Quote from: Bren;871721Does not the same bullets "bouncing off him Terminator-style" occur with the PCs? And if so, is that less immersion-breaking for your group?

I was just thinking about that - yes, for some reason I think it is less immersion breaking for me to save my own PC with a bennie, than to see my target do the same. Something about the subjective viewpoint.
That said, I like systems like 4e D&D that conspire to keep PCs alive without explicit metagame mechanics like Bennies & Fate Points.

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?

It isn't bad and it is OK.

Not everything needs to be a full-on battle. Remember the scene in the first Indiana Jones film with the scimitar wielding arab? Indy just shooting him was a perfect moment in the film. As a matter if interest, they were going to have a full-on battle, but ran out of time/light, so went for the easy alternative.

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

In general, that is how I would see it.

There are two exceptions. The first is genre. If the game is based on comic book superheroes, pulp stories like those of Sax Rohmer, or Hammer Vampire films where the Joker, Magneto, Fu Manchu, and Dracula are always returning from defeat or apparent death or destruction, then as a player I won't be too surprised if villains I thought were dead return. Nor am I likely to be too upset if that's the sort of game I wanted and expected. Though even then there is still a caveat. I prefer a style of play that lets the dice fall where they may. So if the dice clearly indicate that the villain is dead, well then I expect the villain is dead unless the system provides some way for the villain to survive certain death. (And then I would expect that method or a similar method would apply to the PCs as well).

The second is system. In Honor+Intrigue both the heroes and the main villain(s) have Fortune Points that can (in some circumstances) be used to save them from death. For example, a hero or villain can use 1 FP to turn a hit with a black powder weapon into a near miss. So when the infamous Spanish Assassin known as The Left Hand of God was apparently killed by being shot in the heart by a Crack Shot. The player who shot him knew the the Villain might still have a FP or two that he could use to turn the shot into a normal hit or maybe even a miss. Thus the player (though not the character) had a pretty good idea that a bullet in the chest followed by falling off the Pont Neuf to sink below the surface did not mean that the Assassin was dead--to the contrary, the lack of a body meant he probably survived. (Note that this example combines both genre and system.)

Quote from: S'mon;871724I was just thinking about that - yes, for some reason I think it is less immersion breaking for me to save my own PC with a bennie, than to see my target do the same. Something about the subjective viewpoint.
That said, I like systems like 4e D&D that conspire to keep PCs alive without explicit metagame mechanics like Bennies & Fate Points.

Thanks for explaining further. I think a fair number of players feel the same way you do. Of course a fair number don't so keeping everyone happy all the time is impossible.

I've had it happen a few times and honestly sometimes its a little frustrating. Alas poor villain. Never got to show off. But more often I am very happy that the players actually thought things through enough to pull it off.

Most recent was the PCs up against a white dragon. They wheeled and dealed some assistance which prevented the dragon using its regional powers and then got into a beam war with it. No one got dropped. Though two of the three were close. The only way it could have been worse is if they had lured it into a narrow tunnel to further curtail its power.

One from Spelljammer a decade ago saw the PCs mopping the floor with the the mind flayers god. Really. It should have been harder! But the players worked well together and pulled out every trick they had before and during.

I agree with others posting that tweaking the rolls may steal away the players effort. They worked to set up an easier win. Why make that effort useless just to grandstand?

But.

As ever. If the players like or even demand challenging foes no matter. Then go for it.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;871698First, 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.

One of my riffs, which I've had to do a number of times, is to take my several pages of loving, unused prep work, smile sweetly, and dramatically throw it over my shoulder. §

The players typically fall over themselves apologizing, which draws my expected "You were in this to win, weren't you?" The rest of the session tends to segue into back-at-town freelancing and shopping sprees.


§ - ... from which, after the session, I rescue them from the cats and stuff them into my Old Adventuring Stuff formula.  On form, about a decade later, I'll file off the serial numbers and reuse it with a new group.

Anti-climatic fights are ones (in my experience) where the PC's found it too easy and don't feel satisfied with their efforts.  

Some players like easy fights, others feel cheated, even if it's just die rolls being stellar.  There's no right or wrong here.

I've had a couple.  But the one I remember most was in D&D 3.5: I had a group of 4 Level 10s (the basic food group, Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue) take down a level 30 Red Dragon that simply couldn't do anything to save it's life, the battle lasted 4 rounds and ended with it dead, between the constant crits and flubbed saving throws (including it's spell resistance.)  This was after three actual years of hunting the bastard down.

After the fight, wherein they actually took minimal damage, the players just sat there.  And then the Rogue player ask, "That's it?  Really?"

Then the players IMMEDIATELY decided that it couldn't have been the 'real' one, despite that, yeah it really was.  Luckily for me, I clued in pretty fast that time, and 'agreed' and changed the loot to reflect THEIR choices, and so they set back onto the quest to find the real Mountain Storm, Derenthuranax.

That crew still don't know how much scrambling I had to do to make it seem like it was my plan all along.

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

Barring genre conventions, as Bren correctly pointed out, you need to be very, very, very wary of the notion.

First off, why?  What is so uber, amazing and incredible about this bad guy that you just have to reuse him right away?  What do you gain by doing so to offset the risk of the players getting pissed off or feeling cheated?

Secondly, why bother?  Nothing prevents you from creating new villains.  The archetypes for bad guys are legion, and there are hundreds of thousands of fictional villains you can file the serial numbers off and use if you're stuck for inspiration.

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

Unless he came back through some mechanism which had already been clearly shown to the players (e.g., they had previously gone through his tower and seen a chamber full of half-grown clones), it would certainly feel to me like a cop-out if you retconned a way to bring him back.  Although, that said, vanilla D&D has ye olde Resurrection spell, which is well-known and allows reconstructing someone from just about any piece of their corpse, so you could do it.

