I love my Christmas presents! Let's see, how about start reading the brand new 5E DMG - I heard that they tried to harken back to the good ol' days!
flip, flip, flip.......
Random Encounter Challenge
Random encounters need not be level-appropriate for the adventurers,
Ok, with you so far...
but it's considered bad form to slaughter a party using a random encounter
Huh, but isn't that the fun or random encounters....?!
since most players consider this ending to be an unsatisfying one.
Sigh. Sorry, I really wanted to get behind this edition, but mixing "bad form", "slaughter", and "unsatisfactory" in the same sentence makes me realize that I drank too much of the Kool-Aid.
Honestly, I'm not into random encounter TPK. I prefer not to have TPKs happen at all.
I mean, they happen, sometimes because I misjudged things, sometimes because my players misjudged things, and sometimes because the dice just fall that way, but suggesting against intentionally putting them in a TPK situation isn't the horrible advice you make it out to be.
5e, at low level especially, can be pretty deadly as it is.
But yeah, let's nitpick about how 5e D&D isn't manly enough again by picking 1 or 2 sentences out and declaring it crap. Honestly, it just sounds like you are looking for shit to bitch about.
Actually flipped through this at my local Hastings today. It looks really good. There is definitely a nod to the old school with lots of random charts for stuff... and the first fifty pages or so, are all about creating your own homebrew campaign world.
WOTC gets a +1 for going in the right direction. Still took them ten years to produce after I told them what would sell.
I love random loot charts. You have no idea how oddly happy the random loot charts make me. As a DM, I don't even roll them ahead of time, I love rolling them at the table and being just as surprised as the players by what they find. (For sentient creatures though, I sometimes have to roll ahead of time, otherwise it is weird that they had a +1 sword and weren't using it).
Quote from: Emperor Norton;806139Honestly, I'm not into random encounter TPK. I prefer not to have TPKs happen at all.
...
Part of the problem is that many of the current generation of D&D players will not necessarily run away if they start getting their asses kicked.
Because for many years with organized play, many D&D PC's have gone into every "encounter" with the assumption that they will win.
Previous editions with their emphasis on "balanced encounters" have literally trained players into believing that they can win every fight.
Remember, there are no XP awards in the rules for running away...
The passages from the new DMG Tyndale quoted say it all:
Quote from: Tyndale;806136but it's considered bad form to slaughter a party using a random encounter...
since most players consider this ending to be and unsatisfying one.
...
...
They have the unwritten assumption that the players
will not run away if over-matched !!! and will all fight to the death for a TPK!!?
WTF!Naturally every GM on this board and their players are special snowflakes. And may exempt themselves from this broad criticism.
Let's try to prevent this from being the PvP thread all over again.
Fine, the OP went a little over the top with "gaming dmg" (damage I assume), but he has a valid point.
Quote from: 5e DMGRandom Encounter Challenge
Random encounters need not be level-appropriate for the adventurers, but it's considered bad form to slaughter a party using a random encounter since most players consider this ending to be and unsatisfying one.
Now, does the DMG add in there "but, some players enjoy the thrill and excitement of traveling in a dangerous area and are willing to risk the consequences, so TPKs as a result of a random encounter need not be actively avoided in all cases?"
No. It does not. It reinforces the modern gaming paradigm of "it's the character's story", "characters should live", "players should succeed", etc.
Following the 5e DMG advice leads to campaigns where at 3rd level the PCs want to cross the Dragon Peaks by navigating Giant Pass...because the GM won't let the world kill them if they do.
Which is fine, because that's obviously a popular way to play these days, but...it's NOT the only way to play and the DMG makes it sound like it is.
Does this make the DMG a bad product? No.
Does this make 5e a bad system? No.
Does it reinforce the CR paradigm present in all WotC version of D&D? Yes.
The DMG isn't outright banning TPK's due to powerful random encounters, but it is saying your player's will be unsatisfied with your bad form as a GM. A healthy does of Kool-Aid, indeed.
Following this advice then, when the players can't run into the natural inhabitants of Dragon Peak or Giant Pass (or as the DMG does say, they "should" get a chance to see the dragons first and hide from them, or the Giants might not be aggressive) because to do so would lead to "Level Inappropriate Encounters that may lead to unsatisfying slaughter and bad form". What are the GM's options?
1. Let the players do what they demand to do, nerfing the world and upsetting it's consistency in the bargain.
2. Outright tell the players they can't do that, or arrange it behind the curtain so they get sidetracked and never manage to make it there.
So we're back to OOC behavioral managing or some form of managed experience (don't want to use the R word).
What we don't have (and feel free to point me to the page if we do) is the DMG telling the GM what many consider to be a key element of the roleplaying experience, "Let the characters be free to choose their actions and let the world be free to reply with a consistent and logical response."
If this were any other game but 5e (let's say an Xworld game or WW game), honestly ask yourself, would people on this site think this point, in particular, was good gaming advice? A few would sure, but not that many.
(Don't even get me started on the Playstyle section where immersion into a deep, character and skill focused political campaign is called "Immersive Storytelling", we're at GS now I guess. ;p)
and for the Rule Zero crowd...Call me crazy, but a book with GMing advice should be capable of being criticized on the nature and worth of that advice, whether experienced GMs use it or not.
for the TL;DR crowd...The point isn't "God I love a TPK due to random encounters in the morning!" It's that the industry leader shouldn't be telling GMs a realistic world environment is "bad form".
Quote from: Emperor Norton;806139Honestly, it just sounds like you are looking for shit to bitch about.
