I think people make a point here to remain polite and have cool discussions. It’s the one thing I love the most about the blog after 2 1/2 years… I’m even surprised how I managed to avoid trolls in so long. (Not that I’m complaining).

When you can’t pay the logical price (due to either the aforementioned time constraints, or the “I don’t want to TPK a bunch of newbies” constraint), then you’ve got to punt your way out of it.

Even though I wrote about avoiding the retcon, this is one situation where it might be a Good Thing to roll back time and get the point across. After all, is everyone on the same page? Does the party really understand what they’re doing, or did the GM somehow fail to get that point across?

PS: Love the discussion here. Very polite and welcoming.
.-= Telas´s last blog ..Gnome Rodeo: 2010 is Blowing up with GMing Links =-.

(1) The GM wanted to give the PCs script immunity.
(2) His only method for giving them script immunity was to cross his fingers and hope the dice didn’t kill them.

There are quite a few ways to mitigate the risk of the dice (not designing a TPK encounter for a group of newbies is the obvious first step that this GM apparently missed), but mitigating the problem doesn’t actually make the problem go away.

There are only two solutions:

(1) Don’t give the PCs script immunity. (This may or may not be a good idea, depending on the group in question. But I think the premise that “newbies shouldn’t suffer a TPK” is a weak one. It’s like saying that a newbie Chess player should never be allowed to lose their first game; or saying that a newbie to Arkham Horror should always win the game. The assumption that “if they lose, they’ll never want to play again” doesn’t seem to be true for other games; so why should it be true for RPGs?)

(2) Implement a robust mechanism for script immunity. And, preferably, establish it upfront. “Sands of Time”-style rewind buttons can be useful for newbie groups who are learning (since they can now immediately apply the lessons from their mistakes to the exact same scenario). Or give everybody a “He’s Not Dead Jim” card that they can play at any time to have their character suffer merely unconsciousness (or some other miraculous mistake) instead of death can work. On a limited scale, have their employer cast contingency recovery spells on them for this newbie scenario (so that if they’re seriously injured, they’ll get teleported to the nearest church for raising).

If it was my game, the solution would be simple: What happens next? And can I make it interesting?

(A TPK, by the way, can still be interesting.)
.-= Justin Alexander´s last blog ..The Faceless Rage =-.

First of all, how does making no noise convince people to leave? That sounds to me more like a way to lead people into an ambush.

Anyway, what I see as a common element in both the high-level bandits and the polymorphed ghouls is what they call on The Simpsons “a case of the s’posedtas.” The PCs weren’t “s’posedta” confront the higher-level enemies. The ghouls were “s’posedta” cut off escape and act as ambushers. The other PCs weren’t “s’posedta” come back and warn the straggler. If some part of a plot or premise or trap can be described using the phrases “supposed to” or “meant to,” that should be the biggest, brightest flag around. The next thing a DM should ask himself upon encountering a s’posedta is “Suppose they don’t?” (My main experience with this was a group of villains who were s’posedta be tough and recurring, but who were vaped by the mage who was s’posedta be casting level-appropriate spells, but had picked up a fireball scroll.)

I agree that violent reactions and deadly outcomes don’t always have to be the norm. I strongly disagree about knocking out or capturing PCs, as that’s generally more punishing (by way of being frustrating and boring) than people playing a friendly game deserve. It’s also a cliche in RPGs and the media they’re based on. If the PCs insist on fighting something they can’t beat, or continuing to fight something that for whatever reason has them dead to rights, there are usually plenty of perfectly rational and interesting ways for the bad guys to fall short. In the case of the high-level bandits, I thought immediately of having the bandits simply vanish, ninja-like from the cabin. They’ve got a high-level magic user who (under that system) could have numerous options to avoid a fight. That was my first thought.

Second thought was related to another question I read about on the internet: a dragon got lucky and its breath recharged frequently during a battle. One more breath and PCs would start to fall, probably leading to a TPK. I suggested that the dragon ready in an obvious manner to use its breath and then… talk. Explain to the PCs that the fight could continue, or they could drop their weapons, and listen to a job he has for them. The players would then have the choice to continue and the information (about the recharge of the dragon’s breath) to make an informed choice.

