean that everything that came before is wasted. You had fun, you probably had some great, memorable, moments, you did everything right. Sometimes failure happens nonetheless. That stings a little, but it's ok. It doesn't diminish any of those months you played, not one bit.
My suggestion is to take your lumps, grieve for your characters for a couple of days, then start something fresh. Get back on the horse. Maybe the DM can work out what happens in the background and your new party can encounter whatever evolved from the old party not succeeding and tackle that hot potato six months from now. Maybe it's something for a whole other campaign a few parties down the line. Or maybe nothing ever comes from it ever again. That's fine. Really, it is. I think it's likely more respectful to the game you've had not to contrive some improbable twist of fate just to avoid a TPK.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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.
Playing off of some of the other posters: I think it would be interesting to have players create a "Village" rather than a "Character".
Then, have the player call a "Champion" from their Village with the understanding that the Champion might not be the hero of the story. As the Champion becomes more powerful, the Village becomes more prosperous. If the Champion dies, the Village sends out a new Champion with better training and equipment, thanks to the efforts of their predecessor.
This would create a smooth mechanic for dealing with character deaths, and justify retaining perks across multiple characters. Maybe even let the players choose a "Village Feat" every level, that changes the Village stats in some small way. Increasing its commerce frees up more funding, while increasing education bumps up base mental stats, etc...
I think I'll try to do something like this for my next campaign.
I would also think there are variables which could change the approach. I'd be more lenient to a bunch of noobs compared to an experienced table. I also would care more about getting my moneys worth out of paid content compared to messing around with free form homebrew.
I think the only time I've had a tpk was decades ago and it kind of worked out as the DM was over it and wanted a change, so it was an opportunity to start a new campaign and have the DM become a player for awhile.
My feeling on a TPK and whether the campaign should end or not, varies with how long it has gone.
For instance, my current campaign is about 16 months old and has gone 31 sessions. The players were worried there might be a TPK last session, but there wasn't. Let's say it had happened, though... after 31 sessions playing in the same world/setting, to be honest as a DM, I would probably rather start a new party in a new setting, rather than keep going in this one. I know we didn't "finish" it but the game is not about the journey -- it's about the destination. Which is kind of what pangurjan is saying also.
Frankly, when this campaign ends, I would want to either (1) let someone else DM, or (2) run a game in a completely different system. I'm not sure I'd want to keep DMing in 5e. It's a perfectly serviceable system, but there are so many other ones out there I would like to try, and I prefer variety. I don't know if I could talk my current batch of players into trying (one, at least, I think would -- not sure about the others). I don't see any point to discussing it since this campaign probably (barring an unforeseen TPK) will go at least another 1.5 years, so there is no point to getting people worked up about a different DM or system. But I think what I would probably say after a TPK is... would you guys like to try Savage Worlds or Champions or Call of Cthulhu or maybe an OSR game? If yes, I will keep DMing. If no, it must be 5e, then my next question would probably be, who would like to DM?
Now... if the TPK had happened at level 3, then yes, we would have made new characters in the same world, because we were only 7 or 8 sessions in and had just started. But it's been 31 sessions now. That by any measure is a hefty campaign already. So I would be ready to try something new at that point.
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.
This has not happened to me in 5e yet, but I'd go one of three ways depending on whether the players were really interested in the campaign or the world.
The "B team" from above. Same world, same storyline, a new group of heroes rises to fill the shoes of their predecessors.
Game over. The good guys lost. Let's start talking about a new campaign in a new world.
New campaign, new story but same world. Maybe a sequel in the same storyline where the bad guys won and achieved their goals. Or maybe stopping the same threat in an alternate version of the world where I can throw some curveballs instead of just being a clean reset.
My feeling on a TPK and whether the campaign should end or not, varies with how long it has gone.
For instance, my current campaign is about 16 months old and has gone 31 sessions. The players were worried there might be a TPK last session, but there wasn't. Let's say it had happened, though... after 31 sessions playing in the same world/setting, to be honest as a DM, I would probably rather start a new party in a new setting, rather than keep going in this one. I know we didn't "finish" it but the game is not about the journey -- it's about the destination. Which is kind of what pangurjan is saying also.
I think he is saying the opposite but I also think that you meant the opposite so it's all good.
And I generally agree but ask any Game of Thrones fan whether the ending does or does not spoil the journey and see what happens :)
The party can die, but the adventure cant? There are plenty of solutions, but maybe if the whole party dies, they would rather start another adventure rather than cobble together whatever excuse to explain why an entirely new band is taking on another parties quest.
