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.
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 (http://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/2016/01/belated-happy-new-year-to-all.html) and here (http://honorandintrigue.blogspot.com/2016/01/grudge-tables-for-my-campaign.html) based on using a Grudge Table, which is an idea I got from Bedrock Brendan's blog (http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/grudges.html).
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.
Quote from: Natty Bodak;871794Maybe 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.
Well, it was spread out over 2 sessions.
First session, they cleared out the tomb, figured out puzzles, opened the way to the final room with the Necromancer's tome and the revenant guarding it. They beat it (that was its own climactic battle) and dragged their half beaten selves out, only to get ambushed by the wizard. The wizard's henchmen defeated their best fighter, took him hostage, when the others resisted, he ripped that PCs throat open and left him for dead. With him bleeding out, the 2nd best fighter in the party challenged the wizard's henchman to a duel, and that's where we stopped.
THAT was climactic.
Then came the second session: the duel began, the bleeding player was stabilized and revived. He rejoined the fight and it became a 2 on 1, at which point the henchman flubbed a lot of his rolls and was eventually defeated with the party's help. Then anticlimactic part came after; they rested, and decided to do a thorough investigation of the cave to find the wizard himself. Eventually after searching a lot of rooms they found him in the coffin, they got taken over by IRL bloodlust from finally catching him, and stabbed him to death. Then they checked out his remains, wrapped up the body, and prepared to leave.
So the anticlimactic part, I suppose, was more the lull where they searched around for a while, then just found him cowering like the old man he was. But I don't think they disliked it.
Definitely in the retelling, it sounds more climactic in hindsight...
The only time I've worried about this kind of thing is if the encounter turns into a squash match, my players might think I let them down with a pushover -especially if they had reason to believe the encounter was going to be tough.
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.
Second, never, EVER rob players of a success. What happened was perfect.
Exactly -I mean, as a DM that's the kind of reaction I'm trying to get, plus the players being satisfied with the outcome. To snatch that away is the polar opposite of what most DMs strive for.
Quote from: S'mon;871710In 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.
Just as there are special snowflake PCs, there can also be special snowflake monsters (including NPCs). As a DM, no matter how much detail and effort I might put into creating an evil wizard and his tower, a dragon and his lair, a vampire and his castle/tomb, I'm not joined at the hip with any of them. If the players and their characters should WTFPWN the encounter, they do so. I have dice, pencils, paper, rulebooks -I can make more.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;871722Would it be a cop out to figure out some way for this villain to return?
I wouldn't. It's a sign of waning creativity to keep bringing back dead villains. I'd also limit the number of times I brought the bad guy back with a new paintjob (the son/brother/mother of the monster who is just like the beast except meaner, a clone/simulacrum, etc).
I personally wouldn't take a player wistfully speculating about what might have been as in itself a sign that the game has gone wrong. "It would have been cool if X has happened" does not, in and of itself, imply that it is uncool that not-X happened instead.
That said, the player in question may be concerned that the background connection they had has kind of fizzled as a result of this guy dying. But that doesn't have to be a problem provided that the consequences of this guy dying are interesting, and it sounds like they will be.
If you do decide to bring your villain back for a sequel my advice would be certain to make it clear they have suffered for their defeat, been reduced in some permanent clear fashion maybe even to the point of being a flunky for anything antagonist instead of the boss this time. I can be very frustrating to have an enemy pop up again, unflustered and unchanged by their defeat as if it never happened.
Quote from: Nexus;871869If you do decide to bring your villain back for a sequel my advice would be certain to make it clear they have suffered for their defeat, been reduced in some permanent clear fashion maybe even to the point of being a flunky for anything antagonist instead of the boss this time. I can be very frustrating to have an enemy pop up again, unflustered and unchanged by their defeat as if it never happened.
If I were to bring an enemy back. And that is a pretty big if (see previous post about appropriateness of genre and system). I wouldn't have the enemy show up until and unless he could be more dangerous than before. The PCs already handed him his ass once. Bringing him back unchanged or, worse yet, weaker risks turning his return into slapstick or bathos.
