Topic: TPK imminent - how much help do you give your players?

[Druss_the_Legend]

Party of 4 players - all experienced find themselves in a deadly battle versus a pack of werewolves and on the verge of death. They are being cut to ribbons. Had a chance to flee but chose to stay and fight.
It came about from a mixture of poor luck, underestimating the strength of the enemy base they are attacking and poor planning. A frontal assault against a well defended enemy base was never going to end well.

I am most likely going to send an NPC to their aid, so they dont all get killed. They are part of a larger group of 9, with 4 NPCs.
They have sustained a number of serious wounds including the party healer who has a broken weapon arm.
The other spell user is badly wounded and bleeding out -10hits per round.
One of the party have a magic item that can summon aid from a high level magician and provided he makes his attunement roll with the magic item (an amulet) the mage ally will arrive and get them to safety.

Has this sort of thing happened in any of your games? How did you resolve it?
Without any help the party are going to die.

[Ralfsi]

If they knew what they were going into, and the risk of tpk was known, a tpk is given.
You can always give them some aid, but don't make it obvious that they are going to live, i think that will take the joy out of it. Maybe heal the worst damages, divert a few blows

[Druss_the_Legend]

If they knew what they were going into, and the risk of tpk was known, a tpk is given.
You can always give them some aid, but don't make it obvious that they are going to live, i think that will take the joy out of it. Maybe heal the worst damages, divert a few blows

Two PCs scouted the base but bungled it and alerted the defenders. One of the scouts was badly wounded and went for help from the rest of the party who were in waiting close by. They got the wounded pc out but stayed to fight seeking a vip captive. They totally underestimated the enemy strength and are being quickly overwhelmed.
They did know the place but as defended but lost any hope of surprise then one of the scouts put on an evil magic ring with a lycanthropy curse. He knew the ring was as evil and was unlucky with his RR to avoid the curse.

[Thot]

Let the enemy capture them, then make an escape possible later on.

[MisterK]

In my opinion, it all boils down to a simple question : do you play that kind of game ?

The kind of game where, you know, bad luck happens, the players know the risks, they had a chance and could not convert, tough luck, game over, roll up new characters.

I know I don't play that kind of games.

But if you do, then killing them all is the most logical outcome, so by all means, do it.

But your question boils down to the social contract of the game - do your players expect that kind of things to happen, or are they in for a different game style ? If they signed on expecting to have their arses handed to them on a platter, it's OK. If they signed on expecting to be bailed out of situations they were in because of bad luck and shortsighted decisions, and having to suffer after-save consequences, then that's how you should do it. If they signed on expecting to have an easy time stomping over the opposition, you've broken the social contract already.

I don't believe in "the dice decide the outcome" at all. The GM and the players decide the outcome, the dice are only here to provide options that might not be obvious to them, but following, tweaking, or ignoring the dice results is their decision. In the end, if everyone is happy, the decision was a good one, otherwise, the decision is probably not the right one.

Thus the social contract - make sure everyone signed on for the same kind of game.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

In the end, if everyone is happy, the decision was a good one, otherwise, the decision is probably not the right one.

That. It's just a game, after all, and most certainly you're playing it with people you may call friends.
IMO, you just should, you know, talk with them, explain them the situation, and ask them how they want it to happen. And, really, even if they want to play it to the end and you get a TPK, after all is done, you guys may just laugh about it... and rewind the event, replaying it from when it went sour. It's just a game after all, and you guys are likely playing it to have fun.

[Majyk]

Many GMs start being less tactical when a TPK can be seen ahead of time.
The BBEG stops concentrating on their defensive spells.
The BBEG leaves themselves out in the open vs ducking behind cover like they have been all combat.
One can rationalize these ‘mistakes’ by stating how impatient and gloating the BBEG is becoming with each success they’re achieving.

Not flagrant stuff like fudging rolls but there are definitely a few things a GM can do to lessen the TPK down to just a few deaths vs a wipe out.