Personally, I wouldn't like it as a player even then, unless we knew there was a contingency plan and had failed to defeat it.  I'd feel like we beat him fair and square, so he has no business coming back.  Considering all the hell they went through to finally corner and beat him, I don't think I'd even classify it as anti-climactic.

I do see one way he could come back without pissing me off, though...  You mentioned that, as he was being pulped in the coffin, the other PCs were saying they needed him alive.  If the PCs were to arrange to have him raised/resurrected, then they obviously can't complain of foul play, since it's their own actions deliberately bringing him back.  And if he should happen to escape after they do so...

But even in that scenario, as a GM, I wouldn't push the players to bring him back, nor would he escape by fiat.

Quote from: nDervish;871774I do see one way he could come back without pissing me off, though...  You mentioned that, as he was being pulped in the coffin, the other PCs were saying they needed him alive.  If the PCs were to arrange to have him raised/resurrected, then they obviously can't complain of foul play, since it's their own actions deliberately bringing him back.  And if he should happen to escape after they do so...

But even in that scenario, as a GM, I wouldn't push the players to bring him back, nor would he escape by fiat.

What a great idea! And simply reminding the players of that fact wouldn't really count as pushing.

GM: "Bill, Sue, last time we played, you mentioned that you needed the villain alive. I supposed you could always try to get him resurrected."

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


...!!!...

Maybe it's due to the summary format, but that seemed anything but anticlimactic. I might even need a moist towelette and a refractory period.

Sometimes players can be as keen on railroads as GMs. The player may be disappointed that they don't have the Monarch to arch them anymore, but you can upgrade them to Phantom Limb or David Bowie. The members of the League of Calamitous Intent are uncountable.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;871696The 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.

Sounds fine to me, the PCs saw an opportunity and took it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;871696If 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.

It seems to me that you had planned a wonderful plot where the wizard escaped and the PCs have to wander the countryside to find him.

By killing him quickly and easily, the only person cheated is you, as the GM. My advice would be to enjoy the moment, let it go and carry on.

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

Why?

The only reason to do this would be to continue the plot story that you had planned previously. As the PCs have managed to defeat a powerful enemy, what would be the point of bringing him back?

Bear in mind, the PCs are currently taking his body back to town. If I had been playing, his head would be in a sack and we'd burn the body, just to make sure he couldn't come back - You can't be too careful around wizards.

If you brought him back, then do it as a Lich or similar undead, his soul reaching from the dead and magically animating hos body. Do it in town, so the PCs can be told that his body has disappeared from a morgue or storage room. Then the PCs can hunt the undead horror.

However, if they burn the body, chop the head off or whatever, then don't bring him back. You can always have a friend/brother/companion of the wizard turn up to wreak revenge on the PCs instead.

Quote from: soltakss;871803You can always have a friend/brother/companion of the wizard turn up to wreak revenge on the PCs instead.

Revenge is a dish best served cold. I talk about mechanizing this kind of grudge or revenge consequence in a couple of posts, here and here based on using a Grudge Table, which is an idea I got from Bedrock Brendan's blog.

I take anti-climactic villain defeats as a sign that the GM is actually allowing the game to play out how it plays out, which I very much like and appreciate.

I take concern about anti-climactic villain defeats, to be a warning sign that the GM (including me, if it's me) is trying to force a style or an outcome, which I tend to dislike and want to avoid.

I've certainly experienced this as a GM many times, both for villains and just for situations, where the players suddenly undercut my expectations by doing something clever or getting lucky or whatever. I've had my kneejerk "oh no!" responses and thought to invent or force something to counter these moments, but on later reflection and experience, I consider these to be player high points and to learn to be excited by and to go with them, instead. They can take a story in new, fun, and exciting directions, because they can open up new possibilities.

Also, I've very much not appreciated it when the GM reacts this way when I'm playing. If I surprise them by doing and accomplishing things they didn't expect, it can really stink if they then decide they need to keep me in line with some response that's mostly about them trying to impose their expectations...

However the line between reasonable/logical world reaction and GM control can be tricky to find in actual play, sometimes. It reminds me of when someone has a hard case of "life is hard and requires X to succeed" and then tries to tell people who live differently that they're unrealistic or spoiled or whatever, which is really about the sour attitude and world view of the speaker (or GM in this case).

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;871673Is it bad if a villain's defeat is anti climactic?

I'm interested in setting up a fun game rather than in telling a story, so I'll say it's probably a sign that either the scenario was not thought out well enough, or there's been a remarkable string of luck.  

To some extent, the potential of the latter should be taken into account in design.  This becomes more important when you're publishing a game to be played many times.  If about 10 thousand groups will play it, then something that has one chance in a thousand is likely to happen in about 10 of those.

What's harder to anticipate is players coming up with a brilliant strategy.  Sometimes, I just won't have the imagination to see what someone else ends up seeing.

My own preference is to let the results of such luck or insight stand.  I find 'fudging', changing the rules in the middle of play, usually a bad idea because it verges on the GM making player choice irrelevant.

However, the highest priority is fun for all, so I say let your knowledge of the folks involved be your guide.

Something simmilar happened to me as the OPs scenario.

Easy and fun solution.

This wizard was killed off hiding in some crypt right?

He's been cheated of the power he thought he deserved. And thus rises as a spectre or wraith to stalk and confound the PCs later. Perhaps he is focused on getting that book. Or maybe he continues his goal. Except now using undead like skeletons and other lesser undead for the plan.

Since this was the crypt of a necromancer it makes even more horrible sense. Possibly that orc rises too.