Now, if the DM and players really want to keep the same campaign going, well then you just summon all the plot armor from TV shows, books and so on to explain how they survived. The foe knocked them out and left them for dead in the ally, they miraculously survived, the monster decided to put them in the food hole for storage, or nest for babies about to hatch, the local victims pay a priest to resurrect the party because they were the best adventurers for the job.
You could change the narrative from the adventurers perspective to the opponents side, their adversaries were defeated and they continued toward the next phase of their plan only to meet new adventurers who take up arms against them, a new party of adventurers are exploring the location where your last party died by chance, and come upon the previous parties equipment... cast speak with dead and learn the objectives and quests unfulfilled by the previous party.
You could have NPCs and villagers or acquaintances get pulled in as reinforcements, former henchmen or apprentices take over where their master failed, you could even do an elaborate back track to a new set of adventurers and start the story before the events of the previous parties death and weave them into the plot ahead of time, if your really cleaver, you can find ways to demonstrate that they were involved in previous events and bring them forward in the story.
You also, don't have to come up with this solution on your own, maybe your players have ideas better pertaining to your plot and their preferences. It's D&D, just make it up.
My feeling on a TPK and whether the campaign should end or not, varies with how long it has gone.
For instance, my current campaign is about 16 months old and has gone 31 sessions. The players were worried there might be a TPK last session, but there wasn't. Let's say it had happened, though... after 31 sessions playing in the same world/setting, to be honest as a DM, I would probably rather start a new party in a new setting, rather than keep going in this one. I know we didn't "finish" it but the game is not about the journey -- it's about the destination. Which is kind of what pangurjan is saying also.
I think he is saying the opposite but I also think that you meant the opposite so it's all good.
And I generally agree but ask any Game of Thrones fan whether the ending does or does not spoil the journey and see what happens :)
The GoT ending was fine. The execution was severely lacking, but in terms of story elements there wasn't anything wrong with it (to me - I know there are lots of others who think otherwise). The problem really was the journey: there wasn't enough of it to make the ending worthwhile. I assume people keep their campaign interesting, otherwise they probably wouldn't care about a potential TPK.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
My feeling on a TPK and whether the campaign should end or not, varies with how long it has gone.
For instance, my current campaign is about 16 months old and has gone 31 sessions. The players were worried there might be a TPK last session, but there wasn't. Let's say it had happened, though... after 31 sessions playing in the same world/setting, to be honest as a DM, I would probably rather start a new party in a new setting, rather than keep going in this one. I know we didn't "finish" it but the game is not about the journey -- it's about the destination. Which is kind of what pangurjan is saying also.
I think he is saying the opposite but I also think that you meant the opposite so it's all good.
And I generally agree but ask any Game of Thrones fan whether the ending does or does not spoil the journey and see what happens :)
The GoT ending was fine. The execution was severely lacking, but in terms of story elements there wasn't anything wrong with it (to me - I know there are lots of others who think otherwise). The problem really was the journey: there wasn't enough of it to make the ending worthwhile. I assume people keep their campaign interesting, otherwise they probably wouldn't care about a potential TPK.
It wasn't fine to me - it would've been fine if there was more seasons to justify what happens. But for me not enough seasons is not a problem of the story, it's a problem of the ending which could've been done by accounting for it.
The journey was universally acclaimed to a certain point. No other TV series enjoyed this much attention, those famous "watch parties", discussions on Mondays at the office and the questions "have you seen the latest?".
Whether it was an issue of ending that spat on the journey or a fine ending that required a longer journey isn't that important.
What is important is that ending the story in unsatisfying way can spoil the perception of an otherwise good journey. GoT will forever be remembered with an asterisk. Fans will say that the TV series is "worth watching but without last season" or flat out say that the ending ruined the whole thing for them. Even though the seasons before were excellent.
That was my point - automatically assuming that unsatisfying ending is OK because everyone will appreciate and remember the journey might not be the case. I wouldn't gamble my campaign on that because perception matters and I can't guarantee that my players will remember more the meat or the unsatisfying ending.
Roll new characters? Perhaps the new characters are hired to investigate what happened to the last crew, and thus they're injected into the plotline without knowing the implications of what's going on etc.
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 love this, and if I DM again this will be my take on a TPK.
Playing off of some of the other posters: I think it would be interesting to have players create a "Village" rather than a "Character".