As said above, those stories are told many times just due to some of the circumstances that an RM session can throw out at us!
(An auto-kill on a sleeping enemy where the PC fumbles the MM to end that Necromancer without a fight…only to start one, instead!)

In the end, if everyone is happy, the decision was a good one, otherwise, the decision is probably not the right one.

That. It's just a game, after all, and most certainly you're playing it with people you may call friends.
IMO, you just should, you know, talk with them, explain them the situation, and ask them how they want it to happen. And, really, even if they want to play it to the end and you get a TPK, after all is done, you guys may just laugh about it... and rewind the event, replaying it from when it went sour. It's just a game after all, and you guys are likely playing it to have fun.

[Druss_the_Legend]

some interesting options here...
1) party gets captured and kept alive to be used as sacrifices for the enemy (the base they are attacking is a cult stronghold)
2) magician ally is summoned by the PC who has a magic item that allows a one use 'summon magician' ability who can create a portal to rescue the party
3) PC makes their attunement check on a 'control wolves' magic item and saves the party from death

The party have limited time to carry out a rescue on a VIP captive who is deep within the enemy base. Even with help from the mage they may well have to abandon their rescue attempt and accept they have failed in their quest and just try and get to safety. Mission failure seems likely... due to many party members bleeding out and needing healing.

One possible outcome is the wounded get to safety first, a few party members rush into the enemy base with werewolves helping them to locate the VIP captive and they must make it back the portal before it closes... the most wounded PC is an archmage who could hold the portal open for a set number of turns which seems like it might be an exciting session and still gives the party a slim chance of success.

Ideally the players have some control and say over the choices made. They get some help from the NPOC mage but they still have some agency as to the final outcome.

[Spectre771]

If the party knows what they are facing and are just going to go for it anyway, I let the chips fall where they may.  They know they are outnumbered, making a terrible decision to do it anyway, then the TPK is their own doing.

Now if they are not metagaming, and the player knows the PC fumbled the Tactics roll (or stealth) and is playing it through because they are playing out the scene, then I'll give them some sort of saving grace and throw some sort of lifeline in there.  The PCs will have to deal with all the bad circumstances (bleeding out, broken arm, etc.) but I reward non-meta-gaming with heavy rewards.  I love when the player says "Aw crap... I go charging in with a battle cry!"  I'll make the attunement difficulty a little easier, I'll have the leader of the baddies decide this party is too pathetic and not worth killing, something that still seems plausible but not a GM gift.

As OLF stated... it's a game.

I have zero remorse when I do everything in my power to warn the players they are in an unwinnable situation, but they do it anyway.

"Roll Tactics...  It's still early in the evening, not everyone in the camp is asleep, they have at least 2 scouts walking a patrol, you are will be facing into the bright light of the campfire, and at least 2 of the baddies are sharpening their weapons."

"I move into position to get a back attack on one of them."

"What?  Um.. Roll Intuition...  You have a horrible feeling in your stomach that this will not end well.  You are drastically outnumbered and at a horrible tactical situation."

"I know, but I think I can take them out before they can ready their weapons."

"Sigh.  OK."

[jdale]

Let the enemy capture them, then make an escape possible later on.

That's what I've done, it was more interesting than killing everyone and starting a new campaign. It can take the game in an unexpected direction and that is often fun.

[Majyk]

I like “failing up” but sugar coating their bad luck into somehow not losing anyone is bad form for keeping consequences to every action.

Never remove the fear of death by not having it in your games at all!

[MisterK]

I like “failing up” but sugar coating their bad luck into somehow not losing anyone is bad form for keeping consequences to every action.

Never remove the fear of death by not having it in your games at all!

If fear of death is important, sure.

But in my experience, players find it annoying because they have to go through character generation and background playing again. Not to mention that the GM also has to integrate a new character in the main cast, which is far from done in campaigns where PCs are not just "adventurers".