Sorry if it came across that way. But, point taken. Yes, I can be oppositional. And yes, I was being bitchy at one sentence, but it still doesn't refute the point. Sure I could just could ignore that sentence and keep reading (which I will for the record), but I was nonetheless disappointed. I care about my players. Greatly. But qualifying "satisfaction" in terms of some method of "balance" gets (my personal) knickers in a notch and is contrary to our group's preferred play/risk style. I certainly don't want to stack things against them, but at the same time I want a risk of imminent death around the corner. Don't take that away from me for some false sense of "dissatisfaction". Satisfaction is when one runs from scary shit as much as when you thump on equal or lesser foes. Please.
Granted, I could be nitpicking here (and for the record, am). But couldn't they have said something to the effect of "please be cautious with random encounters. It would be wise to balance your groups playing style with your preferred playing style. Some groups like the risk of encountering adult red dragon at first level and some don't. Proceed with caution."
Quote from: Jaeger;806144Part of the problem is that many of the current generation of D&D players will not necessarily run away if they start getting their asses kicked.
It's not just this particular RPG, though, it's in every medium: Heroes Don't Run Away, They Power Through.
The dominant teenage entertainment medium these days is probably videogames, few of which even let the player retreat (Without going back to a quicksave, natch) but also rarely put the player out of their depth. The few games that actually require retreating and planning - eg, Dark Souls - are lauded by some groups for their difficulty, but many players tend to bounce off them or whine when they get killed by a trash mob or a clear environmental trap.
Quote from: CRKrueger;806147Fine, the OP went a little over the top with "gaming dmg" (damage I assume), but he has a valid point.
Yes, I was over the top. I will grant that.
Let's try to prevent this from being the PvP thread all over again.
Fine, the OP went a little over the top with "gaming dmg" (damage I assume), but he has a valid point.
Quote from: 5e DMGRandom Encounter Challenge
Random encounters need not be level-appropriate for the adventurers, but it's considered bad form to slaughter a party using a random encounter since most players consider this ending to be and unsatisfying one.
Now, does the DMG add in there "but, some players enjoy the thrill and excitement of traveling in a dangerous area and are willing to risk the consequences, so TPKs as a result of a random encounter need not be actively avoided in all cases?"
No. It does not. It reinforces the modern gaming paradigm of "it's the character's story", "characters should live", "players should succeed", etc.
Following the 5e DMG advice leads to campaigns where at 3rd level the PCs want to cross the Dragon Peaks by navigating Giant Pass...because the GM won't let the world kill them if they do.
Which is fine, because that's obviously a popular way to play these days, but...it's NOT the only way to play and the DMG makes it sound like it is.
Does this make the DMG a bad product? No.
Does this make 5e a bad system? No.
Does it reinforce the CR paradigm present in all WotC version of D&D? Yes.
The DMG isn't outright banning TPK's due to powerful random encounters, but it is saying your player's will be unsatisfied with your bad form as a GM. A healthy does of Kool-Aid, indeed.
Following this advice then, when the players can't run into the natural inhabitants of Dragon Peak or Giant Pass (or as the DMG does say, they "should" get a chance to see the dragons first and hide from them, or the Giants might not be aggressive) because to do so would lead to "Level Inappropriate Encounters that may lead to unsatisfying slaughter and bad form". What are the GM's options?
1. Let the players do what they demand to do, nerfing the world and upsetting it's consistency in the bargain.
2. Outright tell the players they can't do that, or arrange it behind the curtain so they get sidetracked and never manage to make it there.
So we're back to OOC behavioral managing or some form of managed experience (don't want to use the R word).
What we don't have (and feel free to point me to the page if we do) is the DMG telling the GM what many consider to be a key element of the roleplaying experience, "Let the characters be free to choose their actions and let the world be free to reply with a consistent and logical response."
If this were any other game but 5e (let's say an Xworld game or WW game), honestly ask yourself, would people on this site think this point, in particular, was good gaming advice? A few would sure, but not that many.
(Don't even get me started on the Playstyle section where immersion into a deep, character and skill focused political campaign is called "Immersive Storytelling", we're at GS now I guess. ;p)
and for the Rule Zero crowd...Call me crazy, but a book with GMing advice should be capable of being criticized on the nature and worth of that advice, whether experienced GMs use it or not.
for the TL;DR crowd...The point isn't "God I love a TPK due to random encounters in the morning!" It's that the industry leader shouldn't be telling GMs a realistic world environment is "bad form".
I would also say that in 5e you have to be a bit more careful about overpowering the players, because, once again, especially at low level, higher level monsters won't just kill you, they will kill you in ONE SHOT.
The only chance they would even HAVE to run is by spotting ahead of time, and being aware of the relative power level of the enemy before engaging it to know to avoid it. An ambush by a CR3-4 enemy in 5e against a level 1 party is almost assured to have several deaths before they can even escape.
Hell, a CR2 Cave Bear could potentially KO two level 1 characters on the first turn of combat, and has a higher movement rate than the party more than likely.
Basically, the real advice should be, if you are going to include significantly level different opponents in your random encounters, if you don't A. let your characters detect them from a distance, and B. clue in characers with the appropriate knowledge style skills to the danger level of the enemy, you are going to quickly turning the game into a blender of death that relies almost entirely on luck.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;806168Basically, the real advice should be, if you are going to include significantly level different opponents in your random encounters, if you don't A. let your characters detect them from a distance, and B. clue in characers with the appropriate knowledge style skills to the danger level of the enemy, you are going to quickly turning the game into a blender of death that relies almost entirely on luck.
You kind of have a point, but eh, you're missing something. If I decide to go into areas where wild Lions, Tigers, Leopards, and Jaguars live, there's a chance I might be attacked and not even see it coming. How do I prevent this? By not going there - or making sure I take special precautions, firearms, and friends.
Some creatures you're not gonna see coming, or you'll have to make tests to see if you do. Now the GM warns the players not at the time of encounter, so they always get one last chance to get away, but by warning them ahead of time what the world is like, so they can make
free informed choices with the understanding that they accept the possible
resultant consequences of those choices.