Then, have the player call a "Champion" from their Village with the understanding that the Champion might not be the hero of the story. As the Champion becomes more powerful, the Village becomes more prosperous. If the Champion dies, the Village sends out a new Champion with better training and equipment, thanks to the efforts of their predecessor.
This would create a smooth mechanic for dealing with character deaths, and justify retaining perks across multiple characters. Maybe even let the players choose a "Village Feat" every level, that changes the Village stats in some small way. Increasing its commerce frees up more funding, while increasing education bumps up base mental stats, etc...
I think I'll try to do something like this for my next campaign.
This almost completely removes any consequences to death though. Which is fine if your table is adverse to the idea of character death, but I think it removes a lot of the tension in gameplay.
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.
To be honest, if my players expressed that they were averse to character death or wanted to lock PC death down only to "when the player consents" I would suggest we play some game *other* than D&D. To me, D&D has always had the possibility, or at low levels we might even say probability, of character death (and the possibility at low levels, but usually not at high ones, of a TPK). It's part of the game. If you don't want that possibility, I would not be willing to DM for you. I view it as akin to saying you want to play Call of Cthulhu but you don't want it to be possible for your PC to go insane. Going insane is a real risk and is a major part of the game -- taking that away would make the game effectively NOT be Call of Cthulhu.
So, if a group of players said to me that they are averse to the idea of PC death, I would suggest we play a much more non-lethal game instead. Champions comes to mind, first and foremost, because the majority of damage done in that game is "stun" damage which knocks you out, but doesn't kill you. In fact in all my years playing Champions, not a single PC ever died due to dice rolling. And only one NPC ever did (when he was hit by the most powerful villain ever created, at the start of a giant mega-battle -- and the reason I did it was to let the players know just how uber this villain was). I'm perfectly happy to run a non-lethal Champions game because that's how the superhero genre works -- nobody ever dies, or at least stays dead even when it seems like they did (e.g., Bucky, Jean Grey, Robin 2, Robin 4, Dove, Dove 2, Captain America, Superman, Batman, Peter Parker, Supergirl....). So it fits with the genre.
But non-lethal games do not fit with my conception of D&D, so... if the table wants that, either we play a different game entirely, or someone else needs to DM.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In our current campaign we haven't yet had a TPK but we've come dangerously close. The discussion came up as to how we would handle it, but we didn't really have a clear idea. Throwing months of play in the bin and scrapping the campaign doesn't make sense, but allowing everyone to survive due to plot armour doesn't play well either. The solution I think I'd run with would be "you all wake up, bloodied and naked in a dungeon" then make a plot out of recovery. However that only works with combat to humanoids, TPK via magic, traps or beasts shouldn't go there. I have heard people use a rewind, jump back to the last save point kind of thing but that doesn't feel like it punished failure.
Any thoughts around how to keep it scary without it ending the campaign?
Do not dance upon the table yelling in your face. Your mom and the players get mad. You could kill 3/4 of the party and leave their bodies on their wives doorsteps. (John Wayne Western moment.) You could tpk and create a new party of similar level to recover the bodies or complete the mission. I totally allow TPKs. But I only had two of them. And even now my drop in players know they can generally run away and come back for the slow ones. This should been asked in your session 0.
No Gaming is Better than Bad Gaming.
"Death is only the beginning..."
(A) "Return to your last save point". Handwave the meta, and let the party try again.
(B) "It was just a dream". Pretend like it was a premonition/simulation/vision/etc...
(C) "Wake up in a dungeon". Even against non-humanoids, someone could find and resurrect their corpses. Maybe to interrogate, maybe to save, maybe to use in some nefarious plot.
(D) "Dark Gifts". Their work on this plane isn't done, and otherworldly forces won't let them die peacefully. They return, but with scars from the afterlife. (Gain horror themed power-ups / penalties)
(E) "B Team". The heroes are the heroes, but they usually aren't the only ones fighting. Maybe someone learns of the party's failure, and assigns a new team to pick up where they left off.
(F) "Borrowed time". The party revives in a pool of their own blood with words of warning lingering in the back of their mind. They've earned a second chance, but the clock is ticking. This life will only last a limited time. Time to settle your affairs.
(G) "Time Jump". Like a phoenix from the ashes, the party is immortal, but it takes them months or years to revive. Each time they die, the world is cast further into darkness.
(H) "One to tell the story". After a TPK, roll the dice to see which of the characters manages to barely survive and it's up to them to figure out how to save the others or start over.
(I) "Hell and Back Again". The afterlife is just a new adventure. The party wakes up somewhere terrifying and unfamiliar and must escape back to the material plane to reclaim their bodies.
