Forums of the Megaverse®

This is a question that is problematic for me both as a player and as a GM.

As a player it is hard to know when you can take something and when you can't and to some degree it doesn't even matter, if one guy in the player group charges in I am compelled to back him up, at least until he dies (or I do, unfortunately). This is normally on some monster I don't know anything about and the basic assumption is that if we couldn't handle him the GM wouldn't have presented him to us.

As a GM I don't give people monsters they can't handle (although I may give them as a warning not to go that way, but I always think its fairly obvious that I put the thing there so they wouldn't go that way. Maybe its not obvious). More often I will put them in a situation where they are outnumbered 2 to 1 (or more) by some powerful guys and its obvious to me that they shouldn't go in (or if they do to at least use some tactics). But most of the time some clod charges in and they end up dead and as GM I feel I am responsible for it. Oh I can contrive some bs situation to save them but I think that just encourages them to charge in stupidly the next time.

So what do you do? Just kill them have them reroll new guys and hope that will be the lesson or do you give them information the character wouldn't know (seems like a cheat to me to say grandpa told you about this if you failed a demon and monster roll, if you even bothered to take it). The only other solution I can think of is to never present them with opponents they can't overcome and that's obviously makes for incredibly bad story and a boring time. Course maybe they deserve it for always charging in.

There's lots of ways.

Have a favorite party NPC (that the group knows is comparable or more powerful than them) get his head ripped off by the monster.
The Glitter boy lose 110 MDC with one shot.
Have the psychic who does 'see aura' go momentarily insane because of the 'power' radiating from the monster.
Sixth Sense
Beat up the party, knock them all out. But the monster doesn't kill them. It needs them alive for food... for its babies. They wake up and have a chance to plan/attempt an escape. maybe they are low on ammo/PPE and know they cannot fight it. A good group will never assume the GM will make everything beatable. May need to kill off a group 2 or 10 times until they learn what type of game it is and is not.

Also: I find it extremely important for the GM and players to actually discuss the type of game to be played before anything else is done. I seperate fantasy into low, middle, high, and dark. Low = ammo and rations are counted, magic items super rare, and they need to save every copper. High = they trip over magic items, save the world daily. Middle is between. Dark is pick low high or middle then add ravenloft/BtS/Chthulu.
As a player I need to know (especially if it is a new system) if a crit doesn;t just do 2x damage but explains in which way my character dies (warhammer), or if my character is trying to slow down insanity and I know he cannot actually not go insane (chthulu).
The group needs to make it plain to all if the GM will bring in monsters/fights they might not be able to handle. Then if the party wipes, at least they were forewarned.

A note: in Chthulu, I had a big 6'6" 300lb slab of muscle. Madhouse attendant. he wasn't smart, but not dumb, but talked like a hick. He did know basic psychology from being around the alienist. I had one rule with the character. He used a billy club. if he hit the monster and it didn't drop or at least fall back a little, he ran. He never used a gun, never. All the gunslingers, and anyone else who picked up a pistol, shotgun, tommy gun, or whatnot and felt momentarily invincible, ended up dead.

As a player I don't expect any punches to be pulled.
I never enter battle needlessly, it is always the last resort. If I find myself in a situation where battle is the only alternative, then all I can do is trust that the GM isn't trying to kill me.
If he is trying to kill me, there is nothing I can do to stop him. If he isn't trying to kill me then I have already done everything I can (and need to) to survive the situation.

Don't feel bad about killing a character. Always attempt to give them a way out, but if they don't take it, give them what's coming to them.

--flatline

GA wrote:This is a question that is problematic for me both as a player and as a GM.

As a player it is hard to know when you can take something and when you can't and to some degree it doesn't even matter, if one guy in the player group charges in I am compelled to back him up, at least until he dies (or I do, unfortunately). This is normally on some monster I don't know anything about and the basic assumption is that if we couldn't handle him the GM wouldn't have presented him to us.

We quit making that assumption within our first year of Rifts, because we got tired of dying all the time.