Far too much is made these days of Player Agency when the concern should be Character Agency.
Quote from: CRKrueger;806184If I decide to go into areas where wild Lions, Tigers, Leopards, and Jaguars live, there's a chance I might be attacked and not even see it coming. How do I prevent this? By not going there - or making sure I take special precautions, firearms, and friends.
It seems like a macroscopic version of the 'kick in the door syndrome'. I'm usually the Player who wants to make up a plan, put any odds of combat in our favor... then there are the Players who just want to burst in guns blazin'... usually because they know the GM will pull punches and let them get away with it and it's 'cool'.
Real life caravans and expeditions spent loads of time preparing and researching an area best they could so they didn't blunder in unprepared. A bit of that in-game adds to the suspense... more fun to hear foreboding tales about the Temple of Whatsit... rumours of its dangers... vs. just stumbling upon it while out 'adventuring'.
With the OP on maybe drinking the kool aid, then coming around to what the system actually is. Characters are tough in 5E. They get death saves, for one thing, which is already a safety net. Granted , at lower levels you can get smeared into a little, pulpy dirt streak, even with that, but honestly, fat chance of that when you live in CR world. No wonder you hear some players bitching about a lack of challenge--the system isn't even set up, by default, to scare them.
Quote from: Tyndale;806136Sigh. Sorry, I really wanted to get behind this edition, but mixing "bad form", "slaughter", and "unsatisfactory" in the same sentence makes me realize that I drank too much of the Kool-Aid.
In the 1st edition DMG, Gygax required the DM to adjust the difficulty of random encounters to match the expected difficulty level of the dungeon.
In
Master of the Game he also writes that the "superior role-playing game offers players continuity of play through ... avoidance of 'fatality' through some form of 'luck' or magic" (pg. 57) in order to sustain campaigns that would otherwise end due to PC death.
I think the point where people are complaining that 5E isn't hardcore enough because it's not insisting that DMs be even more lethal than Gary Gygax was the point where a demand for ideological purity has replaced common sense.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;806201In Master of the Game he also writes that the "superior role-playing game offers players continuity of play through ... avoidance of 'fatality' through some form of 'luck' or magic" (pg. 57) in order to sustain campaigns that would otherwise end due to PC death.
That's what prisoners we find in the dungeon are for... and the guy we hired as extra muscle.
Quote from: cranebump;806189With the OP on maybe drinking the kool aid, then coming around to what the system actually is. Characters are tough in 5E. They get death saves, for one thing, which is already a safety net. Granted , at lower levels you can get smeared into a little, pulpy dirt streak, even with that, but honestly, fat chance of that when you live in CR world. No wonder you hear some players bitching about a lack of challenge--the system isn't even set up, by default, to scare them.
I honestly doubt you've played the game. Unless the GM is pulling punches, 5e is pretty deadly, though probably not OD&D deadly. Though I've always found the "You are either perfectly fine, or completely dead" kind of silly. You mean, no one is ever taken out of combat then bleeds to death? So I like death saves. Also, death saves mean jack in the case of a TPK or a retreat in which on one can reasonably grab your unconscious body on the way out.
Even at higher levels, against even CR opponents, you can be taken down in only a few rounds, in fact, other than the prevalence of Save or Die in older editions, I would say that at higher levels you are MORE likely to die in 5e. (and Save or Die exists in 5e, go read the Medusa entry, its petrification ability is pretty brutal).
Also, there is a difference between
1. Including possible ambushes from creatures that would TPK the party in random encounters in areas the PCs are expected to be able to travel through.
and
2. The players travelling into areas they are told are ridiculously dangerous willfully.
I sincerely believe the advice was referring to #1, not #2.
EDIT: Dammit Justin, stop being so reasonable when I had the misconception of you being a twat. Its making me have to actually like you.
Dude, I played every packet, plus ran the basic rules in a pair of sessions recentl featuring Lvl 7-8 characters. It's pretty damned hard to die. Those characters are tough, even without the feats and widgets and bullshit tacked on. I'm not sayng GMs should be out to kill characters. I am saying it's okay to run a campaign in which the world isn't fair. Character death happens. Sometimes, it's all the characters. You're not a shitty GM if this happens. It's just part of the game.
(I think bitching about char death must be an online thing, because I've never had players who whine when characters die. We've never wiped, but there have been some 50% and more casualties, couple with flat out retreats. Sometimes we fail. Game goes on.)
So far our 5e games have felt... middle-dangerish. We had close to a TPK once (at 3rd level) and one PC died (though there may have been some GM/Player collusion there). We've been presented with a few situations where retreat was the best choice and we took it.
Mostly I think it's come down to the GM and how he's presenting stuff. It at least SEEMS like he's willing to let us die if we do stupid stuff... but we've been careful, mostly.
If the group walks outside the village and an ancient red dragon ransomly appears and targets the level 2 group without any warning or chance to wheel and deal or hide. Then Yes. That is unsatisfactory. Especially in 5e due to the fact the DM had to have deliberately put an ancient red dragon in the random encounter table.
I think what the entry in the DMG is trying to say, and failing slightly, is use some common sense. Which is really the thrust of that section anyhow. Build your random tables with some thought into the region. What makes sense to be there. Dont overuse the random encounters.
And there is the fact that an encounter might not be inherintly hostile. Something easily forgotten.
There are a whole mix of different elements going on here.
i) The desire for the DM to run a game that challenges the players but at the same time doesn't overwhelm them.
ii) The desire to run a believable world in motion.
iii) The desire for the PCs to interact with GM created content as that is "superior" to randomly created content
iv) The Heroic paradigm
The truth is that the book is right. Having the PCs killed by a random encounter is anti-climatic especially if you played the creature to the limits of its abilities. We have a thread where the books are being chastised for not making beasts scary. Well if a lion is scary how fucking scary do you think a dragon is going to be?