(J) etc...
I'll be honest: I don't know.
For all the supposed brutality of 1st edition AD&D, basic set, etc., I don't think we ever had a complete wipe. Multiple PCs die, yes. But a few were always left to find a Ring of Wishing or a Res scroll or something along those lines and bring at least some of the others back. We had a party of 10, that after a ring of 3 wishes and a couple of res scrolls, walked out of the adventure with 6 still living, 4 permanently dead/gone. And all of those 6 were at least on their 2nd life. But the party never completely wiped.
In 5e so far, after 30 sessions, one character has had to make a death saving throw once (he was 1st or 2nd level). Other than that, nobody has hit 0 hp, and so I have literally never had a TPK happen.
I suspect under most circumstances, a complete party wipe *will* be the end of the party in my game, unless there is some reason why the enemy would be striking to subdue.
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.
Can I offer a dissenting opinion? A campaign ending prematurely doesn't mean that everything that came before is wasted. You had fun, you probably had some great, memorable, moments, you did everything right. Sometimes failure happens nonetheless. That stings a little, but it's ok. It doesn't diminish any of those months you played, not one bit.
My suggestion is to take your lumps, grieve for your characters for a couple of days, then start something fresh. Get back on the horse. Maybe the DM can work out what happens in the background and your new party can encounter whatever evolved from the old party not succeeding and tackle that hot potato six months from now. Maybe it's something for a whole other campaign a few parties down the line. Or maybe nothing ever comes from it ever again. That's fine. Really, it is. I think it's likely more respectful to the game you've had not to contrive some improbable twist of fate just to avoid a TPK.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
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.
Playing off of some of the other posters: I think it would be interesting to have players create a "Village" rather than a "Character".
Then, have the player call a "Champion" from their Village with the understanding that the Champion might not be the hero of the story. As the Champion becomes more powerful, the Village becomes more prosperous. If the Champion dies, the Village sends out a new Champion with better training and equipment, thanks to the efforts of their predecessor.
This would create a smooth mechanic for dealing with character deaths, and justify retaining perks across multiple characters. Maybe even let the players choose a "Village Feat" every level, that changes the Village stats in some small way. Increasing its commerce frees up more funding, while increasing education bumps up base mental stats, etc...
I think I'll try to do something like this for my next campaign.
I would also think there are variables which could change the approach. I'd be more lenient to a bunch of noobs compared to an experienced table. I also would care more about getting my moneys worth out of paid content compared to messing around with free form homebrew.
I think the only time I've had a tpk was decades ago and it kind of worked out as the DM was over it and wanted a change, so it was an opportunity to start a new campaign and have the DM become a player for awhile.
My feeling on a TPK and whether the campaign should end or not, varies with how long it has gone.
For instance, my current campaign is about 16 months old and has gone 31 sessions. The players were worried there might be a TPK last session, but there wasn't. Let's say it had happened, though... after 31 sessions playing in the same world/setting, to be honest as a DM, I would probably rather start a new party in a new setting, rather than keep going in this one. I know we didn't "finish" it but the game is not about the journey -- it's about the destination. Which is kind of what pangurjan is saying also.
Frankly, when this campaign ends, I would want to either (1) let someone else DM, or (2) run a game in a completely different system. I'm not sure I'd want to keep DMing in 5e. It's a perfectly serviceable system, but there are so many other ones out there I would like to try, and I prefer variety. I don't know if I could talk my current batch of players into trying (one, at least, I think would -- not sure about the others). I don't see any point to discussing it since this campaign probably (barring an unforeseen TPK) will go at least another 1.5 years, so there is no point to getting people worked up about a different DM or system. But I think what I would probably say after a TPK is... would you guys like to try Savage Worlds or Champions or Call of Cthulhu or maybe an OSR game? If yes, I will keep DMing. If no, it must be 5e, then my next question would probably be, who would like to DM?
Now... if the TPK had happened at level 3, then yes, we would have made new characters in the same world, because we were only 7 or 8 sessions in and had just started. But it's been 31 sessions now. That by any measure is a hefty campaign already. So I would be ready to try something new at that point.
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.
This has not happened to me in 5e yet, but I'd go one of three ways depending on whether the players were really interested in the campaign or the world.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I think he is saying the opposite but I also think that you meant the opposite so it's all good.
And I generally agree but ask any Game of Thrones fan whether the ending does or does not spoil the journey and see what happens :)
Yeah, I mean the game is about the journey not the destination. Ugh.