As a GM I don't give people monsters they can't handle (although I may give them as a warning not to go that way, but I always think its fairly obvious that I put the thing there so they wouldn't go that way. Maybe its not obvious). More often I will put them in a situation where they are outnumbered 2 to 1 (or more) by some powerful guys and its obvious to me that they shouldn't go in (or if they do to at least use some tactics). But most of the time some clod charges in and they end up dead and as GM I feel I am responsible for it. Oh I can contrive some bs situation to save them but I think that just encourages them to charge in stupidly the next time.

So what do you do? Just kill them have them reroll new guys and hope that will be the lesson or do you give them information the character wouldn't know (seems like a cheat to me to say grandpa told you about this if you failed a demon and monster roll, if you even bothered to take it). The only other solution I can think of is to never present them with opponents they can't overcome and that's obviously makes for incredibly bad story and a boring time. Course maybe they deserve it for always charging in.

Sometimes I have them roll IQ checks to see if their characters are smarter than they are.
Sometimes I flat-out tell them, "you guys probably won't survive this."
Usually I just let them die. As far as I'm concerned, not biting off more than you can chew is part of the game.
Ya gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, and know when to run.

I wasn't talking about Rifts. I was just talking in general. Matter of fact I wasn't even thinking about Rifts.

GA wrote:I wasn't talking about Rifts. I was just talking in general. Matter of fact I wasn't even thinking about Rifts.

Spiffy.
I was answering your question, and my answer had something to do with Rifts.
Hope that didn't upset you too much.

2 People mentioned Rifts and I found it strange that a general question got turned into a Rifts question.

Let them take SDC damage. When you're on HP damage (especially bleeding) you should be thinking about running. It's what it's there for!

And kill the most reckless until the remaining get the message...

I usually go with something like,

"You guys might want to think about getting out of here..."

If they choose to carry on despite that, then kill away!

GA wrote:2 People mentioned Rifts and I found it strange that a general question got turned into a Rifts question.

The most popular Palladium game is bound to turn up occasionally in Palladium's forums.

But really, my answer wasn't about Rifts, it was about one thing that I learned from Rifts that is applicable in most games.

A long time ago, I was GMing a campaign and the players kept dying because I didn't know what the party could or could not handle. After one of the player's 4th or 5th time dying in the same spot, we had a little pow-wow and decided to put that campaign down and try something else so we could all figure out what could and could not happen. I ran them through AD&D's Reverse Dungeon multiple times.

If you aren't familiar with it, the players take on the role of monsters in a dungeon, and they have to prepare for adventurers coming in to take them out. There are a few different sections in the adventure, and the players get to switch up which monsters they are at different sections. The first one is that the players are nothing more than goblins, while the adventurers coming in are like 4th or 5th level. Each player gets 3 goblins to start, and they get time to plan their defense. Then the fun begins.

The adventure, unlike others, is about the players trying to stay alive even though it's highly geared for the npc adventurers to slaughter them all. And it taught me how those players thought, what they were most apt to do, and how to "dumb down" the enemies so it was an even battle (even if they continued to get slaughtered). It's an interesting twist to see the players have to defend themselves from adventurers instead of them going out and killing the poor monsters, but it really helped me to understand when something was too much, or to prepare for some players being really stupid (like one of the guys, who was a goblin in the first section and charged head-on into combat against 3 of the adventurers wielding only a club).

That is what helped me, and I cannot say that it will help anyone else because we all learn in different ways. But the most important thing to remember here is that no matter what you play or plan for, the players will always do something that will make you second-guess the campaign. ALWAYS. I think NMI said it best: I don't kill players. Players kill players.

Overall, it is a delicate balance as to when something is just right, too light, or too heavy. As the GM, you don't need to squash the players if they refuse to run. But you can scare the bejeezus out of them and make them re-think what they want to do.

Nice post, Snape.

It is important to make it clear that there are situations where they should run. Some games and GMs auto-level things so much that the concept of 'this is beyond us' is something of an alien concept replaced with 'it is here, we should obviously be capable of handling it'.
Besides direct pow-wowing and descriptions of things (you hit it dead on.. it doesn't seem to mind much..), another good trick for reinforcing intelligent behavior is to have their opponents demonstrate the same level of sense. Rare is the person or intelligent creature that will stay and fight when it knows it is losing, and believes it can break contact with the enemy.