Take the dragon as an example. An Apex level predator with genius intellect and a single powerful weapon with limited uses per day. A creature like that is going to ambush its prey hit it with the killer weapon and then finish it off or its going to cripple its prey then toy with it like a cat if its cruel enough.
So your typical dragon will hide motionless (lizards are really good at that) then as the party approach release a breath weapon as a surprise attack. Then finish off the party with tooth and claw. Now that is going to be tough for the party sub 6 or 7th level that roll a random encounter with one.
Roll perception... okay right ... the dragon releases its breath weapon.... roll to say... okay the barbarian is still on 10 HP the rest of you are down. Barbarian roll initiative its you versus the dragon....
Random encounters work because we soften them as GMs. When a 3rd level party encounter a dragon they see it up in the sky miles off so they have time to hide. When a bunch of 3rd level PCs encounter a band of orcs the orcs haven't prepared an ambush with hidden bowmen etc etc .
When we randomised the monsters we tailored the circumstance so that the challenges were passable, and yes that meant running away sometimes but in reality the option to run away is just like a CR cap.
If you spend hours creating content for your players to consume its only natural to want them to interact with it. You don't want to spend 4 hours setting up a megadungeon with your dwarven forge scenery that cost you $1000 to have your party killed at the crossroads on the way there by a random group of bandits. In the storytelling model we even want to link those random encounters back into the bigger story. If there is an army of orcs massing to the east having a random encounter with a random group of Goblins feels weird.
The Heroic paradigm does constantly enforce the belief that retreat is failure. The governing heroic characteristic is not skill at arms or great strength its fortitude the ability to push on when all is lost and overcome great odds, we see this from Frodo to Odysseus, from Indiana Jones to Rocky (its not how hard you can hit its how hard you can get hit and still keep on going). We don't judge heroism through good tactics and the sense to know when to quit, characters like are anti-heroes, therefore its not surprising that in Heroic Roleplaying the heroic activity is the one people try to emulate.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;806204Also, there is a difference between
1. Including possible ambushes from creatures that would TPK the party in random encounters in areas the PCs are expected to be able to travel through.
and
2. The players travelling into areas they are told are ridiculously dangerous willfully.
I sincerely believe the advice was referring to #1, not #2.
Unfortunately, since they put no qualifying statements on "bad form", "not satisfying", etc other then attributing them to level inappropriate random encounters period, we'll never know what they may have possibly meant by it, just what they said.
Quote from: Omega;806216And there is the fact that an encounter might not be inherintly hostile. Something easily forgitten.
yeah, toasting random travelers seems like something a young, inexperienced dragon might find amusing... but an older one may have moved beyond such base entertainments and is less likely to be leaping out of the bushes to attack for no reason at all. There's all sorts of things it might be up to besides looking for an easy kill.
Quote from: Simlasa;806225yeah, toasting random travelers seems like something a young, inexperienced dragon might find amusing... but an older one may have moved beyond such base entertainments and is less likely to be leaping out of the bushes to attack for no reason at all. There's all sorts of things it might be up to besides looking for an easy kill.
Or the dragon is pretty beat up after trying to muscle in on someone elses lair and is at the village looking to hire adventurers. Or fakes being at full strength and tries to bully the PCs into doing the job.
Its up to the DM to make the random encounter not the equivalent of Pokemon "A wild Displacer Beast appears! Roll initiative."
Which is why I liked some older modules that had random tables with reasons why the whatits were there.
Quote from: Jaeger;806144Part of the problem is that many of the current generation of D&D players will not necessarily run away if they start getting their asses kicked.
Because for many years with organized play, many D&D PC's have gone into every "encounter" with the assumption that they will win.
Previous editions with their emphasis on "balanced encounters" have literally trained players into believing that they can win every fight.
DCC's adventure funnel idea is a great one for breaking gaming groups out of the "perfect encounter" paradigm. My group had a blast playing
Starless Sea, and the concept works in D&D as well.
One of my players was saying to me that another player won't be able to make it for a couple of months due to work. So I might want to include that when I was working out the encounters.
I just laughed. First that he thought I worked out encounters in advance and second that I was going to reduce the skill or number of the bad guys just cos there were less PCs.
However, in actual play I had already done one thing deliberately to weaken my force.
the force was a group of 200 goblins with 40 wolves,6 orc captains an Orc Shaman and his pet giant spider.
The party of 5 or 6 started at 1st level.
They were fully aware that toe to toeing with more than 10 goblins at a go was certain death.
Now I split the goblins up into raiding parties of 8 6 of foot with 2 wolf riders. The goblins were raiding travellers and spreading mayhem in these groups.
I took a bunch of magic cards and slipped in a dozen goblins. this was my wandering monster deck. If I drew a Goblin they met a raiding party. I rolled for 1 encounter every 4 hours.
On their way to the goblin base which they learned about from a goblin they charmed they met and defeated 2 bands of goblins. Then they met another band supported by an orc.
When they got to teh "base" there were 30 goblins 12 wolves the orcs shaman and spider.
They killed everything that didn't run away mostly in a massive battle on top of a temple which on paper they ought to have lost, and in doing so have pushed themselves up to 3rd level.
I ran it straight and never pulled punches. We had 2 near TPKs but no PCs actually went down.
Now on the outside that was strong play, good tactics, a lot of luck but I set the raiding party size of the goblins to be deliberately manageable. I knew that 20 goblins would have overwhelmed the party and realistically units of 20 goblins would have been a good way to organize those troops. But I set up the bad guys to be beatable. I didn't make them weak I didn't use poor tactics, but I set that unit size to make them manageable.