This approach could, I think be used in the situation described above. The PCs knock down the door and are ambushed, but find the enemy with readied actions. The fact that the enemy heard them coming and was ready for them should tip the PCs to the power of the NPCs, but I don’t think it’s metagaming to tell them when they’re face-to-face with their opponents how tough those opponents appear. The air warps and crackles around the magic-user (perhaps with a powerful spell the PCs recognize); the big, well-muscled fighters are very well armed and armored, with stances that belie their agility, speed, and strength; the rogues are simply nowhere to be seen, even in this small, well-lit room and perhaps they are the ones to address the PCs, explaining that there doesn’t need to be a fight and that they can all help each other out. Maybe there’s someone else the NPCs are more scared of than the PCs, and the PCs can help deal with that threat. Maybe there’s been a misunderstanding. Maybe this has all been a test (entering cliche territory, but what the heck, at least it’s not boring.) Basically, if fighting is the only “realistic” thing the NPCs would do, the DM should feel free to change or create certain details so that it’s realistic for them /not/ to want to fight. Such details can be created ahead of time and simply discarded if the players do what they’re s’posedta.

(Incidentally, along with the description of the enemy, I really don’t think it’s metagaming or too destructive to immersion to roughly – or even precisely – outline what the defense numbers of the enemies are. Most people can look at a target and see how hard it’s going to be to hit, and even slightly experienced fighters can (at least in fiction) tell how well-trained and generally tough his opponent is. If mental defenses are involved, it’s reasonable to expect that those who attack such defenses have the means of probing or otherwise sensing them.)

In the case of the ghoul-trees, well that’s a good advertisement for /not/ running constrained adventures like that. I don’t know exactly how the module was written, but if it’s just that the ghouls attack when disrupted or poked then perhaps the idea of “attack” can be looked at. Maybe they’re slow at first, teasing and taunting their victim, plucking at her hair and clothes, whispering threats, wallowing in her increasing fear. Maybe only one attacks at first. Maybe they all attack, but are not at full strength and are easily repelled; she either runs as they get stronger, or they run when her allies hear the combat, only to return later. Yeah, the PCs will know about the threat now, but that’s their reward for the PC’s inquisitiveness.

I’m sure there are written reasons why some of that can’t occur. The writer had in mind how the monsters were “s’posedta” interact with the PCs, failing to take into accout other approaches. That’s unfortunate. All I can advise is to stretch the instructions in the module as far as they can go. I doubt the module specifically forbids the ghouls from cackling loud enough to attract the other PCs. I doubt it requires them not to savor their victory and torture the paralyzed victim long enough for the others to notice her absence and return for her.

Which leads me to another thought. The other players knew what was going on, and not one of them could come up with an in-character reason to go back to get the missing PC? Sounds like iffy teamwork to me, and a missed opportunity for that classic horror trope of the would-be victim’s friend coming back just in time to keep her from doing something dumb. It’s a roleplaying game, so the other PC can still play as if he doesn’t know what the trees are and doesn’t care, but just wants to keep the party together in a dangerous area. This puts the choice back on the PCs, and keeps the situation from relying on DM description that’s “s’posedta” be enough warning. The PC is still welcome to poke at the trees, but it’s her choice and now maybe there’s at least one other PC close enough to extricate her.

This went long, and I’m probably off the mark. Maybe I should just write my own blog….

The ghouls were meant to cut off escape for the adventurers, once they had entered the chapel, and to act as ambushers. They turned out to be very effective in that regard. They weren’t put there to guard a hidden treasure.

@Cr0m: A post in player assumption of what the DM would or would not do is indeed a great idea. Sent it on the ideas pile for further percolating.

@Noumenon: Have the danger rip some fairly significant NPCs to shreds in front of the PCs.

Or more importantly, ask yourself ‘why do they have to run here?’” and make the danger that forces running away painfully oblivious. Lava flowing down a corridor usually works.