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 party can die, but the adventure cant? There are plenty of solutions, but maybe if the whole party dies, they would rather start another adventure rather than cobble together whatever excuse to explain why an entirely new band is taking on another parties quest.
Now, if the DM and players really want to keep the same campaign going, well then you just summon all the plot armor from TV shows, books and so on to explain how they survived. The foe knocked them out and left them for dead in the ally, they miraculously survived, the monster decided to put them in the food hole for storage, or nest for babies about to hatch, the local victims pay a priest to resurrect the party because they were the best adventurers for the job.
You could change the narrative from the adventurers perspective to the opponents side, their adversaries were defeated and they continued toward the next phase of their plan only to meet new adventurers who take up arms against them, a new party of adventurers are exploring the location where your last party died by chance, and come upon the previous parties equipment... cast speak with dead and learn the objectives and quests unfulfilled by the previous party.
You could have NPCs and villagers or acquaintances get pulled in as reinforcements, former henchmen or apprentices take over where their master failed, you could even do an elaborate back track to a new set of adventurers and start the story before the events of the previous parties death and weave them into the plot ahead of time, if your really cleaver, you can find ways to demonstrate that they were involved in previous events and bring them forward in the story.
You also, don't have to come up with this solution on your own, maybe your players have ideas better pertaining to your plot and their preferences. It's D&D, just make it up.
The GoT ending was fine. The execution was severely lacking, but in terms of story elements there wasn't anything wrong with it (to me - I know there are lots of others who think otherwise). The problem really was the journey: there wasn't enough of it to make the ending worthwhile. I assume people keep their campaign interesting, otherwise they probably wouldn't care about a potential TPK.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It wasn't fine to me - it would've been fine if there was more seasons to justify what happens. But for me not enough seasons is not a problem of the story, it's a problem of the ending which could've been done by accounting for it.
The journey was universally acclaimed to a certain point. No other TV series enjoyed this much attention, those famous "watch parties", discussions on Mondays at the office and the questions "have you seen the latest?".
Whether it was an issue of ending that spat on the journey or a fine ending that required a longer journey isn't that important.
What is important is that ending the story in unsatisfying way can spoil the perception of an otherwise good journey. GoT will forever be remembered with an asterisk. Fans will say that the TV series is "worth watching but without last season" or flat out say that the ending ruined the whole thing for them. Even though the seasons before were excellent.
That was my point - automatically assuming that unsatisfying ending is OK because everyone will appreciate and remember the journey might not be the case. I wouldn't gamble my campaign on that because perception matters and I can't guarantee that my players will remember more the meat or the unsatisfying ending.
Roll new characters? Perhaps the new characters are hired to investigate what happened to the last crew, and thus they're injected into the plotline without knowing the implications of what's going on etc.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
I love this, and if I DM again this will be my take on a TPK.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
This almost completely removes any consequences to death though. Which is fine if your table is adverse to the idea of character death, but I think it removes a lot of the tension in gameplay.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
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.
To be honest, if my players expressed that they were averse to character death or wanted to lock PC death down only to "when the player consents" I would suggest we play some game *other* than D&D. To me, D&D has always had the possibility, or at low levels we might even say probability, of character death (and the possibility at low levels, but usually not at high ones, of a TPK). It's part of the game. If you don't want that possibility, I would not be willing to DM for you. I view it as akin to saying you want to play Call of Cthulhu but you don't want it to be possible for your PC to go insane. Going insane is a real risk and is a major part of the game -- taking that away would make the game effectively NOT be Call of Cthulhu.
So, if a group of players said to me that they are averse to the idea of PC death, I would suggest we play a much more non-lethal game instead. Champions comes to mind, first and foremost, because the majority of damage done in that game is "stun" damage which knocks you out, but doesn't kill you. In fact in all my years playing Champions, not a single PC ever died due to dice rolling. And only one NPC ever did (when he was hit by the most powerful villain ever created, at the start of a giant mega-battle -- and the reason I did it was to let the players know just how uber this villain was). I'm perfectly happy to run a non-lethal Champions game because that's how the superhero genre works -- nobody ever dies, or at least stays dead even when it seems like they did (e.g., Bucky, Jean Grey, Robin 2, Robin 4, Dove, Dove 2, Captain America, Superman, Batman, Peter Parker, Supergirl....). So it fits with the genre.
But non-lethal games do not fit with my conception of D&D, so... if the table wants that, either we play a different game entirely, or someone else needs to DM.
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.