Now I think that is good GMing. the PCs feel like they have been through the wringer and they have completed their first "quest" to drive these goblins out of the area and protect the village that half of them are linked to.
Now they met handful of other encounters. One was with pilgrims that they worked with and who they have helped. One was with a viper that nearly killed the scout, one was with a giant leech that attached and nearly killed the paladin's horse and one was with some deer one of which they killed to eat.
Now in that random encounter deck there are a few hero NPCs, there are some nasty villains and there are a couple of trolls, a giant, basically all the stuff I thought might live int eh area. I haven't stated any of it I will just make up stats and stuff as the card is drawn. By no means are all the encounters combat but all the combat stuff will fight to it's best ability.
I really think a random table for the status of the encountered creature is something 5e should have include. the difference in thread level between a Giant asleep under a tree, a Giant making camp, a giant looking for food, a giant cooking dinner and a giant laying in ambush for unsuspecting travelers is far greater than the difference in threat between a Giant and an Ogre or a Giant and a Grizzly bear. Now I will use that difference to give the PCs an opportunity to deal with random encounters but I can see if you wanted to create an unbiased "manly" game rolling for activity woulld be interesting.
In the light of day, I admit that I committed a crime I hate in other posts. I intentionally used inflammatory words when other ones could have been used in their place. Kool-aid, references to addition warring, etc. And I could as easily named the thread "Has the DMG gone soft of me?"
This confessed, I still feel let down by Chapter III. I keep finding myself cruising along, digging what I am reading (especially Complications and Twists), and then I come to a screeching halt with sentences like these:
Look for opportunities to surprise and delight your players.
Too many surprises can be off putting to players.
Wilderness areas sprinkled with interesting landmarks and other features are better than vast expanses of unchanging terrain.
You want the players to go home looking forward to the next session, so give them a clear sense of where the story is headed, as well as something to look forward to.
Random encounters should never be tiresome to you or your players
I guess it just comes down to (1) not liking the writing style and (2) not agreeing with the advice. Oh well, to each his own. The DMG comes across as just too Pretty Pony for me. I know, inflammatory and judgmental again. I mean I get some of it, but I can't shake the feeling that there are two different writers to this section, with two different voices.
[Solid advice] [Solid advice] [Now make sure your give your players a cookie with sprinkles] [Solid advice]
Ok, I'm done now.
I don't think there's anything wrong with the DMG advising that some players find a TPK from a random encounter unsatisfying. The DMG has lots of directly contrary advise, on purpose, and you are free to ignore the advise. That's the structure they've set up, and I for one am glad.
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with characters running away - or further than that, hiding from an overly powerful adversary.
When I am running a new game I always reiterate to my players that I have populated the world beforehand with monsters - with no concern for their level, and if they get into a fight they don't want to be in they should get creative, or run away.
I've only been running games for 15 years, but I've had only two TPKs with this approach, and those were due to major player blunders. Generally, people wise up or do something amazing. It's worth it for the amazing.
//Panjumanju
Quote from: CRKrueger;806220Unfortunately, since they put no qualifying statements on "bad form", "not satisfying", etc other then attributing them to level inappropriate random encounters period, we'll never know what they may have possibly meant by it, just what they said.
Too bad there isn't an entire chapter around that bit of text which explains the context or anything.
The sentence is just pointing out that a lot of players (not all players) don't enjoy random death of characters that they spent time developing a personality and background for who are invested in the world around them. Many players like focusing on plots and enjoy some random encounters along the way to fill the gaps without enjoying being wiped out by random orc scouting party #354 because they were outmatched and unable to avoid the encounter.
There are plenty of ways to make an unbalanced encounter play out that involves negatives and penalties for the characters without simply killing all of them.
What Snooggums said, and I'll refrain from injecting my annoyance and ire in this thread since I was goddamned stupid and posted it to the wrong thread.
Quote from: Tyndale;806136Random encounters need not be level-appropriate for the adventurers,
but it's considered bad form to slaughter a party using a random encounter,
since most players consider this ending to be an unsatisfying one.
Doesn't sound like text written from a role-player's point of view.
Quote from: Jaeger;806144Part of the problem is that many of the current generation of D&D players will not necessarily run away if they start getting their asses kicked.
Because for many years with organized play, many D&D PC's have gone into every "encounter" with the assumption that they will win.
I blame today's gamegeek E3 culture and Comic-Con where jolly good swag is gathered by all. No one leaves without their parting gifts.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;806386Doesn't sound like text written from a role-player's point of view.
Yes, because ONLY people who play like you are roleplayers. :rolleyes:
(Hell, I'm not even anti-tpk, but I just think this whole mindset of "if you were a reeeeal roleplayer, you would think the same as me" is bullshit.)
Quote from: Emperor Norton;806388Yes, because ONLY people who play like you are roleplayers. :rolleyes:
(Hell, I'm not even anti-tpk, but I just think this whole mindset of "if you were a reeeeal roleplayer, you would think the same as me" is bullshit.)
If you were a reeeeal roleplayer, you'd be just a roleplayer is all. You have a YouTube video of one of your game sessions?
As I recall, Gygax led off the 1st DMG with a discussion of a random encounter en route to the dungeon, opining regarding what's fun and not and what the DM should do about it.
5E is meant to support a variety of playstyles. That doesn't mean the authors of the DMG should pretend there aren't typical play expectations. Stating that most players find a TPK from a random encounter unsatisfactory, and the DM should use judgement and restraint with random encounters, is in fact sensible advice given the most common approach to the game. Just as the notion that there will probably combat in a D&D session is a common approach to the game. Coming out and saying so doesn't demonize games that are entirely social rolelplaying.
