Is it bad if a villain's defeat is anti climactic? Or is it OK if it was a result of the player's actions?

Tonight we had a pretty good session, the party managed to chase down a bad guy who ambushed them right after they cleared a dungeon and ran off with their treasure. They ran him down and cornered him in a coffin he was hiding in, where they proceeded to chop him to pieces the instant they opened it and found him there.

It was probably the right thing to do too since he would've had a chance to escape at some point otherwise. But one of my players mentioned having a whole arc planned out in his head where the villain escaped, only for him (the villain's former pupil) to chase him down and have a final climactic battle.

Makes me wonder if next time, maybe it would be a good idea to just make things play out that way or at least strongly nudge it in that direction instead of just standing back and letting things play out how they do.

Maybe there's some way to turn this around?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;871673Is it bad if a villain's defeat is anti climactic? Or is it OK if it was a result of the player's actions?

If by "anti-climactic" you mean "'happened more easily than expected," I would say it's fine. Sometimes the players kick ass with awesome rolls, they come up with a great idea or your villain just isn't as tough as you thought, all of which has happened in my games. I'm cool with it. Kudos to them!

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;871673Is it bad if a villain's defeat is anti climactic? Or is it OK if it was a result of the player's actions?

Tonight we had a pretty good session, the party managed to chase down a bad guy who ambushed them right after they cleared a dungeon and ran off with their treasure. They ran him down and cornered him in a coffin he was hiding in, where they proceeded to chop him to pieces the instant they opened it and found him there.

It was probably the right thing to do too since he would've had a chance to escape at some point otherwise. But one of my players mentioned having a whole arc planned out in his head where the villain escaped, only for him (the villain's former pupil) to chase him down and have a final climactic battle.

Makes me wonder if next time, maybe it would be a good idea to just make things play out that way or at least strongly nudge it in that direction instead of just standing back and letting things play out how they do.

Maybe there's some way to turn this around?

This is a style thing, but for me I just let the dice fall where they may on this stuff.

Not at all.

There's nothing worse, as a player, to feel that my actions and successes have no bearing on the plot, and that the plot will resolve only when the GM is good and ready to let it.

Allowing the PCs to have a walkover if they make all the right decisions in half the time I expected -- or, alternately, if they have outrageous dice luck -- is well worth them not feeling impotent.

I let the dice fall where they may and if that means an easy win, then it means an easy win.

If your players want something more "cinematic", such as the epic story arc in the former pupil's head, then there are ways to do that without having to resort to outright GM fiat, such as various flavors of Luck Point/Fate Point mechanics (most of which stipulate that major NPCs should get points, too, not only PCs).  Or if you and your group are cool with outright GM fiat, there's always the classic "The building collapsed on him - no-one could have survived that!" approach.

I think its fine most of the time. I try to let the dice fall where they may and if I do that for the players its only fair to handle it the same way for NPCs. And those freaky fluke rolls, amazing plans and astounding comebacks are the stuff of great gaming war stories.

But at the end of the day it comes down to how you feel your players are enjoying it. Did they like the victory or feel disappointed? You're the best judge for what will work at your table.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;871673It was probably the right thing to do too since he would've had a chance to escape at some point otherwise. But one of my players mentioned having a whole arc planned out in his head where the villain escaped, only for him (the villain's former pupil) to chase him down and have a final climactic battle.

Makes me wonder if next time, maybe it would be a good idea to just make things play out that way or at least strongly nudge it in that direction instead of just standing back and letting things play out how they do.

Ultimately you are the one who is best in a position to judge what will entertain the players at your table, so do what you want here. But I would caution about this impulse to fudge or tweak because it basically takes a well deserved victory from the players. This player raised a concern, but how do the others feel. My response to this sort of thing would be to tell the player that I go out of my way to avoid things like railroads and that plot pacing isn't something I tend to put a premium on (precisely because it can nudge the GM toward railroading). This is something I've come to after years and years of trying different approaches. my aim is to preserve the agency of the characters and to things even handedly. If it is really an issue for him, talk to the other players. Because if I was a player in that group I would resent that we suddenly start fudging and railroading because one guy wants to play out a plot in his head.

Bad? No.

It may be sad that it wasn't more spectacular, but if it was the result of player actions it's far better to allow their success whether or not it ends up being spectacular. One minor example from popular fiction is in the first Indiana Jones movie in Eygpt when Indy quickly shoots the dangerous looking Arab swordsman. Much less climactic than a big swashbuckling sword fight, but still surprising and fun.

And if the player really wanted a big confrontation with the bad guy, he should have told the other players.

A PC saying, "No firends. Stand back. I will face this caitiff villain alone! Once he was the master and now he will find out what I have learned." would be a lot more dramatic and climactic than you engineering something.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;871691Ultimately you are the one who is best in a position to judge what will entertain the players at your table, so do what you want here. But I would caution about this impulse to fudge or tweak because it basically takes a well deserved victory from the players. This player raised a concern, but how do the others feel. My response to this sort of thing would be to tell the player that I go out of my way to avoid things like railroads and that plot pacing isn't something I tend to put a premium on (precisely because it can nudge the GM toward railroading). This is something I've come to after years and years of trying different approaches. my aim is to preserve the agency of the characters and to things even handedly. If it is really an issue for him, talk to the other players. Because if I was a player in that group I would resent that we suddenly start fudging and railroading because one guy wants to play out a plot in his head.

Quote from: Bren;871695Bad? No.

