The Theft of the Moon TPK

[Grands-Pas]

Yeah, I guess this usually does not happen. To the player's defense there were only two characters in the fellowship.

* MANDATORY SPOILER ALERT *

For the last encounter I scaled it down by having only 1 slave (instead of 1 per character), Cenric and Guthred. But Guthred really gave them a hard time with its +5 Attribute Bonus on all his Great Axe (3) rolls and the Hideous Toughness ability which helped him reduce endurance loss quite a lot.

Eventually he knocked one player-hero out unconscious and in a couple of rolls, KOed the second one. Now I guess it is reasonable that since the bad guys were thieves that got just attacked in the middle of nowhere that they would leave no survivors (especially with Guthred's No Quarter special ability).

Not knowing the rules enough I hadn't spotted Guthred's Hideous Toughness in advance and rolled with it during the combat. Had I known how powerful it was against just two players, I would have removed the ability from the NPC.

[Angelalex242]

...I'd recommend saying 'and you both wake up in a cold sweat as from a hideous nightmare, realizing you're no match for him.' Unless you really want to end the campaign.

[Glorelendil]

Clearly Cenric and Guthred are tangled up in a plot with something much bigger than the story in Theft of the Moon, something involving emissaries from the unnamed "Master" in the east, and naturally they assume the heroes are somehow involved with that. Best to take them alive for later questioning, when the Emissary shows up.

[Falenthal]

I had such a situation in another adventure, where the adversaries where slavists, too (Viglunds).

It was easy to justify that the characters were worthier alive and chained, that dead and buried. The adventure continued with the heroes trying to escape their prision.

If you're interested, you can read the report of that session here:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2453&hilit=falentha ... =30#p33467

[zedturtle]

Yeah, as Viglundings (i.e. known slavers), I definitely would have had the heroes wake up in chains, being force-marched to the North Ford or Viglund' House. And you're right that there is one thrall for every two heroes (it's suggested to have one thrall for every hero if the heroes have significant advancement) but that's really tough for two heroes.

How did your players take it?

[Arthur Fisher]

If you let your characters live, they'll know you will let them survive every encounter thereafter.
Death happens. It's an important gaming and storytelling tool. If character death is nigh impossible, it makes it just as meaningless as if character death was commonplace.
This is a beginning encounter, so making new characters shouldn't be that difficult.

The new characters will be out for revenge and will know to use caution and strategy against the big bads from here on out.

[zedturtle]

If you let your characters live, they'll know you will let them survive every encounter thereafter.
Death happens. It's an important gaming and storytelling tool. If character death is nigh impossible, it makes it just as meaningless as if character death was commonplace.
This is a beginning encounter, so making new characters shouldn't be that difficult.

The new characters will be out for revenge and will know to use caution and strategy against the big bads from here on out.

You're certainly right that death needs to be on the table, and having a character die (or a TPK) can seal the deal for immersion. But I don't think that it always needs to be the result, especially if the story can be more easily served by a 'better' outcome. It's pretty easy for the heroes to come to and have the Viglundings snarl that they're lucky that they weren't defeated by orcs or they'd be in the stew-pot by now.

That said, I am arguing against myself... Guthred the Wicked has the No Quarter special ability just because he is a bad dude, even compared to the regular Viglundings. Dropping that part of his personality is one way to tweak the situation, but not the only one. And the TPK certainly (if Grands-Pas is thinking of using it) adds that much more interest to The Heart of Winter.

[Falenthal]

If you let your characters live, they'll know you will let them survive every encounter thereafter.
If character death is nigh impossible, it makes it just as meaningless as if character death was commonplace.

But I don't think that it always needs to be the result, especially if the story can be more easily served by a 'better' outcome. It's pretty easy for the heroes to come to and have the Viglundings snarl that they're lucky that they weren't defeated by orcs or they'd be in the stew-pot by now.

Agree with Zedturtle here. There are situations for everything: in this case, being starter characters (and players) and facing slavists, the amended TPK can be used as a sort of warning that entering combat in TOR is not an easy choice. Besides, it helps to set the difference between bad men (who let a group live) and Orcs, Trolls and the like, that would have killed and eaten the group. Also for the group, this introduces the doubt when facing different kinds of enemies, that maybe not everyone they enter combat with should be killed without remorse.

Once the group has the campaign ongoing, and they face real adversaries, than death of the heroes should not be avoided.

[Elmoth]

I ran that adventure with a single character. I removed guthred from the encounter, and it was still tough for the player, but doable. Guthered was simply too much for her otherwise as you point out.

Having them taken as prisoners is certainly one option.
Having them roll new characters (or rename the ones they have) is also an option.
Having them having dreamt the encounter is also an option
Etc.

For me the important thing here would be to sit with the players in a bar and discuss the options with them sharing a cold beer. Consensus in the gaming table goes a long way to ensure common interests, common enjoyment and a great shared experience. You are the LM, but that does not mean that you are the only one that should take that decision.

Cheers,
Xavi

[Grands-Pas]

How did your players take it?

Quite well I would say. They didn't like it of course, but they understand that we are learning the game and mistakes happen. It was my responsibility to scale the encounter better before it started. Once it is started, well you roll with it and as they say: http://6dollarshirts.com/image/cache/da ... 50x750.jpg

I know the Viglundings are slavers but Guthred and Cenric have just committed a crime against the Beornings that could easily mean war between the two tribes. If you eliminate the PCs, you eliminate all proofs against you, forever.
If you capture them, you take the risk that they'll escape or that eventually the word will get out. On top of that Guthred has No Quarter and Cenric is a sell-sword who has no interest in having them captured.

They'll create new characters (possibly with one or two new players joining us) and we'll start in Esgaroth (where I wanted to take them over their Fellowship phase anyway) and start back with either The Marshbell or the first scenario from TftW.