If you're a big boy who is confident enough to ignore a whole sentence from the DMG, there is absolutely no problem. WotC haven't jumped off the page and shat all over your gaming table. And for a new DM, it's perfectly sensible advice, given the context, stated repeatedly in the 5E DMG, that the game is yours to make your own.
This is just more old-school Taliban fake-fretting about how new players will approach the game, old values being lost, kids today, piss and moan, piss and moan, piss and moan.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;806394If you were a reeeeal roleplayer, you'd be just a roleplayer is all. You have a YouTube video of one of your game sessions?
No, I don't, and you do realize you are doing the exact same thing the opening post is complaining about, only more extreme.
All it was suggesting is not to put ridiculously overpowering random encounters in your encounter charts, which was something Gygax himself suggested in his own GM advice, as cited upthread. (oops, guess Gygax wasn't a real roleplayer either).
But yay, one true wayism. If you don't play 100% Shawn Driscoll's way, you aren't a roleplayer. Man, the roleplaying hobby must be much smaller than even I thought.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;806450All it was suggesting is not to put ridiculously overpowering random encounters in your encounter charts, which was something Gygax himself suggested in his own GM advice, as cited upthread. (oops, guess Gygax wasn't a real roleplayer either).
Typical OSR dungeons have on-level wandering monster charts, which does support this idea, for sure. I suspect death by WM out in the great, wide world is a more common feature of sandbox play, which I believe has already been suggested in this thread. I'm fully agree with you, Norton, on the point you've made here.I would agree most players probably don't like random death, but would say that sometimes things happen that we don't like. I would also add that, if that's something a group really wants, stylistically, to stick with games with rapid chargen (which is what I do, not because I want a bunch of TPK's, but mainly because I don't cotton to min-maxing and 4-page character sheets).
Summary: I think most folks agree with your general concerns, Norton. They're fair and reasonable.
Quote from: Haffrung;8064495E is meant to support a variety of playstyles....
Agreed. You can shape it pretty well to fit your needs. I believe, however, that the core books inherently support a less old school style, because widgets and fiddly bits. But, hey, you can take them out, right? I think the free pdf's are quite old school, in many ways, and it's hackable, so, shape to fit.
Quote from: Haffrung;806449This is just more old-school Taliban fake-fretting about how new players will approach the game, old values being lost, kids today, piss and moan, piss and moan, piss and moan.
You mean, kids today are big, fuckin', over-protected, entitled pussies? Oh, absolutely. Just like they've always been. :-)
But seriously, my group of young players, all of whom started a grand campaign with me when they were in HS 3 years ago (a campaign that recently concluded), have played through some harsh shit. By the time we reached the end game, all but two of the original characters were hosed by something. Two of them were just combinations of bad luck/poor decision-making, to wit:
(1) The party wizard (and scholar) failed a save, got engulfed by a Dusanu (an old Mystaran creature), then got torched when the cavalry came and a local shaman the party befriended laid down a huge fireball, burning his remains (no spell sculpting with the old rules). the REALLY shitty thing was, the party did not have to investigate that area at all if they didn't want to (it was one of several routes to get to where they were going), and they could have retreated when the mage went down. Hubris. Without the cavalry, there would have been a TPK, for sure.
(2) The stalwart, grumpy-ass dwarf (who'd been ostracized by his people when he mauled his own sister for "impudence" [this player has always been known for doing crazy shit]), got held by a mage, then cut up by a Death Knight with a Life Stealing sword. Failed save, from the character with the best rating in this department. Dead, soul-drained, gone. Rolls were all in the open, so, no fudging on my part.
Eventually, the Paladin forsook his vows, having seen so many friends around him die. He became a vigilante, eventually tracked down the big bad they'd been seeking for years, took his vengeance, and put the souls of his friends to rest (in a nice bit of description that occurred when the bad guy died).
So, it sucked when the long-time characters went down (especially the Mage, who was a nice guy, brave, and smart). The dwarf was a bit of an asshole, but he was the Paladin's oldest bud, so that stung a bit, too. Strangely enough, an NPC female elf warrior that segued into a PC when we had another player joined, lived to tell the tales, as did a party enemy who joined with them for the capstone (bc the enemy of my enemy is my friend).
Long story, but, these are players new to gaming who handled setbacks VERY well. They had some fantastic, snatched-from-the-jaws-of-defeat victories and some horrible, horrible losses. In the end, death became a part of the story, and the story was better for it. New players can hang as well as grizzled vets. You just have to expect they can deal with it, and they will. If they can't, well, there's always Neverwinter online.
It's not that I WANT a TPK to happen... but I absolutely do NOT want to play in a game where I KNOW they won't EVER happen. Been there and done that too many times... THAT feels like a bigger 'waste of time' to me because it means nothing I did really mattered, I was going to live/succeed anyway (because GM's pulling punches on death generally pull them elsewhere as well).
If I know the rules will kill my PC and I trust the GM to let it happen... I'm good.
Quote from: Jaeger;806144Part of the problem is that many of the current generation of D&D players will not necessarily run away if they start getting their asses kicked.
Some lessons are more painful in the learning than others. My players, regardless of age or past experience know going in that combat rolls are all openly made and if they stick around too long when dropping like flies that no miracle will save them.
It is the duty of each DM to set expectations for such things before play begins. If this edition does nothing else except convey the message that each DM is responsible for their own game then it is a win.
Oh, and a warm welcome, Shawn Driscoll, to the fold of TBP exiles!
When the burning sensation dies down, have a seat and enjoy freedom, baby.
Quote from: Simlasa;806460It's not that I WANT a TPK to happen... but I absolutely do NOT want to play in a game where I KNOW they won't EVER happen. Been there and done that too many times... THAT feels like a bigger 'waste of time' to me because it means nothing I did really mattered, I was going to live/succeed anyway (because GM's pulling punches on death generally pull them elsewhere as well).