I tend to describe the scene towards a possible choice as if it were the last moment the player were ever going to see with this character. That tends to make the character decide to either be a hero and go down as a hero or live to fight another day

But most of the time some clod charges in and they end up dead and as GM I feel I am responsible for it.

Why? Do you make these monsters so you definately know there is no statistical chance for the PC's to survive?

Or is it something like that basically you've trained the players to run at monsters (for story reasons), so here it's a bit like training a dog to fetch a stick, but having thrown the stick onto the highway?

I am not responsible for player decisions. I am responsible for describing the world in immersive detail and being aware of the PC's talents when doing so. AKA, if there is any reason that the PC would know stuff the player doesn't know, I will let the player know.

AKA, the ex-Coalition grunt is pretty familiar with the lethality and capabilities of common CS gear and knows that him and 3 city rats aren't a match for a skull walker in open combat. If the player isn't aware of this, I am happy to say that "you once watched a single walker chop through a dozen monsters during the Tolkeen war and this is the upgraded model"...

But if they still charge in? May the dice be with them!

There is nothing wrong with rolling up new characters from time to time.

Players have brains. They either use them, or they do not. So long as you as a GM have efficiently described the battle layout, the situation and the attackers it is up to the PC's to decide what to do. If they are imbeciles and are basically at 10% of their total stuff after 1 initiative and they do not run. Then they deserve to die.

Sound effects and description of environemntal chages.
say, the gargoyle superbot striding towards the hapless mooks in Plasticman armour with two NG laser rifles (with about maybe two spare clips)?
"As you ghost through the forest, you feel deep in your bones, a rythmic concussion many minutes before you hear the sound of what seems to be a pile-driver moving closer and closer. As you look up, you can see the tops of the trees begin to sway, as if something massive and unstoppable is casually brushing them aside like a child through tall grass."


Now... the LEEEEEERRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOY JENkins of the group will most likely roll the dice and go "hey nat 20...do I kill it?"
While the inteligent folks in the group will run for the nearest hole, wait for the big bad to stride on past, and then go back to nearest town NOT in the path of the juggernaught and get very very drunk celebrating they are NOT dead like poor ole Leeroy.

I let my players know before the begining of each game...

"I represent NPCs who are your friends and allies but I also represent NPC's who hate you and are actively trying to hunt you down and kill you. If you like your character (and most of my players do) try not to bite off more than you can chew because I will murder you in cold blood without blinking if you give one of your enemies that opportunity."

The easiest way to tell if an enemy is going to absolutely own someone is to play defensively. Generally, if a player focuses completely on defense for one melee round and the enemy has more attacks per action, or seems to do a significant amount of damage in one blow, or plays a unique ability, run away. Again, this is IF the difference in power isn't obvious, such as trying to take on a Super Sam with laser pistols or charging an adult dragon. Chances are the defender will take some damage and he might need repairs or medical attention, but it beats having everyone in the group attempting to slug it out in a losing battle.

well, that ever popular having their life flash before their eyes is also fun.

Some consider my an ass for GMing as I do, but I don't consider the power level of the opposition when I GM. I let roleplaying rule the day.

PCs need to be smart enough to run when the odds are stacked against them, or they are in trouble. Now, I play my bad guys rather intelligently and they won't always go for the kill. I think ALWAYS having fights to the death is ridiculous. However, my players usually take months to realize that their normal hack'n'slash tendencies will only get them grief and death in my games.

I allow all manner of creative combat. If you want to try and bring down the ceiling to delay the enemy so you can run, great! You want to try and shoot the big, bad assassin through the eye slit, go for it! You want not take cover, not consider running, not consider talking, and never do anything but pull a gun and shoot? YOU ARE GOING TO DIE!

Make a new character and rejoin us when you can. Maybe next time you won't play so stupidly. If your character was supposed to be that stupid, then he got what he deserved.

All this being said, I ALWAYS allow the PCs to try and escape. I am not one of those jerk-off GMs that short-circuit the players at every turn. Again, if you role play and are creative or heroic (or deliciously evil ) you will do better than being the baddest guy on the field.

I try to be helpful with new players but eventually they let themselves get killed and I dont stop it. They NEVER make the same mistake twice.

As a player - it depends on what my charatcer would do.

