I would never have an unkillable NPC show up and horrendously disadvantage or outright kill the party. Sometimes I just want someone to make an appearance and convey something; information, foreboding, etc.
In general, I would simply not have combat take place with regards to this NPC, and if it did, it would be short and dismissive.
I agree with you on this point ... and actually that is what I tried to do. But the PC just slaughtered the bodyguard/distractions with critial hits. But once the Orc Warlord got on his horse things sort of backfired for him.
Being the DM sucks sometimes. Knowing that the PC cut the saddle strap, but the Orc did not .... Orc had no other means to escape. Plus he would logically get on his horse to leave.
But as stated, I solved this problem with the "vision" I did to one of the party members. Granted the party has gone from one extreme to the other. Hiding on back roads and living off the land for the time being.
fwiw: some of my most memorable moments were lopsided battles that shouldn't've occured in the first place. But instead of being dismissive, I looked up the stats for the opponent (or something close) and started running combat by the rules.
I've never seen players so excited and... happy (even though they were running for their lives). But they always took care to avoid such dangers afterwards
It'd be a shame to miss opportunities to provide yourself (and your players) such pure roleplaying joy.
The answer is simple. If it's not intended to be fought, then it's not a combat encounter, and you don't dress it as one.
No rolling for initiative, no attack rolls ... just narrate how their feeble attacks bounce off his armor, and he backhands someone effortlessly, sending them sprawling on the floor. For most gamers, the mantra is 'if it has stats, we can kill it'.
So don't give it stats.
No....just no. Unkillable NPC? What madness is this? The only unkillable NPC I know are in video games. In D&D, anything can die no matter how big or powerful.
The wonder thing about D&D is that everything must be settle with dices. No matter how powerful or how strong the challenge that the party is facing. The luck of the dice can tell epic stories of their survival or defeat. So having an unkillable NPC because it have no stats is unacceptable!
Who says everything must be settled with dice? Can you imagine how much that would slow the game down? Every time the PC's ask an NPC a question, roll the dice to see how honest and forthcoming his answer is? What if that NPC has every motivation to lie?
And yes, Salla's advice was absolutely spot on. It's perfectly valid to have unkillable, no-stat NPC's as long as the DM doesn't have them outright kill the party (or something nearly as egregious).
Woah! You misunderstood. I say when it comes to powerful or strong situation where the DM takes control of the situation with no dice roll. It's pretty much like this.
DM: The black knight swings his sword and drops you. Fighter: But I had 35hp and 21 AC? DM: He's too powerful for you to handle. You wake up in a dungeon cell.
That can be seen as too-obviously railroading your PCs.
I would suggest assigning a set AC for said black knight, something that your party striker will hit less than 50% of the time, and basically an infinite number of hit points, but do about 25-50% of a given PC's health each hit, even if you are rolling dice behind your screen and assigning whatever damage you want to that hit.
Then, when the PCs are wiped out, they wake up in a dungeon cell. Having the knight just auto-hit and one-shot a PC is obvious railroading. By giving the illusion of a winnable encounter, you incite in your players a desire for revenge on the guy who beat them so badly, as soon as they get the power to do so. Could even be a quest to get some means of bypassing his "invulnerability". Like Kain tracking down the Nexus Stone in Blood Omen 2, so that he could survive the Sarafan Lord's onslaught (which is how the SL beat him in the opening cinematic).
DMs have full control even if that makes players mad... Boohoo, Boohoo...."
It's obvious you and I have very different views of what a DM is and how they should behave at the table.
Now you've introduced another concept. DMs CAN - they have the power and the authority - do anything within their game world. Anything whatsoever that occurs within the game world.
What they cannot do, that gives the other members of their group a limited check on them, is compel other people to show up and try to play their characters well. Because that doesn't occur within the game world.