If I know the rules will kill my PC and I trust the GM to let it happen... I'm good.
See, the thing is, I'm actually more in agreement with this. I just think that if you are making a random encounter chart for an area you expect the players to be able to travel through, you should probably keep in mind the difficulty of what you are putting on it. I don't think that is pulling punches. It even says that not everything on it has to be level appropriate, just not to steamroll your players.
And keep in mind that this is all in the context of the DMG as a whole, which, admittedly, isn't really designed to give advice on sandbox play, and instead gives advice on a more adventure location oriented game (which, I would bet, though have nothing other than anecdotal evidence to back up, is a more popular style than pure sandbox).
In that context, of people wandering in areas that the GM intended them to be, the "don't put roflstomp encounters that will absolutely kill the players" isn't really bad advice.
If I'm going to be TPKed, I'd rather it be because of our characters doing badly, or the players acting stupid, or the enemies just roll super well, not because the GM put an encounter into an area we were supposed to be adventuring through that can happen 1% of the time that is pretty much death on a stick.
One problem I have with some games is that the underpinnings of the game are so distant from both reality and broad genres that 'reasonable caution' is hard to suss out. Thus, frustration.
For example, I played a dragon shaman in Shadowrun once. I was new to the system, but the others assured me I was doing rather well.
So, I was tasked to guard a place. Apparently I should have called up spirits to watch over the area. Didn't know that.
So when the Yakuza showed up, the GM decided that instead of just killing me, they cut off my arms as a warning to the others. Great. Artificial limbs on a magic guy.
I was constantly almost killed because of other nonobvious stuff, and the GM REALLY should have steered me toward playing a quiet guy who is good at some simple job.
Quote from: Simlasa;806460It's not that I WANT a TPK to happen... but I absolutely do NOT want to play in a game where I KNOW they won't EVER happen. Been there and done that too many times... THAT feels like a bigger 'waste of time' to me because it means nothing I did really mattered, I was going to live/succeed anyway (because GM's pulling punches on death generally pull them elsewhere as well).
If I know the rules will kill my PC and I trust the GM to let it happen... I'm good.
To me, it's not all or nothing; No tpk is not the same as my particular character being invulnerable, and a game that's not even about bloody violence is still a game.
Quote from: Simlasa;806460It's not that I WANT a TPK to happen... but I absolutely do NOT want to play in a game where I KNOW they won't EVER happen. Been there and done that too many times... THAT feels like a bigger 'waste of time' to me because it means nothing I did really mattered, I was going to live/succeed anyway (because GM's pulling punches on death generally pull them elsewhere as well).
If I know the rules will kill my PC and I trust the GM to let it happen... I'm good.
Yeah, I'll populate a world with things that can kill the characters but won't just try to kill them as the first reaction for every encounter.
Random encounter with a Giant Constrictor? Maybe it won't be hungry for another week, but if the players decide they can't just let it be then one of them could be dinner.
Random encounter with an Orc raiding party? Maybe they just hit a rich target and don't need anything from the characters, but start a confrontation and they will end it.
Random encounter with bandits? Pay them off instead of fighting, bribe them to do something for the characters, lure them into a troll den with promises of greater goods than the characters are carrying.
Random encounters can easily be TPK threats without an assumption that everything they come into contact with will attack them on sight. Those situations should be in the game to give clever characters something to work with past "I hit it with my axe".
Quote from: Emperor Norton;806450No, I don't, and you do realize you are doing the exact same thing the opening post is complaining about, only more extreme.
All it was suggesting is not to put ridiculously overpowering random encounters in your encounter charts, which was something Gygax himself suggested in his own GM advice, as cited upthread. (oops, guess Gygax wasn't a real roleplayer either).
But yay, one true wayism. If you don't play 100% Shawn Driscoll's way, you aren't a roleplayer. Man, the roleplaying hobby must be much smaller than even I thought.
Ha! You make it sound like the one single role-player in the world is a threat to the general public's charsheet bingo style of play. Just say you can't debate, or that you don't know how to (which explains no videos from you showing us your point of view).
I don't see random encounters as a major problem. A lot of starting DMs learn that style of play. If it becomes a habit though, I lose interest.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;806533Ha! You make it sound like the one single role-player in the world is a threat to the general public's charsheet bingo style of play. Just say you can't debate, or that you don't know how to (which explains no videos from you showing us your point of view).
I don't see random encounters as a major problem. A lot of starting DMs learn that style of play. If it becomes a habit though, I lose interest.
You don't even see the absurdity of your own statements.
You are the one who is saying "Hey, don't instakill your PCs with a random encounter that is ridiculously overpowering for them" is anti-roleplay advice.
You are the one who needs to back up your statement, because you are the one who is calling anyone who doesn't put instakill encounters on their random encounter charts not a roleplayer. And you've made zero argument as to why they aren't. You question my debate skills, yet you actually haven't put forth a single shred of support for your statement.
And why the fuck would I need Youtube videos of my group playing to back up my argument? Jesus Christ, the number of people on the whole board who have that could probably be counted on my hands, possibly even just one hand. Needing that to back up my assertion that your statement has no actual support is the most absurd thing I've ever read.
Quote from: Emperor Norton;806481See, the thing is, I'm actually more in agreement with this. I just think that if you are making a random encounter chart for an area you expect the players to be able to travel through, you should probably keep in mind the difficulty of what you are putting on it. I don't think that is pulling punches. It even says that not everything on it has to be level appropriate, just not to steamroll your players.
And keep in mind that this is all in the context of the DMG as a whole, which, admittedly, isn't really designed to give advice on sandbox play, and instead gives advice on a more adventure location oriented game (which, I would bet, though have nothing other than anecdotal evidence to back up, is a more popular style than pure sandbox).