As a GM - I DO occasionally present the players with a monster that is too powerful for them for a sense of realism. I always present them with a way out (ie the see the monster graxing but it hasnt seen them yet). The players should learn to run sometimes. Do that and it may stop your players rushing in.

Foreshadow heavily that a threat is very powerful. When they go after it anyway, leave a way out. Offer them the way out just before you murder them and don't feel bad about murdering them when they don't take it. They'll learn to be more cautious.

I was in a D&D next play test where this cave (one of a few you could choose from) was heavily foreshadowed with darkness, torn up corpses, huge claw marks on trees outside. I went 'I am so NOT going in there!'. And then two party members stroll in anyway. And I did not.

One thing to remember if you've beaten it into players that you never split the party - that some will follow others because...well...because you beat it into them to not split the party.

Sometimes you just don't follow the idiots - but that requires the group being okay with a party split.

"You feel deep down that if you stay any longer the roof could cave in"

"the king is very displeased to find out you are the traitor & asks for you to wait here"

"just because you're both evil doesn't mean a demon has your back"

I like to be nice a subtle like a brick

GA wrote:This is a question that is problematic for me both as a player and as a GM.

As a player it is hard to know when you can take something and when you can't and to some degree it doesn't even matter, if one guy in the player group charges in I am compelled to back him up, at least until he dies (or I do, unfortunately). This is normally on some monster I don't know anything about and the basic assumption is that if we couldn't handle him the GM wouldn't have presented him to us.

As a GM I don't give people monsters they can't handle (although I may give them as a warning not to go that way, but I always think its fairly obvious that I put the thing there so they wouldn't go that way. Maybe its not obvious). More often I will put them in a situation where they are outnumbered 2 to 1 (or more) by some powerful guys and its obvious to me that they shouldn't go in (or if they do to at least use some tactics). But most of the time some clod charges in and they end up dead and as GM I feel I am responsible for it. Oh I can contrive some bs situation to save them but I think that just encourages them to charge in stupidly the next time.

So what do you do? Just kill them have them reroll new guys and hope that will be the lesson or do you give them information the character wouldn't know (seems like a cheat to me to say grandpa told you about this if you failed a demon and monster roll, if you even bothered to take it). The only other solution I can think of is to never present them with opponents they can't overcome and that's obviously makes for incredibly bad story and a boring time. Course maybe they deserve it for always charging in.

As a Gamemaster, I personally see no reason to set the players up against something they can't beat. I try to craft stories around the players' characters' backgrounds, goals, desires, likes, dislikes, and all that.

On the other hand, if something is more easily defeated by an approach not ordinarily taken by the players, I'd try giving them a hint during the description of said challenge.

If it's just bad luck of the dice, the enemies can always spare the characters.

Ubistvo wrote:

Noon wrote:I was in a D&D next play test where this cave (one of a few you could choose from) was heavily foreshadowed with darkness, torn up corpses, huge claw marks on trees outside. I went 'I am so NOT going in there!'. And then two party members stroll in anyway. And I did not.

One thing to remember if you've beaten it into players that you never split the party - that some will follow others because...well...because you beat it into them to not split the party.

Sometimes you just don't follow the idiots - but that requires the group being okay with a party split.

Soooo...did they survive?!

One did (by running away), as the owlbear tore the other one apart.

Antimony wrote:

GA wrote:This is a question that is problematic for me both as a player and as a GM.

As a player it is hard to know when you can take something and when you can't and to some degree it doesn't even matter, if one guy in the player group charges in I am compelled to back him up, at least until he dies (or I do, unfortunately). This is normally on some monster I don't know anything about and the basic assumption is that if we couldn't handle him the GM wouldn't have presented him to us.

As a GM I don't give people monsters they can't handle (although I may give them as a warning not to go that way, but I always think its fairly obvious that I put the thing there so they wouldn't go that way. Maybe its not obvious). More often I will put them in a situation where they are outnumbered 2 to 1 (or more) by some powerful guys and its obvious to me that they shouldn't go in (or if they do to at least use some tactics). But most of the time some clod charges in and they end up dead and as GM I feel I am responsible for it. Oh I can contrive some bs situation to save them but I think that just encourages them to charge in stupidly the next time.