The new concept you've introduced is what DMs SHOULD do, which is more restricted than what they can do. However there's still a pretty broad range. It's possible for an experienced DM to run a game and tell a story simultaneously - but it's very tricky to do it well. (I tend to over-story when I try, and that's quite possibly my worst failing as a DM.) It's also possible for a DM to create a regional map, drop a few cities and a few major NPCs on it, then the players show up and the DM says "Okay, where are your characters and why are they together?" and the game runs from there.
The one thing that a DM can do but should almost-never do, regardless of group dynamics is tell a player how his character chooses to act. (Emphasis on "chooses" - if there is literally a compulsion, the character isn't choosing; but then it's important to make it clear that there IS a compulsion.)
The idea that the game 'belongs' to the DM is, in my opinion, extremely outdated and is not a game I would ever want to play in.
The game doesn't belong to the DM. However, having the game-world belong to the DM is one (among many) valid approach.
-------------------------------------
To the OP:
Nothing is final until you-as-DM tell it to the PCs. (You-as-NPC can lie or be mistaken.) And don't tell them more than you need to.
So if you've set up a horse outside the camp to be the boss's escape mechanism, it won't have a sign on it that says "THIS IS THE BOSS'S HORSE!". So the rogue sabotages it; well, that horse just became a messenger's mount and the boss has another escape mechanism. And since the players were never told that it's the boss's horse, there's no back-editing going on.
Now you have another whole plot hook available: where/whom that messenger was coming from and what the message was. You don't have to use it. You don't have to decide whether to use it for a while. And you definitely don't have to decide the answer to the mystery for a while.
In fact it can be a perpetual and recurring mystery. They keep seeing a horse every now and then, saddled and ready to go but not currently being ridden, with the same insignia on its tack. Usually in the vicinity of somebody they suspect of being bad guy. But they never can learn anything about the riders or their source (except "da messenger - dat's all I knows.").
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
I think a number of issues have popped up during this discussion, and I'd like to pitch in the whole mess
Regarding the OP, since you've already solved your dilemma I wouldn't need to comment on that anymore. If I was in your position however, rewriting the story is a constant thing I love to do (which is all the more reason why I like going improv, so long as the framework where I am improvising in is both structurally solid enough to keep the general world stories intact for consistency's sake, while vague enough to allow me to insert anything and everything I want without having to rewrite so many important stuff [so non-major town names, relevant non-world affecting NPCs, and similar stuff that don't affect stuff on the world scale doesn't change until the PCs come to a point in their story that gives them the chance to do so]
Improvisation does not equate to lazy DMing. Improvisation will not always save a lazy DM (although it can save a lazy yet creative DM... up to a point). Improvisation does, however, help the story move forward in reaction to whatever the PCs' actions are especially if you placed options A and B then the players choose option F. Personally I love improvisation, and 13th Age's tools that help improv certainly make improvisation enjoyable, but I do have to note this: no matter how good you are at improvising, you should consider what the PCs have already achieved, which means that if you have trouble keeping in your head every accomplishment of the PCs, and if other players in the group are having trouble keeping tabs on PC progress, at least keep a few notes on the matter. Combine that with the framework of your campaign world, and you'd more likely come up with things that would have your players enjoy your games more.
Over-prepping is just as bad as under-prepping IMHO, and just like improvisation will not save you from under-prepping, over-prepping won't save you from players choosing an option that you failed to take into account. That's why I would stick to the advice given to me: always prepare for at most one session ahead.
Striking fear in the hearts of players is an art form I think. So far, the only time I actually got to do that was in my MYRE campaign, wherein the level 1 PCs -- after handling a dream sequence where they were playing as if they were level 21 against an opponent that's around level 23 -- woke up to find themselves in prison and facing the BBEG who was tormenting them. They weren't afraid of him at the time, even when I had them auto-take damage and what not. They were shouting OMG! and WTF! and shook in fear however, when during their travels they came upon the psychological and (meta)physical profile of the BBEG... where I showed them the BBEG's stats, which had him at so high a level that rolling to hit and damage was completely unnecessary (unless you wanted to wager a 5% chance to dodge, and even then you'd be powerless to do anything anyway).
