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;).