So what do you do? Just kill them have them reroll new guys and hope that will be the lesson or do you give them information the character wouldn't know (seems like a cheat to me to say grandpa told you about this if you failed a demon and monster roll, if you even bothered to take it). The only other solution I can think of is to never present them with opponents they can't overcome and that's obviously makes for incredibly bad story and a boring time. Course maybe they deserve it for always charging in.

As a Gamemaster, I personally see no reason to set the players up against something they can't beat. I try to craft stories around the players' characters' backgrounds, goals, desires, likes, dislikes, and all that.

On the other hand, if something is more easily defeated by an approach not ordinarily taken by the players, I'd try giving them a hint during the description of said challenge.

If it's just bad luck of the dice, the enemies can always spare the characters.

Just curious, how do you build tension and encourage creative (noncombative) problem solving without the possibility of the characters dying?

Bill wrote:Just curious, how do you build tension and encourage creative (noncombative) problem solving without the possibility of the characters dying?

This makes me curious what your life is like.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Bill wrote:Just curious, how do you build tension and encourage creative (noncombative) problem solving without the possibility of the characters dying?

This makes me curious what your life is like.

Occasionally stressful.

Bill wrote:Just curious, how do you build tension and encourage creative (noncombative) problem solving without the possibility of the characters dying?

Simply threaten something they value like the success of a business or well being of a friend.

Lethal threats often have a clear response which makes them less stressful for the player than non-lethal threats where your options aren't as clearly defined.

--flatline

Bill wrote:Just curious, how do you build tension and encourage creative (noncombative) problem solving without the possibility of the characters dying?

Oh, I never said I won't kill off characters. I just won't set them against foes that cannot be defeated. Not unless they consistently ask for it by being disruptive, annoying apes that refuse to consider anybody else's feelings in game, kill everything in their path just for fun, and so forth. But that hasn't happened to me before. Even then, it's a lot funner to just have the world react according to their actions, in my opinion.

One way to encourage non-combative problem solving is to simply keep the players engaged. Find out what books they like, find out which video games they like, and build the story around them with that in mind. Let adventures help characters become closer to their goals. There's always investigation, stealth missions, riddles, puzzles, mazes, mysteries, chases, escapes . . . the list goes on.

But, looks like others answered while I was dallying with this window open.

Pause the game to go to the bathroom, when ask why? Tell them you want no distractions when you **** them up.

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:Pause the game to go to the bathroom, when ask why? Tell them you want no distractions when you **** them up.

Who asks "why" when someone goes to the bathroom?

--flatline

Me. Every time.

It's the only way to be sure.

You know, statistically there should always be a chance that the players are going to die. Otherwise it's not a game so much as a railroad theme park that has no risk / reward. Also, the problem of not being able to tell as a player if a task is beatable or not is a scenario and possible game dynamics issue, as the player should usually be able to gauge if a situation is likely beatable. Also, there is a single rule that pretty much stands the test of time with RPGs: If it has statistics and an HP pool, players will kill it or die trying.

As The Spoony One coined on his web page "Roll 1d100 Sanity Loss for your one chance at GLORY!!" (Call of Cthulu reference)

Actually, I think he kind of covers this subject in his counter monkey video "Because he is There..."
http://spoonyexperiment.com/2012/09/25/counter-monkey-because-hes-there/

Generally speaking, I don't let them know it's time to run, but unless they've done something bone-deep stupid, there will be a way out.

I've actually had very few player character deaths. Maybe, maybe 5%. And every time there was a way out of the situation.

Colt47 wrote:You know, statistically there should always be a chance that the players are going to die.

Depends on whether by chance you mean random chance, or if you don't perform certain actions (press the button that stops the bomb count down) you die.

With random chance, if there's always a chance then if you play for long enough, you'll just die. It depends though if you have an ending to play (end of campaign, maybe) - and whether the odds will add up before or only after that ending.

Noon wrote:

Colt47 wrote:You know, statistically there should always be a chance that the players are going to die.

Depends on whether by chance you mean random chance, or if you don't perform certain actions (press the button that stops the bomb count down) you die.

With random chance, if there's always a chance then if you play for long enough, you'll just die. It depends though if you have an ending to play (end of campaign, maybe) - and whether the odds will add up before or only after that ending.

I think we are on different wave lengths when thinking this through. The person could also have performed the actions inferred and not died, so you are assuming that the person lucked out on probability and had the negative outcome occur.