But having the villain suffer for his defeat is good. Gives him more incentive for vengeance. Also may bring on the crazy. Dangerous and demented can be (in the right genre and setting) an entertaining challenge for the PCs.
But the sense I am getting from all [strike]your[/strike] the OP's posts is that unless [strike]you are[/strike] he is going for a comic book villain kind of feel to your campaign, [strike]you[/strike] he should just let the PCs/Players have their win and leave this guy dead and dusted. If that one PC's connection to his old master is important to the player, a better way to go might be to introduce a grudge based on the fact that he and his friends destroyed his master. Maybe the villain wasn't just
his master. Maybe the villain was
their master, i.e. he had more than one student and the other student is pissed and out for revenge against the slayer(s) of their old master, Old Ben Kenobi.*
* For Old Ben Kenobi, swap in whatever name their dead master actually used.
I remember an evening of playing the Hero Quest board game about 20 years ago. I was playing the wizard, and on the first quest, I got in the killing blow against the Gargoyle with an extremely lucky roll throwing my dagger and the end of a long battle. A few quests later, with another extremely lucky roll, I took out the chaos wizard before he even had a chance to do anything with my Genie spell.
For some reason, a lucky roll at the end of a long battle that dozens of other dice rolls failed to resolve is a "good thing," but a lucky roll right out of the gates is somehow a "bad thing." Of course, the operative word here is "lucky." There's no way to predict when it will come, whether start of battle or end of battle. So I would like to suggest that you cannot manufacture the genuine emotion of the former case without allowing the possibility of the latter case.
I'd also like to really question this so-called dilemma from a narrativist point of view. Am I just overly-jaded in thinking that the real gripe in having the big lucky roll happen too soon is that the narrative doesn't fit neatly into a cliche? Is it really bad if, after multiple sessions of build-up, the PCs encounter the big bad in half a round? There could be shock value in that. Or comedy value. Or mystery--players thinking it was too easy might take it as a clue that something else is afoot.
Quote from: Lunamancer;871884...
For some reason, a lucky roll at the end of a long battle that dozens of other dice rolls failed to resolve is a "good thing," but a lucky roll right out of the gates is somehow a "bad thing." Of course, the operative word here is "lucky." There's no way to predict when it will come, whether start of battle or end of battle. So I would like to suggest that you cannot manufacture the genuine emotion of the former case without allowing the possibility of the latter case.
Yes... or at least, I can't, because I share your sensibility about it. However, as with many things, it appears that some others have different sensibilities, where as you suggest below:
Quote from: Lunamancer;871884I'd also like to really question this so-called dilemma from a narrativist point of view. Am I just overly-jaded in thinking that the real gripe in having the big lucky roll happen too soon is that the narrative doesn't fit neatly into a cliche? Is it really bad if, after multiple sessions of build-up, the PCs encounter the big bad in half a round? There could be shock value in that. Or comedy value. Or mystery--players thinking it was too easy might take it as a clue that something else is afoot.
Some players seem to care more about re-creating cliches (or "genre expectations" or "drama" or "coolness" or however each person is attuned), and either don't care or don't think about it the way you and I do. I think how it's received largely hinges on the GM. If the GM is taken aback by the results, then they may lead the players to be taken aback as well. But if the GM can frame it as an interesting event that can be appreciated and leads to other interesting unexpected situations, then that can make the game come alive (because it's no longer just a conceit for the sake of matching dramatic expectations, that things happen as they do - the play becomes more real, and the unexpected has happened and what comes next isn't predictable).
You guys obviously have a different meaning of anti-climax than I do. OK, then.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;871961You guys obviously have a different meaning of anti-climax than I do. OK, then.
????
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;871967????
All I'm seeing is easy fights, nothing really 'anti-climactic'. A quick fight against a wizard, or a dragon, built on luck is not really anti-climactic if the people involved (namely the player side of the table) feel it's a good job well done. Especially if it comes from a plan that the players devised.
Unless, people are saying it was anti-climactic from the GM/DM's side, then OK,I can see that.
But to ME, something that's anti-climax is where the outcome doesn't satisfy any one. When -in my example- players come in, expecting a much harder encounter, perhaps even WANTING it, and it turns out to be a massacre with no challenge, then that to me is an anti-climax.