Fear of having their character cast out. Fear of having them fail and live to see the consequences of their failure. Fear of having to choose between two evils and live with it. Fear of having to sacrifice something to get what they want.

In my experience, players feel much more when their characters are alive.

[Druss_the_Legend]

I like “failing up” but sugar coating their bad luck into somehow not losing anyone is bad form for keeping consequences to every action.

Never remove the fear of death by not having it in your games at all!

they have taken a beating and more than likely failed their rescue mission. getting out alive is the new objective. The failed mission will have a big consequence - the captive they were sent to rescue who is an ally will be killed/made into a vampire as part of the cults goals. Any ally now becomes a powerful enemy who they must now defeat in a future session.

seems serious enough. the other consequence is time. recovering from their failed quest will use precious resources - magic items and the time the will need to heal and recover is precious time they do not have which buys the enemy more time to achieve their goals.
im a big believer of actions have consequences. im just not convinced a player or party dying will be included in the cost here.

The party are starting session 4 of a planned 10 sessions. so possible capture (even of some of the party) or a lucky escape fits the timeline pretty well for followup quests so im leaning towards letting them get away but it costs them valuable resources.

[intothatdarkness]

If the party knows what they are facing and are just going to go for it anyway, I let the chips fall where they may.  They know they are outnumbered, making a terrible decision to do it anyway, then the TPK is their own doing.

Now if they are not metagaming, and the player knows the PC fumbled the Tactics roll (or stealth) and is playing it through because they are playing out the scene, then I'll give them some sort of saving grace and throw some sort of lifeline in there.  The PCs will have to deal with all the bad circumstances (bleeding out, broken arm, etc.) but I reward non-meta-gaming with heavy rewards.  I love when the player says "Aw crap... I go charging in with a battle cry!"  I'll make the attunement difficulty a little easier, I'll have the leader of the baddies decide this party is too pathetic and not worth killing, something that still seems plausible but not a GM gift.

As OLF stated... it's a game.

I have zero remorse when I do everything in my power to warn the players they are in an unwinnable situation, but they do it anyway.

"Roll Tactics...  It's still early in the evening, not everyone in the camp is asleep, they have at least 2 scouts walking a patrol, you are will be facing into the bright light of the campfire, and at least 2 of the baddies are sharpening their weapons."

"I move into position to get a back attack on one of them."

"What?  Um.. Roll Intuition...  You have a horrible feeling in your stomach that this will not end well.  You are drastically outnumbered and at a horrible tactical situation."

"I know, but I think I can take them out before they can ready their weapons."

"Sigh.  OK."

+1

[Druss_the_Legend]

Party rushed into enemy controlled stronghold and underestimated the enemy defence. Mix of over confidence and recklessness. They are paying the price and will probably lose a few key NPC allies as a result
A slower more cautious strategy would of worked better. Poor choices made. Now they are in the thick of pot with only themselves to blame.

One pc tried on an evil ring which backfired when he failed his corruption check and triggered a lycanthropy curse.
They had some wolvesbane herbs that they chose not to prepare prior to their scouting mission. They had encountered a werewolf at the same location previously but still did not think to make suitable preparations. Rushed in and set off the enemy defences. Totally self inflicted.
I’ve given hints and made suggestions to one of these players before and afterwards he said he felt railroaded. Lesson learned. Now I let him make his own choices without any guidance.

[MisterK]

I’ve given hints and made suggestions to one of these players before and afterwards he said he felt railroaded. Lesson learned. Now I let him make his own choices without any guidance.

The lesson being - if you provide suggestions, use NPCs with credentials. Otherwise, provide clues only. In other words, never provide anything out of character, unless the players, out of character, ask for guidance (and then, my preference is not to give them any - there are plenty of NPCs for that :p)

[Druss_the_Legend]

I’ve given hints and made suggestions to one of these players before and afterwards he said he felt railroaded. Lesson learned. Now I let him make his own choices without any guidance.