The problem is when the probability of choosing the correct action is so low that the only likely outcome is the negative one (Which is my problem with the entirety of the palladium skill system). That could mean that the GM forgets to emphasize certain information when entering a room, or it could mean that the probability of the skill roll necessary is so low that success is fairly unlikely.

Colt47 wrote:

Noon wrote:

Colt47 wrote:You know, statistically there should always be a chance that the players are going to die.

Depends on whether by chance you mean random chance, or if you don't perform certain actions (press the button that stops the bomb count down) you die.

I think we are on different wave lengths when thinking this through. The person could also have performed the actions inferred and not died, so you are assuming that the person lucked out on probability and had the negative outcome occur.

I don't understand. I don't know what example you're refering to - my bomb example, you just need to press the button (lets say it has 'off' on it). It's a simple example, granted.

I don't understand what you mean when you say 'The person could also have performed the actions inferred and not died' - well, in my example if you press the button you don't die? It seems like your arguing that in my example if you press the button, you don't die...that doesn't need to be argued. If it's not that, what are you saying?

The problem is when the probability of choosing the correct action is so low that the only likely outcome is the negative one

Not really. Even if you have a 99% chance of choosing the right option in a scenario (or otherwise you die), if you go through roughly 100 such scenarios, you will die. The odds simply add up. Having a really high chance of choosing the right option isn't somehow okay - it simply increases the number of scenarios required before you die.

Noon wrote:

Colt47 wrote:

Noon wrote:

Colt47 wrote:You know, statistically there should always be a chance that the players are going to die.

Depends on whether by chance you mean random chance, or if you don't perform certain actions (press the button that stops the bomb count down) you die.

I think we are on different wave lengths when thinking this through. The person could also have performed the actions inferred and not died, so you are assuming that the person lucked out on probability and had the negative outcome occur.

I don't understand. I don't know what example you're refering to - my bomb example, you just need to press the button (lets say it has 'off' on it). It's a simple example, granted.

I don't understand what you mean when you say 'The person could also have performed the actions inferred and not died' - well, in my example if you press the button you don't die? It seems like your arguing that in my example if you press the button, you don't die...that doesn't need to be argued. If it's not that, what are you saying?

The problem is when the probability of choosing the correct action is so low that the only likely outcome is the negative one

Not really. Even if you have a 99% chance of choosing the right option in a scenario (or otherwise you die), if you go through roughly 100 such scenarios, you will die. The odds simply add up. Having a really high chance of choosing the right option isn't somehow okay - it simply increases the number of scenarios required before you die.

if the chance of not dieing is 99% then it's extremely unlikely that someone is going to die, even if you did run it 100 times.

Noon wrote:

Colt47 wrote:

Noon wrote:

Colt47 wrote:You know, statistically there should always be a chance that the players are going to die.

Depends on whether by chance you mean random chance, or if you don't perform certain actions (press the button that stops the bomb count down) you die.

I think we are on different wave lengths when thinking this through. The person could also have performed the actions inferred and not died, so you are assuming that the person lucked out on probability and had the negative outcome occur.

I don't understand. I don't know what example you're refering to - my bomb example, you just need to press the button (lets say it has 'off' on it). It's a simple example, granted.

I don't understand what you mean when you say 'The person could also have performed the actions inferred and not died' - well, in my example if you press the button you don't die? It seems like your arguing that in my example if you press the button, you don't die...that doesn't need to be argued. If it's not that, what are you saying?

The problem is when the probability of choosing the correct action is so low that the only likely outcome is the negative one

Not really. Even if you have a 99% chance of choosing the right option in a scenario (or otherwise you die), if you go through roughly 100 such scenarios, you will die. The odds simply add up. Having a really high chance of choosing the right option isn't somehow okay - it simply increases the number of scenarios required before you die.

Well, the odds don't really add up. If they added, then you'd be guaranteed to die by the 100th scenario. Instead, they multiply, so if you have a .99 chance of surviving a scenario, then you have a .99^100 (roughly .37) chance of surviving 100 such scenarios.

But the core of your statement is correct: eventually, the odds catch up with you.

--flatline

GA wrote:This is a question that is problematic for me both as a player and as a GM.