But sometimes, easy, or even one-sided fights are satisfying, especially as I said, it comes from a well conceived plan.
Or when you go into some encounter expecting a knock-down-drag-out fight and out of the blue some NPC comes along and splatters the villain while the PCs stand there going WTF?
Though anti-climax could be the point. Theres a module from Dragon that all through is building up this villain. At the end the PCs discover it was a big con game and the villain was not very impressive at all. (Aside from his con.) That was the point.
Or the battle was too easy because the villain was just a pawn who's ego had been puffed up by the real villain. When things go too easy through no doing of our own I am the sort to start searching behind the curtains for the puppetmaster.
Quote from: Skarg;871939Some players seem to care more about re-creating cliches (or "genre expectations" or "drama" or "coolness" or however each person is attuned), and either don't care or don't think about it the way you and I do.
I would say the operative word here is "seem." I can imagine a narrativist hipster squirming and saying, "No no no. You don't understand narrativism. It's all about exploring new horizons rather than being trapped by cliches."
On the other hand, if anyone would actually cop to what "seems" to be, then we can just shit can every indie narrativist game and just play a traditional RPG with the simple proviso that for the first N rounds we ignore the dice and interpret the results such that everything is at a stand-off. After that, we ignore the dice and interpret the results in a way consistent with the desired outcome.
That would seem to be a substantial short cut. And really, we know full well there are plenty of DMs who did play exactly like that to one degree or another.
QuoteI think how it's received largely hinges on the GM. If the GM is taken aback by the results, then they may lead the players to be taken aback as well. But if the GM can frame it as an interesting event that can be appreciated and leads to other interesting unexpected situations, then that can make the game come alive (because it's no longer just a conceit for the sake of matching dramatic expectations, that things happen as they do - the play becomes more real, and the unexpected has happened and what comes next isn't predictable).
Maybe this is where a novice GM is superior to an experienced one. Because if you put no thought into the alleged "dilemma" at all, the next step is to hand out the loot. Seeing what you get is almost like opening presents at Christmas. The climax is shifted.
I think mostly that GMs tend to worry much more about having cinematically or literarily 'impressive' final conflicts than players. Most players I've seen are perfectly happy to bumrush the opponent and kick the shit out of him in two rounds.
Quote from: RPGPundit;872813I think mostly that GMs tend to worry much more about having cinematically or literarily 'impressive' final conflicts than players. Most players I've seen are perfectly happy to bumrush the opponent and kick the shit out of him in two rounds.
Yeah, I agree. I've occasionally seen "That was too easy - that can't have been the *real* Dracula I staked!", but mostly players are happy with combat-as-war where their planning & tactics give a final easy victory. If I'm GMing 4e D&D I'll do combat-as-sport and set up a 'challenging' final battle, because that's what the system is designed for. Any other game (eg any other D&D edition) then it's combat-as-war, kerb-stomp battles are fine if that's how it works out. I recently finished running Pathfinder AP 'Curse of the Crimson Throne', the final battle with Queen Ileosa was lengthy but I didn't feel the PCs were really seriously challenged; with a Summoner (ugh) and a min-maxed archer Ranger, also using excellent tactics, the PC group was just a lot tougher than the opposition. But the players were happy - they were happy that their work in PC-building, in tactics, and in XP-grinding through nearly two years and levels 2-14 had paid off.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;871673Is it bad if a villain's defeat is anti climactic?
No. It usually means that your players were thinking (that, or it means you need to read or re-read "Kobold's Guide to Combat":)).
QuoteOr is it OK if it was a result of the player's actions?
That's what I would assume. But even if it's a mistake on my part...well, sometimes the players find an unexpected loophole. Whole nations have botched and left exploitable loopholes in their defences, why would I assume any NPC to be immune to that?
Congratulate them on victory, present them with the good and bad they get in consequences, and ask them what they do now.
Or, if you want narrative arcs, play narrativist games;).
No, but I do get annoyed when a single spell negates an entire planned game session. That's my fault: I forgot to reread the PC spell lists. I was just excited to try out the 5e DMG's chase rules. Stupid Flight spell.