In that context, of people wandering in areas that the GM intended them to be, the "don't put roflstomp encounters that will absolutely kill the players" isn't really bad advice.
If I'm going to be TPKed, I'd rather it be because of our characters doing badly, or the players acting stupid, or the enemies just roll super well, not because the GM put an encounter into an area we were supposed to be adventuring through that can happen 1% of the time that is pretty much death on a stick.
The world the PCs adventure in is a dangerous place. Sometimes, dangers are better avoided than faced head on.
This is an area where thinking like your character (unless he/she is a witless fool) instead of metagaming can be useful in the long term survival of the character.
The DM should do their part and make sure the world makes sense. A T-Rex living in an area will leave plenty of evidence of its existence. (This isn't Ungoro crater after all) PCs moving through such an area will be able to note these signs that
something large and nasty is around somewhere.
Unless their mission involves hunting such a beast, common sense says this is an encounter to evade if at all possible. From a character perspective there is nothing to be gained from fighting it besides an opportunity to become T-Rex poop.
Likewise, if the party has to carry a message to another city and have a choice of taking a ship round the peninsula or short cutting overland through FIRE GIANT PASS in the mountains wouldn't there be a reasonable expectation that the party may encounter fire giants in the mountains even though they are 4th level?
Such an encounter is perfectly fine. A combat encounter with fire giants would be a death sentence but an encounter doesn't have to involve combat. Fire giants are intelligent and can be negotiated with.
The game works just fine as written with such encounters. Certain types of PLAYERS are what can turn such encounters into unavoidable TPKs.
The type of player who only wants to fight past any obstacle, one never puts up with any lip from an NPC, one who demands respect from everyone they meet or else a fight is in the offering. These players will turn perfectly fine encounters into mudstomp TPKs because they cannot fathom an encounter without a fight.
Let them die. I put up with enough of that shit as a teenager. If you come to the game with those attitudes as an adult, your characters will die over and over.
Ungoro crater.
Proof WoW is run on 3.5e and the TRexes took a stupid number of Rogue levels... nngh
I dunno. I kinda take those parts of any RPG book that try to tell you *how* to GM as just guidelines for noob-GM's. I don't take them seriously (nor should anyone that doesn't already understand what kind of game they're trying to run.)
That said, I have no problem with random encounters being dangerous. What I do is if I'm feeling it's a good time for a random encounter check and it's successful - I usually use the moment to do some setup to the encounter if it's appropriate. I never just pop some random monster on the PC's out of nowhere, without taking into considerations the time and place and the PC's natural precautions and dispositions that have evolved over the game that might make the encounter "interesting". Maybe there is a REASON that their are T-Rexes running around the woods... or whatever. I dont' concern myself with TPK's in designing encounters simply because anything the party can't "handle" then there's probably a good reason for it, and I'll be damned if it's because some rule or random table proscribed it to me. Same is true for throwing the PC's softball encounters. GM's should think about the "randomness" of their encounters to the degree that it detracts/adds to their game. The point is to make things interesting *and* fun.
TL/DR - I make "random encounters" have relevance to other possibilities. I will even create sub-plots out of them.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;806715The world the PCs adventure in is a dangerous place. Sometimes, dangers are better avoided than faced head on.
This is an area where thinking like your character (unless he/she is a witless fool) instead of metagaming can be useful in the long term survival of the character.
The DM should do their part and make sure the world makes sense. A T-Rex living in an area will leave plenty of evidence of its existence. (This isn't Ungoro crater after all) PCs moving through such an area will be able to note these signs that something large and nasty is around somewhere.
Unless their mission involves hunting such a beast, common sense says this is an encounter to evade if at all possible. From a character perspective there is nothing to be gained from fighting it besides an opportunity to become T-Rex poop.
Likewise, if the party has to carry a message to another city and have a choice of taking a ship round the peninsula or short cutting overland through FIRE GIANT PASS in the mountains wouldn't there be a reasonable expectation that the party may encounter fire giants in the mountains even though they are 4th level?
Such an encounter is perfectly fine. A combat encounter with fire giants would be a death sentence but an encounter doesn't have to involve combat. Fire giants are intelligent and can be negotiated with.
The game works just fine as written with such encounters. Certain types of PLAYERS are what can turn such encounters into unavoidable TPKs.
The type of player who only wants to fight past any obstacle, one never puts up with any lip from an NPC, one who demands respect from everyone they meet or else a fight is in the offering. These players will turn perfectly fine encounters into mudstomp TPKs because they cannot fathom an encounter without a fight.
Let them die. I put up with enough of that shit as a teenager. If you come to the game with those attitudes as an adult, your characters will die over and over.
I don't think we are actually disagreeing at all.
Like I said, if the characters die through bad choices, that is one thing, if they die because the GM rolled a 1% chance on a hostile encounter that kills them before they can do anything about it in an area they are supposed to be travelling in, that's another.
As long as there are paths the character can take to avoid the situation, I'm good with it.
Also, I think its a very good idea to give info on relative strength to people with appropriate knowledge skills. Like in 5e, how strong is a cave bear? Make a Intelligence(Nature) check. (or make it a passive check, or just give the answer if they are proficient, if you don't want an extra roll).
I think its super important for players to have access to the knowledge of about how powerful an enemy is, and to have ways to avoid combat with any encounter that would overpower them. As long as those things are in there, I'm good.
Now, can you also sneak in some things that are harder for them to judge? Sure. Especially with NPCs, but I mean, Wisdom(Insight) is a good way to judge the relative skill of an NPC, kind of a sizing up. (You notice the way he carries his sword, or the stance he is in is ready to spring). Just make a character who is actively trying to hide it make Charisma (deception) against i.