The lesson being - if you provide suggestions, use NPCs with credentials. Otherwise, provide clues only. In other words, never provide anything out of character, unless the players, out of character, ask for guidance (and then, my preference is not to give them any - there are plenty of NPCs for that :p)

Good point. Without NPCs there suggestions in character are not possible. Flip side of this is invite players to seek out suitable NPCs for help. If they opt to fly solo then that’s totally fine. Eg the two party NPCs are stealthy nightblades. Maybe wait for them to offer help first? They have proven skills in infiltration and spying.

[MisterK]

Good point. Without NPCs there suggestions in character are not possible.

You still have clues. If the characters are competent in the type of activity they are engaging in, skill rolls are optional, skill *value* is more important. If the characters know something about werewolves, you can tell them how many are likely to be there. If they are proficient in skirmishes, you can tell them that the surroundings of the camp reek of traps and it looks like the camp itself is built to funnel intruders into killing zones.

Flip side of this is invite players to seek out suitable NPCs for help.

I wouldn't do that - basically, you're doing the OOC thing again by "inviting" them to seek 'suitable' NPCs. Once again, if you do not have NPCs who can speak their mind, provide clues. Maybe they know the reputation of the area and have an idea  of the number of groups that were ambushed and were not strong enough to get out of it with their hides. Maybe they overhear a grizzled veteran talking a would-be traveller out of attempting the journey, saying that "unless you have a full squad of mean bastards to pick up your slack, you won't find anyone stupid enough to go there". Maybe they can hear of a survivor who came back from the area recently, badly mauled and missing a few bits - and missing most of his comrades as well. You have options.

Eg the two party NPCs are stealthy nightblades. Maybe wait for them to offer help first? They have proven skills in infiltration and spying.

If the two NPCs are the only ones in the party to have those skills, you've backed yourself into a corner already, unless the characters sought them out specifically. But you can still have the NPCs say "I won't go in there like that, it's suicide. If you want to go, it's your life, but unless we come up with a real plan, you're on your own."
But having unwanted NPCs with a skill set that no PC has is not a good idea - you're stealing the spotlight from the PCs and put it on *your* NPCs. Why did you put the PCs in a situation they did not have the skill set for ? Did you have someone warn them beforehand that this was likely an infiltration job that required quite a bit of expertise ?
You can't save a bunch that will ignore or disregard all the clues you are providing. However, if you do not provide the clues, the fault is not the players'. Any essential clue should always be provided (no roll, or roll only to see the conditions in which they get the clue). Roll only for the *optional* clues - things that would make their job easier or provide them with an advantage, but that they do not need to have a fighting chance.
Otherwise, sooner or later, they will fail their rolls (or won't have the required skill set) in a bad situation, and you'll be facing a group wipe and some kind of player fatigue.

[katastrophe]

We play with a couple things

1) fate points. Due to the nature of RM as a game fate points are the meta currency players can use to help them survive situations when dice are against them.

2) reliance on good sense. If the players are making an obviously bad decision, the GM tells them your character knows this is a bad decision. Skills of not, most people can recognize when they might be getting in over their head.

3) risk acceptance. When PCs CHOOSE to undertake a risk after being warned that PCs could die from a situation, the chips fall where they may. Players undertake risks on behalf of the characters and there’s consequences to that choice. There should be clues and warnings along the way that the risk is high.

If there are insufficient clues then that’s a problem with the adventure. If set up correctly, there should be clues the players get “for free” and maybe some better clues that come from their characters skills.

And that’s again where fate points could come in. Player really needs to make a skill roll for an important clue and fails, he should get the “free” part of the clue and may be advised that a reroll (fate point) might be advisable because he feels there’s more that needs to be learned, seen, found etc.

But at the end, simply letting PCs survive bad decisionmaking neither I nor the people I play with find fun.