Quote from: S'mon;872824Yeah, I agree. I've occasionally seen "That was too easy - that can't have been the *real* Dracula I staked!", but mostly players are happy with combat-as-war where their planning & tactics give a final easy victory.
This actually reminds me of an in-store demo I played in, can't remember the name of the RPG, but it was gritty sci fi. We were using pre-gens, playing a team of mercenaries going on various missions, and the demo ran weekly for 4 weeks. Rather than spending 3-4 hours fighting our way through the missions, we spent over 2 hours just planning, then wrapped things up in 30 minutes to an hour. The GM had never seen the game approached that way, but he rolled with it, and we all had a lot of fun.
The planning itself was really the fun. Seeing it more or less work was fun in the sense it was kind of the reward. I would imagine that if either our planning or our reward were undermined for the sake of the action being "more dramatic" would have killed a lot of the fun we were having.
Quote from: Necrozius;872833No, but I do get annoyed when a single spell negates an entire planned game session. That's my fault: I forgot to reread the PC spell lists. I was just excited to try out the 5e DMG's chase rules. Stupid Flight spell.
I don't know what kind of chase rules 5e has--I have a visceral negative reaction to the term "chase rules" ever since being disappointed by SpyCraft. I would think that if someone using a flight spell would kill the planned chase rather than make the chase even more interesting than before, I'm pretty justified in my reaction to them.
I developed my own chase rules, not that there's much to them, that are portable from system to system. I've had negative feedback when nerds on a message board read them, positive feedback when they're put into play.
Quote from: Lunamancer;872837I don't know what kind of chase rules 5e has--I have a visceral negative reaction to the term "chase rules" ever since being disappointed by SpyCraft. I would think that if someone using a flight spell would kill the planned chase rather than make the chase even more interesting than before, I'm pretty justified in my reaction to them.
I developed my own chase rules, not that there's much to them, that are portable from system to system. I've had negative feedback when nerds on a message board read them, positive feedback when they're put into play.
The 5e chase rules look good to me on paper. I wanted to try them out. Perhaps they do suck: I won't know until they're used (I'm not a fan of white rooming rules until I try them at least once).
The party had already decided what they were going to to that session: tread through the jungle and find the MacGuffin in the ruin. I had just planned to structure it with a few chases in between rests and exploration.
Using the flight spell was a clever solution, but I wasn't ready to deal with the complete subversion of everything that I had planned, so I didn't have anything for the players to go through.
Yes, after the fact, I came up with dozens of ways to salvage the session and make it cool (the white apes can FLY!!!). But eh...
I don't often get caught off guard in such a disastrous way (I am usually pretty good at improvising and going with the flow). It happens, though.
Quote from: RPGPundit;872813I think mostly that GMs tend to worry much more about having cinematically or literarily 'impressive' final conflicts than players. Most players I've seen are perfectly happy to bumrush the opponent and kick the shit out of him in two rounds.
I think what often happens is the player who wants the more challenging confrontation or the more cinematic confrontation is louder about it. If I get that kind of reaction, I always ask each player individually. most of the time, the other players are not interested in me planning, stacking or fudging so things are more climactic. Sometimes you will get a whole group of players who do want that but I think it is less common than some GMs realize. Definitely a good idea to probe that kind of feedback more so you don't ruin the game for the 4 who are cool with how things went down.
Quote from: Necrozius;872833No, but I do get annoyed when a single spell negates an entire planned game session. That's my fault: I forgot to reread the PC spell lists. I was just excited to try out the 5e DMG's chase rules. Stupid Flight spell.
I've learned to roll with this. If every thing you throw at the party is negated by a single spell, that is different. But I think most players really enjoy it when they use the right tool and it yields tremendous and fitting results.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;872845I've learned to roll with this. If every thing you throw at the party is negated by a single spell, that is different. But I think most players really enjoy it when they use the right tool and it yields tremendous and fitting results.
Yeah, the key thing (and this may be getting off topic) I've always summed up as "There shall be no formula for success." Meaning, specifically, you can't just default to some automatic procedure and expect consistently good results.