Illusion of choice might work for some DMs, but I find that a solid base system that allows me to tweak monster values and abilities on the fly would be a much better option. That's why I like the base rules of 4E, because you could easily slap on any set of powers and abilities that make the monster recognizably "it", while not having to state that regardless of what portal you go to you'd end up fighting kobolds. Perhaps in one room it's kobolds, another room it's goblins, and another room it's orcs, and in the kobold room there's a pool of acid, the goblin room there's a bunch of whirling blades [same damage as pool of acid, ongoing untyped damage instead of acid damage], and in the orc room there aren't any hidden traps, but rather there's a flamethrower obstacle course [same damage as traps, fire damage (no ongoing) instead of untyped or acid]. Same stats, slightly different mechanics (namely orc free attack on dying vs. goblin shift when an attack misses them vs. kobold shifting as a minor action, along with differences in trap design even though the attack and damage rolls are the same), wholly different experiences.
Statless NPCs? I do it all the time. If the PCs decide to kill them, and they're not supposed to be combat worthy, they die, full stop; maybe a few rolls to determine if they live or die, but that's it. Just because an NPC is statless doesn't mean that he isn't unkillable, it just means that he doesn't have stats to compare to, so the DM may have to rely on DCs, opposed dice rolls, or some other ruling or improvisational act to determine the fate of said NPC.
On the other hand, if the NPC is supposed to be a legendary combat-worthy creature, then I'd have to pull out my Excel spreadsheet to help make the calculating faster and easier. Either that, or pick a monster from the Monster Manual/Vault and reskin as needed.
Probably more stuff that I haven't included, but this should suffice for now
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
That can be seen as too-obviously railroading your PCs.
I would suggest assigning a set AC for said black knight, something that your party striker will hit less than 50% of the time, and basically an infinite number of hit points, but do about 25-50% of a given PC's health each hit, even if you are rolling dice behind your screen and assigning whatever damage you want to that hit.
Then, when the PCs are wiped out, they wake up in a dungeon cell. Having the knight just auto-hit and one-shot a PC is obvious railroading. By giving the illusion of a winnable encounter, you incite in your players a desire for revenge on the guy who beat them so badly, as soon as they get the power to do so. Could even be a quest to get some means of bypassing his "invulnerability". Like Kain tracking down the Nexus Stone in Blood Omen 2, so that he could survive the Sarafan Lord's onslaught (which is how the SL beat him in the opening cinematic).
I would not advice this either. Players are no fools, and they will recognize the situation for what it is. In my experience most players do not take kindly to such a setup unless they themselves are the one triggering it by doing something they consider stupid behavior (even if on hindsight, as long as they realize without DM prompting that they themselves are responsible). If you as a DM want to imprison the PCs, you are better off simply discussing it with the players beforehand and get their approval.
Getting imprisoned, or dying, is no different than any other consequence for failure. Hell, if they wind up in circumstances where they are vulnerable enough to be locked up, I would think they would feel lucky. At least they aren't dead. But it isn't something that should happen because the DM wants to imprison PCs for the story. It should be something that should happen if they genuinely fail, and it is the reasonable response of whatever power has their lives in hand at the time. I would never discuss it with the players first. It would either happen or it wouldn't, depending on the situation, and the actions of the PCs.
That can be seen as too-obviously railroading your PCs.
I would suggest assigning a set AC for said black knight, something that your party striker will hit less than 50% of the time, and basically an infinite number of hit points, but do about 25-50% of a given PC's health each hit, even if you are rolling dice behind your screen and assigning whatever damage you want to that hit.
Then, when the PCs are wiped out, they wake up in a dungeon cell. Having the knight just auto-hit and one-shot a PC is obvious railroading. By giving the illusion of a winnable encounter, you incite in your players a desire for revenge on the guy who beat them so badly, as soon as they get the power to do so. Could even be a quest to get some means of bypassing his "invulnerability". Like Kain tracking down the Nexus Stone in Blood Omen 2, so that he could survive the Sarafan Lord's onslaught (which is how the SL beat him in the opening cinematic).