It may be sad that it wasn't more spectacular, but if it was the result of player actions it's far better to allow their success whether or not it ends up being spectacular. One minor example from popular fiction is in the first Indiana Jones movie in Eygpt when Indy quickly shoots the dangerous looking Arab swordsman. Much less climactic than a big swashbuckling sword fight, but still surprising and fun.

And if the player really wanted a big confrontation with the bad guy, he should have told the other players.

A PC saying, "No firends. Stand back. I will face this caitiff villain alone! Once he was the master and now he will find out what I have learned." would be a lot more dramatic and climactic than you engineering something.

Well, what actually happened was this:

The party entered a dark subterranean underworld filled with horrible monsters and the tomb of a legendary necromancer. They new their enemy, a wizard, was after the legendary necromancer's tome, which by legend was kept somewhere there. They wanted to beat him there.

So they went through dozens of terrifying monsters, spine chilling crypts, mystical puzzles, and such, where they lost or nearly lost some PCs along the way. Finally they get to the final tomb, where the legendary necromancer himself rests, and it seals them in, releasing poison gas. A revenant appears that demands they pay their lives as tribute for daring to disturb the necromancer's rest.

After a climactic battle where they manage to disable the poison gas mechanism and defeat the revenant, they find the tome in the room. Completely drained and on the way out of the tomb, feeling proud of their success, the enemy wizard ambushes them.

He didn't know how to get into the tomb (there was a puzzle) so he waited for them to solve it instead, and now him and his Orc henchman who was as tough as the party's best fighters was demanding the tome from them in exchange for their lives. They all fight, the wizard uses Invisibility to hide from them, while the Orc drops one of the party to 0 and uses him as a hostage to get the book.

The wizard cackles, receiving the book, but one of the players, the Orc's rival, tries to free the hostage. Instead the hostage gets his neck ripped open (two failed saving throws) and is tossed aside while they duel.

One of the other PCs manages to save the dying player just in time, and together they beat the Orc.

Now they have to find the wizard. They fan out in the cavern and look around, eventually tracing footsteps and other clues to the tomb where they first found the tome.

Once they enter the necromancer's tomb again, a trap is released springing poison gas on them all again. They realize the wizard must be hiding here after all, to activate the trap. They open the coffin that the necromancer was stowed in, and find the wizard hiding in there.

The two PCs who find him, "see red" and smash their weapons into the wizard's helpless body until it's just mangled up meat. The others cry "we need him alive" but they can't be stopped.

So after all that they searched the body, found some scrolls and potions, and are dragging the corpse back up to town with them.

If he had escaped though, it would have been a long plot arc about trying to recapture him and the tome that he robbed from the players. Since he was Invisible, it wouldn't have been hard for him to escape either. I just happened to have him decide to camp out in the tomb with all the defensive traps instead of trying to brave sneaking away while the party was searching the cave. That would have made the difference.

First, fuck "plot arc."  Fuck it to death in the mouth with a stick.  If you want preplanned plot arcs that unfold according to your desires, write a book.

Second, never, EVER rob players of a success.  What happened was perfect.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;871696Well, what actually happened was this:

Sounds like a very satisfying ending to me.

Heck, the players were lucky all that smashing didn't mangle the scrolls and break the vials containing the potions.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;871673Is it bad if a villain's defeat is anti climactic? Or is it OK if it was a result of the player's actions?

In a regular RPG it's always ok. Remember YOU CAN ALWAYS MAKE ANOTHER - in this case, another villain. Let the PCs have the victories they earned.

In games with story-creation/narrativist elements, there may be mechanical story-creation elements that keep villains alive until dramatically appropriate. I think these are fine in pure Storygames where everyone knows "we are creating a story together", not trad RPG "we are assuming roles". But mixed systems can be very frustrating - eg I rem playing Savage Worlds and there was a biker chief with Bennies, when we shot at him it felt like our bullets were bouncing off him Terminator-style. It was very immersion-breaking.

Quote from: S'mon;871710But mixed systems can be very frustrating - eg I rem playing Savage Worlds and there was a biker chief with Bennies, when we shot at him it felt like our bullets were bouncing off him Terminator-style. It was very immersion-breaking.

Does not the same bullets "bouncing off him Terminator-style" occur with the PCs? And if so, is that less immersion-breaking for your group?

To put this in context, I have mixed feelings about bennies causing bullets (or other damage) to miss the PC. It's slightly less annoying in Honor+Intrigue since black powder weapons in fiction (and sometimes in reality) will misfire or could be stopped by armor. And in H+I only Heroes and Villains get to do that. Lieutenants, important retainers, and pawns of either the allied or the opposing forces don't have* bennies.


* While it is possible for a Retainer to, via a Boon, start with or temporarily gain a Fortune Point based on certain corner cases, it is extremely unusual in practice.

Quote from: Bren;871709Sounds like a very satisfying ending to me.

Heck, the players were lucky all that smashing didn't mangle the scrolls and break the vials containing the potions.

It actually broke some. Just not all.

Would it be a cop out to figure out some way for this villain to return?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;871722Would it be a cop out to figure out some way for this villain to return?

You can do whatever you want, but again, if I were a player in the group, and I could discern you were doing this to please the one player who said he wanted some kind of climactic showdown with the guy, I'd feel a bit cheated. Especially if it was clear you planted the means of return after the fact. I'd say it would be a cop out in my view. But I don't know your group. Maybe they all agree with the guy who wanted the epic showdown.