So a dungeon that is supposed to be a difficult labyrinth should have some feature that negates the "follow the left wall" strategy, whether it's literally a trick like one-way doors or teleporters, or if it's just a place where the floor gives way dropping the party to an area where tracing the wall doesn't lead to an exit.
If there's a particularly troublesome spell, flight, invisibility, polymorph, and illusions immediately come to mind as being something GMs commonly find difficult to handle, then there should be some encounter or adventure that makes the use of such powers more of a disadvantage than an advantage. Which isn't to say use these every single time out, thwarting players at every turn. The idea is to just break their pattern. Make them realize there are drawbacks to everything, so that they think twice before using troublesome tactics and make sure they're actually appropriate for the situation and what they're trying to accomplish rather than just an annoying go-to.
Quote from: Lunamancer;872850So a dungeon that is supposed to be a difficult labyrinth should have some feature that negates the "follow the left wall" strategy, whether it's literally a trick like one-way doors or teleporters, or if it's just a place where the floor gives way dropping the party to an area where tracing the wall doesn't lead to an exit.
Or you could simply build a maze that isn't simply connected. Like so...
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/86/c7/d6/86c7d65c506375653c3466c59f7fa9e9.jpg)
Quote from: S'mon;872824Yeah, I agree. I've occasionally seen "That was too easy - that can't have been the *real* Dracula I staked!",
In the past 30 years of running games, I've seen more of this in my neck of the woods. Again, not saying it's right or wrong, just my personal experience.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;872936In the past 30 years of running games, I've seen more of this in my neck of the woods. Again, not saying it's right or wrong, just my personal experience.
I've seen that and I have seen some let down when an expected big battle was a walk through. It felt like a combination of relief and blue balls, honestly. Sometimes you want that big cinematic punch up on some level, for the excitement, the drama or maybe just catharsis if its a opponents you've come to really want to punch repeatedly. :)
I've had some anti climatic disappointment like when a character of mine finally faced off against her rival, a fight that had been built up for the length of game and, due to some optimization on my part but more a spectacular die roll she one shotted him in the opening turn. It was kind of a let down but not the GM's fault. He survived and there may have been a rematch but the game was closing and there wasn't a sequel.
Quote from: S'mon;872824Yeah, I agree. I've occasionally seen "That was too easy - that can't have been the *real* Dracula I staked!",
Ironically, that is EXACTLY what happened in my Dark Albion campaign. As you may know if you've bought Dark Albion (http://www.dcrouzet.net/heroes-witchery/?page_id=206), Dracula is in it as a villain (during the later part of the campaign period, coinciding with the second rule of the historical Vlad Tepes). And of course, my PCs were sent by the Pontifex himself to go kill him.
They went through hell to get there, facing huge problems along the way as they crossed the whole (at the time war-torn) Continent, and then getting to Argesz (Dracula's castle), and then going through all kinds of horrific opponents in the castle, only to have a relatively easy fight against Dracula himself at the end.
Believe me, none of them minded.
Quote from: RPGPundit;873245Ironically, that is EXACTLY what happened in my Dark Albion campaign. As you may know if you've bought Dark Albion (http://www.dcrouzet.net/heroes-witchery/?page_id=206), Dracula is in it as a villain (during the later part of the campaign period, coinciding with the second rule of the historical Vlad Tepes). And of course, my PCs were sent by the Pontifex himself to go kill him.
They went through hell to get there, facing huge problems along the way as they crossed the whole (at the time war-torn) Continent, and then getting to Argesz (Dracula's castle), and then going through all kinds of horrific opponents in the castle, only to have a relatively easy fight against Dracula himself at the end.
Believe me, none of them minded.
Well for me it was a solo campaign set in the NightLife RPG universe (but using sort-of-AD&D rules) from around 1995-2000. The werewolf PC had spent the campaign with Dracula running rings round him; when he finally located Drac's coffin and staked the critter without a fight it seemed anticlimactic.
Player disbelief at how something was 'too easy' can also be fun and have amusing consequences, though.
Quote from: RPGPundit;873659Player disbelief at how something was 'too easy' can also be fun and have amusing consequences, though.
Personal experience says "Hell yeah!"