I would not advice this either. Players are no fools, and they will recognize the situation for what it is. In my experience most players do not take kindly to such a setup unless they themselves are the one triggering it by doing something they consider stupid behavior (even if on hindsight, as long as they realize without DM prompting that they themselves are responsible). If you as a DM want to imprison the PCs, you are better off simply discussing it with the players beforehand and get their approval.
In Epic LFR, where you had exactly the given setup -- a weakened deity who had infinite HP but had other stats set up -- he was simply an obstacle; the real objective was to cure him by luring him into a magic circle and working to dispel the corruption within the deity.
I didn't like the railroad-y nature of the campaign much, but note that even with the infinite HP at least the players were given a way out and "win" the encounter. This suggestion of attempting to give the players the illusion of achievable victory when in truth it is absolute defeat is hogwash IMHO, and something I would never do myself, much less recommend to other people. Even the railroad-y nature of "you are automatically defeated" seems more fair to the players.
I'd rather place a level 20 elite in front of level 1 PCs if the objective is to make "unbeatable" NPCs. At least the PCs have a 5% chance to hurt it, and assuming that the level 20 elite stays at level 20, the PCs eventually get the chance to beat him at higher levels.
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery.
In Epic LFR, where you had exactly the given setup -- a weakened deity who had infinite HP but had other stats set up -- he was simply an obstacle; the real objective was to cure him by luring him into a magic circle and working to dispel the corruption within the deity.
I didn't like the railroad-y nature of the campaign much, but note that even with the infinite HP at least the players were given a way out and "win" the encounter. This suggestion of attempting to give the players the illusion of achievable victory when in truth it is absolute defeat is hogwash IMHO, and something I would never do myself, much less recommend to other people. Even the railroad-y nature of "you are automatically defeated" seems more fair to the players.
I'd rather place a level 20 elite in front of level 1 PCs if the objective is to make "unbeatable" NPCs. At least the PCs have a 5% chance to hurt it, and assuming that the level 20 elite stays at level 20, the PCs eventually get the chance to beat him at higher levels.
Not the same situation. One ends guaranteed in failure regardless of what the PCs do, the other is too highlight fighting is not the goal (and in this particular example there was ample of things you could and should fight and it really clear you were not supposed to kill him).
Furthermore, 4e is really crappy when it comes to much higher level monsters. All it does is generate a boring fight were the PCs cannot hit and the opponents damage is much too high for the PCs to deal with. There is no difference between giving the stats of a level 35 solo monster to level 21 PCs and saying "you cannot meaningful effect it", but at least this way the players are aware not to waste their precious dailies on the opponent. Not to mention that we really did not want to use level 35 damage output against level 21 PCs and we will have players complain when the level 35 monsters do not fit 4e rules. Might as well avoid those kind of complaints by designing it as a level 21 hazard
Finally, this is one of those situations where LFR is forced to pick a potential suboptimal approach compared to home campaigns (and I say potential because the group I ran it for loved it). In a published adventure there is no guarantee how the DM presents a situation or how strong a group is. Practice has taught us that it is much better to flat out state something then to use more sublte methods, because otherwise we get (a lot) of complaints from players who desperate tried to kill the NPC or how rediculously easy it was to kill him (and yes, we had people grumble about level 23 PCs being able to kill Lloth).
As for beating at higher levels, the whole philosophy of 4e is that stats are only meaningful in regards to the PCs. Level 1 solos, become elits when facing level 6 PCs, standards when the PCs are level 10 and minions when the PCs are level 15. Similarly, the deity can be a hazard/skill challenge at level 21, and the standard level 35 solo at level 30. In that regards I have no objections to truly unbeatable NPCs. It is just that I object to a situation that is guaranteed to lead to what the players will consider failure. Might as well, flat out tell the players. Saves at least a lot of time and frustration
