Log in

No account? Create an account
D&D 3E
So I ran my first TPK today. Ended the campaign. Not on purpose, of… 
15th-Apr-2007 10:13 pm
So I ran my first TPK today. Ended the campaign. Not on purpose, of course.

I'm not sure what I think about it.
16th-Apr-2007 02:48 pm (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. But maybe I'd just like to think that the players have some choice in the matter, and just passively receiving a story I create. I'm pretty sure that I can create a non-lethal environment which the players can turn lethal. I'd also suggest that, philosophically, luck DOES have a place in what happens in the game. Just because I made a situation where there was a chance of dying doesn't mean I killed the characters. Perhaps I made an situation where there was a 1% chance of the party dying. Well, bad luck could mean that the party did in fact fall into that 1% chance. And I will not play any game in which there is a 0% chance of failure. Because then what's the point?

But whatever. In any case, I am neither surprised nor confused about the fact that the party died. I am unsure about my own feelings about what happened. Is that alright by you?
(Deleted comment)
16th-Apr-2007 07:18 pm (UTC) - Defensive? Hardly...
I'm gonna disagree with you as well Phasmaphobic. Saying the DM allowed for a TPK because he just happened to set a scene with lethal potential is a weak argument.

Any environment/adcenture that involves risk to the PCs has the potential to become lethal -- that's the nature of the game. Unloess you strongarm the players into the "non-lethal" path (which ruins the game itself), there's always a chance that things will go bad. It doesn't matter whether it's bad die rolls, poor planning/strategy/decisions on the part of the players. It can happen.

It's hardly the DM's fault if he keeps thing balanced -- an orc with a greataxe can instantly kill a 1st level barbarian with a crit.

Since PCs will commonly do things that the DM won't expect, it just goes to show that things can swing either way. I had a high level party nearly get wiped out by a fair challenge (with them at full strength) because of some bad decisions. Almost ended the campaign right there, if the mage hadn't fled.

It's how the game goes. You can't feel miserable about it, nor should you cackle with glee over it. Best thing to do is to learn from it and break out the d6s.
16th-Apr-2007 07:40 pm (UTC) - And incidentally...
...he has reason to sound defensive given the accusatory tone in your initial post.
(Deleted comment)
16th-Apr-2007 09:15 pm (UTC) - Re: And incidentally...
Well, given the context of the phrase "Why'd you do it?" I fail to see how that could be neutral.

Furthermore, "Blame the rolls and their decisions all you want, but the bottom line is that you created the environment which killed the characters," also has a ring of accusation. The emphasis of this statement can be read as the focus is on the DM, and does not include the mutual situation of the players.
(Deleted comment)
16th-Apr-2007 10:18 pm (UTC) - Re: And incidentally...
Okay, you asked for it. Here it is.

"Why'd you do it?" sounds accusatory because it has no other surrounding context to qualify it. It becomes highly open to interpretation since we have nothing else to go by. And as a writer, I can say it's all about the context. With no face or body language to read, all one has to go by is the words in the post. It doesn't matter whether you have embellishments or not, the words simply sound like you're making accusation. The voice may or may not be harsh, but how can we tell?

"How did it happen?" is a neutral statement. Had you said this, you wouldn't have implied any blame but rather asked for clarification.

Had you led with the post you make later in this thread, you would not have received this sort of flak.

Had you followed up your initial statements with something like "Oops, my bad, let me explain in a little more detail." I would think this community would be a little more forgiving regardless of what your opinion actually is. Instead, you take defensive and cry foul with "this community is opposed to differing opinions," when people are calling you to task on the tone of your posts.

So please, explain to us as to what parts of my logic are "dirty."
16th-Apr-2007 11:25 pm (UTC) - Re: And incidentally...
It might just be that I had a long day at work, but I'm not sure I can explain a connotation in totally objective terms.

To me, the statement connotes a lack of neutrality and a placement of blame (with all that word's negative connotations). But that meaning is implicit and not explicit, so I don't believe I can prove its presence.

Suffice to say that to you audience, you sounded very accusatory, even if you didn't mean to.
(Deleted comment)
17th-Apr-2007 01:53 am (UTC) - Re: And incidentally...
Fair enough. God knows I'm guilty of doing the same thing.
16th-Apr-2007 07:43 pm (UTC)
Judging form the attitude you put out... he was reacting just fine.

(Deleted comment)
16th-Apr-2007 09:16 pm (UTC)
You don't seem to be taking this criticism of your own opinion well. Perhaps you should consider your own advice?
This page was loaded Jan 23rd 2019, 10:02 am GMT.