What do you think of encounters designed to make players lose?
I am not sure how I feel about them.
The world isn't the same level as the party. There will exist odds, that if the players decide to bring them to bear against them, will be insurmountable. If the players are dumb they may have to fight people far stronger than them.
Just a "You Lose" button probably shouldn't exist, but people stronger than the party should.
>>48096103
I specifically mean forcing the players in a combat situation which they have 0 chance of winning in order to advance the story. Does that change anything in your post or no?
>>48096198
Depends on what you mean by force them. Depends on the circumstances of the campaign. It could be good or bad.
>>48096270
Forced as in there is not alternative to combat
I think you could have encounters that are not very likely to defeat but are still defeatable.
Also try to hint that the players could always learn some humility and run away.
>>48096318
There is a difference between "Literally can not" and "Extremely long odds". A level 1 vs a level 10 is not "Literally can not", it is technically possible.
>>48096074
Designed to make them lose statistically, certainly.
There should always be a chance they could succeed however, just as there's always a chance they could fail elsewhere.
>>48096349
I mean in the Literally can not sense, like they don't have the mcguffin to hurt the enemy and are locked in a room with it
>>48096423
Then yes, it's a tad bullshit.
>>48096423
Alys never deserved that.
There really ought not to be a scenario where you're forcing players into combat, let alone combat with an enemy they have nearly no chance of defeating. If there is such a threat they should be given the necessary tools or opportunities to avoid it.
It can however be done right if it's done to progress the story, but only if the players willingly get into the scrap in the first place, if the players feel like they were forced into an unwinnable scenario they won't enjoy it, for example the first seath encounter in dark souls executes this well in my opinion.
>>48096472
would an encounter that would be only winnable by the skin of their teeth be batter?
>>48096473
Who?
>>48096074
So literally every encounter my last GM threw at us, we should faild hard so the DMPC shone brighter
I left at the 4th session, should have left earlier
>>48096723
That sounds shitty GMPC's are almost always shit
>>48096074
It depends of the objective of the encounter.
You will learnt something?
It can even be a one thing ocassion, but is never good to abuse it.
>>48096074
This is always 100% of the time a bad idea and objectively lazy.
If players CHOOSE to engage into something, it's okay that they can get in way over their heads. But it has to be their choice or fuckup.
Forcing them to fight something and forcing them to lose, you might as well just be masturbating.
>>48096074
Having read the thread, this seems like a very simple question that the OP is attempting to receive confirmatory responses from. Specifically, he is looking to be told that forced-failure encounters are always bad, and fall under the "bullshit" classification.
So I must ask: why do you bring this up?
>>48096074
I learned when I was 13 that nobody likes to have to sit through forced failure. If you want your players to auto-lose to throw them in a dungeon, you may as well just start with them in the dungeon and just explain what happened.
GMs don't have to coddle players either, though. I'm all for deadly encounters. It really just needs to come down to players making decisions and the GM not getting in the way of fun by preventing badguys from dying and whatnot "because plot". RPGs are about players doing shit, not the GM forcing a D-grade fantasy story down their throats while they stick their dice in their nose.
>>48096074
I don't mind strong encounters being out there and the party potentially running into them, but if you're designing an encounter specifically for the party and designing them such that the party will lose, you are a dick. That level of linearity only has a small handful of possible defenses and all of them go out the window when you're trying to make sure players lose.
Just don't
extremely difficult situations are ok though. give them like a 10% chance of winning
If you want them to truly lose make them feel like they can win
>>48097449
But raping PCs is fun!
>>48096473
Goddamn you, anon
I saw that coming, i knew it was coming. Yet it hit me just as hard
>>48098038
>RPGs are about players doing shit, not the GM forcing a D-grade fantasy story down their throats
Disagree. Simply giving the players a sandbox is bad GMing. The world needs to be populated with characters, and those characters will have stories. Significant characters, such as princes or popes, will have stories that the player can get caught up in, for better or for worse.
I agree that having a BBEG fantasy villain or singular hostile faction is also poor GMing, but players left to their own devices tend to have no real focus and spend the majority of the game listening to other players living out their ideal fantasy. Save the sandbox sessions for one-on-ones, or the expository world-building a la FATE.
>>48096074
If you do this you're a shit GM, full stop. There's more than enough ways to get the players to do or be or whatever you want, up to and including "hey guys I want to start out this way, is that cool?" Putting the players in front of a colossal red dragon just makes you look like a colossal moron trying to beat off to your tiny amount of "power" behind the GM screen. Don't be That Guy.
I think it's fine as long as it isn't '1 hit kill' or instant trap death.
Also it should be possible to win, just not likely
>>48096074
>encounters designed to make players lose?
Why would you want that?
>>48100455
plot hook
>>48096074
>>48096423
The problem with your question is that essentially any "the PCs got overwhelmed" situation can be construed as "an encounter designed to make players lose" if you ignore enough prior context.
For example,
>The BBEG is far stronger than the PCs
>The PCs ignore a quest to get the Mcguffin that is the BBEG's weakness
>The BBEG gets pissed off by the unrelated actions of the PCs
>The PCs ignore signs that they're being investigated
>The BBEG becomes aware of their identities
>The PCs ignore attempts to disguise their travel and ignore signs that they're being followed
>The BBEG becomes aware of their location and destination
>The PCs keep doing the random dungeon delving thing, oblivious to enemies they've made and efforts ongoing to track them down
>The BBEG seals the PCs in a room with him and fights them, knowing that he is far stronger
>The PCs realize that the Mcguffin would come in really handy right now
>The BBEG kills all the PCs as they are far weaker than him
It all depends on how far back you're willing to go, and in the case of especially stupid PCs, they're not going to remember much other than their immediate and obviously totally uncalled for destruction.
It's not much of a game if you can't lose.
>>48096074
It can be a great way to start a story.
>players fight a battle they lose and swear revenge.
>players play pre-set characters that are the local heros. They fight BBEG but die or get maimed because he's too strong.
>players then play there characters that need to avenge and fill the shoes of the previous heros and stop BBEG evil reign to restore the land to its former self after his victory.