As a player it is hard to know when you can take something and when you can't and to some degree it doesn't even matter, if one guy in the player group charges in I am compelled to back him up, at least until he dies (or I do, unfortunately). This is normally on some monster I don't know anything about and the basic assumption is that if we couldn't handle him the GM wouldn't have presented him to us.

As a GM I don't give people monsters they can't handle (although I may give them as a warning not to go that way, but I always think its fairly obvious that I put the thing there so they wouldn't go that way. Maybe its not obvious). More often I will put them in a situation where they are outnumbered 2 to 1 (or more) by some powerful guys and its obvious to me that they shouldn't go in (or if they do to at least use some tactics). But most of the time some clod charges in and they end up dead and as GM I feel I am responsible for it. Oh I can contrive some bs situation to save them but I think that just encourages them to charge in stupidly the next time.

So what do you do? Just kill them have them reroll new guys and hope that will be the lesson or do you give them information the character wouldn't know (seems like a cheat to me to say grandpa told you about this if you failed a demon and monster roll, if you even bothered to take it). The only other solution I can think of is to never present them with opponents they can't overcome and that's obviously makes for incredibly bad story and a boring time. Course maybe they deserve it for always charging in.

I leave outs for all scenarios so if the players stubbornly continue on the path to character death then I kill them.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

GA wrote:This is a question that is problematic for me both as a player and as a GM.

As a player it is hard to know when you can take something and when you can't and to some degree it doesn't even matter, if one guy in the player group charges in I am compelled to back him up, at least until he dies (or I do, unfortunately). This is normally on some monster I don't know anything about and the basic assumption is that if we couldn't handle him the GM wouldn't have presented him to us.

As a GM I don't give people monsters they can't handle (although I may give them as a warning not to go that way, but I always think its fairly obvious that I put the thing there so they wouldn't go that way. Maybe its not obvious). More often I will put them in a situation where they are outnumbered 2 to 1 (or more) by some powerful guys and its obvious to me that they shouldn't go in (or if they do to at least use some tactics). But most of the time some clod charges in and they end up dead and as GM I feel I am responsible for it. Oh I can contrive some bs situation to save them but I think that just encourages them to charge in stupidly the next time.

So what do you do? Just kill them have them reroll new guys and hope that will be the lesson or do you give them information the character wouldn't know (seems like a cheat to me to say grandpa told you about this if you failed a demon and monster roll, if you even bothered to take it). The only other solution I can think of is to never present them with opponents they can't overcome and that's obviously makes for incredibly bad story and a boring time. Course maybe they deserve it for always charging in.

I leave outs for all scenarios so if the players stubbornly continue on the path to character death then I kill them.

Unfortunately it is true that some people seem to play suicidal characters. Well, that or the player just unintentionally runs them as suicidal, I haven't really figured this one out yet.

I may have players roll an I.Q. check for their character. If they pass it, I'll point out their common sense tells them "There's no way to win this. We should haul tail."

If they refuse to yield even then, they die.

Mercdog wrote:I may have players roll an I.Q. check for their character. If they pass it, I'll point out their common sense tells them "There's no way to win this. We should haul tail."

If they refuse to yield even then, they die.

My trick for dealing with this kind of situation that worked for the two or three adventures I wrote up is that if the encounter is intended to be winnable, use enemies that have been given stats. If the situation is supposed to be a run away type of scenario (like the environment itself is trying to kill the players) don't use enemies with stats. Trust me, players WILL run if they can't identify the hostile force and the danger of the situation is properly imparted. I had a unkillable ghost that drained the color from the surroundings and caused the environment to appear warped. The first time the players actually encountered it was when it disemboweled a dozen or so of the local kings knights in some rather creative ways.

Colt47 wrote:if the chance of not dieing is 99% then it's extremely unlikely that someone is going to die, even if you did run it 100 times.

Not at all. Try rolling a D20 forty times - you'll get a nat twenty pretty much every time. Or 1D6 twelve times - you'll get a six pretty much each time. I tried the D6 method five times just then and got one each time. The 1% chance of dying is the same, it just requires more rolls.

Perhaps at only 100 rolls you might skip a natural 100. But two hundred times, you'll pretty much get a 100 every time.