If you’re asking me “How can I force my player to fear my NPCs?” I’d say you can’t. You can attempt to scare your players but you can’t force players to have PCs act scared. If you think so, we’ll need to have a long discussion with a few beers. This is a perfect “show don’t tell’ example.

Has anybody got an idea for how to turn the player’s reaction to the zombie trees from “Hmm, I’m digging deeper and deeper into a mystery here, I’m about to figure something out” to “Run!“

For what it’s worth, plenty of experienced players make the same mistake all the time: “the DM wouldn’t put these guys here if we weren’t supposed to kill them”. (It’s actually a pretty interesting topic for the D&D Blogosphere–hint, hint ChattyDM–how do you show “badassery” without giving away meta-game information?)

A blog post called “Situations not Plots” @ Ars Ludi helped me immensely with avoiding exactly the kind of thing you ran into. Almost an identical situation, actually.

Here’s the link:
http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/49/situations-not-plots/

I’ll be re-writing the module and incorporate some of the pointers from everyone. Most specifically opening up the storyline tremendously. As someone else pointed out, by creating too narrow of a storyline it actually makes adapting to the Players more difficult. The irony is that my worry was that the party would do something unexpected and I wouldn’t be able to keep up. In reality I made it possible to derail the plot by having one in the first place!

So what?

I mean, think of all the new possibilities that this presents. By holding the PCs for ransom, maybe the bandits tick somebody else off, somebody who likes the PCs. Maybe this pushes them to urge more aggressive action against the bandits, tipping a political balance and dramatically shifting how things work in the game. There is no such thing as an “insignificant side quest”, if you look at it right. Everything is an opportunity to enrich the story.

@Chatty: Very nice look at things. I see the Mouse Guarding is paying off. Which is cool, because it’s really something that’s strongly growing to influence my own approach to storytelling, at least, once I get around to GMing a group of something. I can definitely see how these concepts are clicking into place. It’s a very different paradigm from the standard D&D gamers’ approach to things (“find things, complete quests, kill and loot”), and I like it far better.

@cr0m: I dunno, the situation doesn’t seem problematic to me. Sure, the situation was presented to the PCs as “track down and kill the bandits”, but how does that ensure that the situation as presented was accurate and fair? What if whoever sent them on this quest had flawed information about the strength of the bandits? What if their numbers have suddenly swelled? If you think about it, the DM isn’t actually under any obligation to be completely truthful about the situation.

Why should he give them misleading or incomplete information? Well, as long as such information isn’t a death sentence, they can recover from it, and it adds more crimps and crinkles to the plot, which is always good. Of course, there should also be an in-game justification for the incorrect info (“they didn’t know all the facts”, “there was a traitor in the King’s court who misled them”, etc.). It’s not about the DM opposing the players, yet fighting fair. It’s about the DM getting the players into trouble, then making sure they can get out.

@General Comments: It seems to me that this group of players wasn’t necessarily stupid so much as “spoiled”. They had this idea that because the DM wouldn’t TPK them, they were nigh invincible when facing impossible odds. So they did the only logical thing: they called the DM’s bluff. They knew he didn’t want to TPK, so they walked into the jaws of death, knowing that he’d bend over backwards to avoid it.

So I really like the idea of imposing consequences other than death, especially because such consequences can be (to the player) worse than death. I mean, your character dies, many players roll up a new character. But if your character’s imprisoned, and thus capable of far less for a few days, that greatly restricts you, and you can’t roll up a new character.
.-= Andy´s last blog ..An Examination of Epic, Part I =-.

But the real problem is the situation that the DM presented the players with. With that situation (track down a group of guys), it’s reasonable to assume that you’re supposed to try to catch the bandits and take back the stolen item.

If the DM actually wanted to play out a different situation (steal back the key, for example), he needed to present the situation differently to the players. It wouldn’t be out of line to tell them “these guys are too tough for a fair fight” or “this wizard can kill you all with a word”.

Then he can be free to arrange the opposition and react to whatever the newbies come up with.