How do you make a bossfight hard without telling players "<number> of you might die"?

>LG do-gooders
>without having to sacrifice anything

Except it's entirely possible to create threat, danger and risk without death?

Fuck, it always confuses me when I see this shit peddled on Veeky Forums. What kind of pathetic GM has to use death as a crutch to create any kind of planning or tension?

It's just a matter of different playstyles. Some people enjoy character death, some people don't, and being a good GM means adapting or finding a different group rather than asserting your preferences on others.

Did you just not read:
>the players just kind of want to play LG do-gooders without having to sacrifice anything
or what?

He's clearly dealing with a group of players who don't want to be challenged, don't want their characters put in danger and expect to win without consequences.

I agree to a degree.

For me, in a "normal" fight some PCs can die if they make bad tactical decisions or get really bad rolls. A TPK should be nearly impossible.

In a "boss" fight some PCs can die unless they make good tactical decisions or get good rolls. If they make poor decisions or get unluky, a TPK is possible.

>fishing for a magical solution to keep their characters alive level 1 through 20 just because "user they have a backstory. and we don't want to play storyless dummies, it's DEEP IMMERSION YOU WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND"

All my characters have stories and backgrounds and histories, even those that only live for a couple of sessions. Tell your players that they're faggots and need to buckle up for the rape-train.

I see no point in playing something in which everyone is completely safe, and you need to teach your players that running is always an option. Make them understand that sometimes, fleeing is all you can do.

If they can't accept that, then fuck 'em. I'd rather not play at all than have to GM something like that. But then again, I'm not playing 5e D&D.

Play CoC and say " WILL die".

Well, the severity of the risk should obviously vary according to the kind of game you're trying to run, but generally I agree. If someone dies, it should be because the players screwed up or because they were just really unlucky.

>Except it's entirely possible to create threat, danger and risk without death?
Bullshit. If you want someone to fear for their lives, you need to actually threaten their lives. You don't have to kill them, but actually fucking dying has to be a very real possibility. If the players catch on that you're never going to kill them, and never expect to lose, you're all just going through the motions.

Everyone should be able to die in any ill-advised fight, being stabbed to death in an alleyway. Boss fights are cancer, but if you're going to have boss fights, the prospective boss should stand a reasonable chance of actually skullfucking them.

>If someone dies, it should be because the players screwed up or because they were just really unlucky.
Does "not running" and "picking a fight with the wrong people" count as screwing up? Because if so, I agree.

Sometimes, but if you're playing D&D(as opposed to, say, Call of Cthulhu), there'd better be clear signs that they're not supposed to fight these guys, because otherwise it's really easy to ruin a campaign like that.

I want a kitty DM.

>Bullshit. If you want someone to fear for their lives, you need to actually threaten their lives. You don't have to kill them, but actually fucking dying has to be a very real possibility. If the players catch on that you're never going to kill them, and never expect to lose, you're all just going through the motions.

I can tell you that you're straight up wrong, and what's more than you're fucking unimaginative.

There are far, far more things you can make players fear for than just their lives, and putting those at stake as a result of a fight can be just as interesting, if not moreso, than just having lethality at play.

>Should I find another system or players
Probably. It sounds like you and your players just enjoy different things. Regardless of your opinion of what they find fun, you should never tell them "I don't like your fun, we're going to have MY fun".

Some groups prefer to roleplay instead of roll dice. That's a perfectly valid form of fun. Accept it or don't, but don't shove them into something they don't like just because you want to do something different.

Pic fucking related.

> Then present to them easy moral problem. Then harder moral problem.
I think they'll go "Oh user just wants to make us look small with his complex moral problems because he feels insecure with this hobby and wants to look like a grown-up". Well, it's my choice to make anyway.

> Boss fights are cancer
What would be your bossfight alternative for heroic fantasy?

> There are far, far more things you can make players fear for than just their lives
Agreed, I've tried to bring up options of losing items, follower/NPC lives, temporary ability drain, rebalanced lingering injuries, partially failing quest conditions.

>I'm trying to start a 5e dark fantasy game soon and the players just kind of want to play LG do-gooders without having to sacrifice anything, and they also seem to be fishing for a magical solution to keep their characters alive level 1 through 20
This is completely doable.

This is how I would run it OP:
>players are The Chosen Ones, the Light Warriors or whatever
>Fate itself has decreed that they will survive and defeat the Villain
>nothing, literally nothing will kill them
>reality will warp itself around them to ensure their survival
>but the same is not true of everyone else around them
>if they stand in front of an arrow, the arrow will miss and kill a villager
>if their enemy would finish them off with a fireball, it takes out an orphanage instead
>if they try to stab their own heart, a kitten will jump in the path of the blade
>they do not choose their ultimate end, Fate does
>they will play their role whether they want to or not.
>they are railroaded hard by Fate.
>it will wantonly fuck over every damn innocent soul in the world to force the final confrontation.
>the Villain is truly evil and will cause great suffering if he is not stopped, but Fate itself is the true BBEG.
>this is it's story and the players can do nothing about it
>...or can they?
>perhaps through true sacrifice, they can end this tyranny of Fate's narrative and risk life and limb in a real challenge with an uncertain outcome?
>or will they remain Fate's little bitches and hope they receive good endings for being obedient lapdogs?

>because otherwise it's really easy to ruin a campaign like that.
Only if your players are shit.

This is more relevant to 3e than 5e, but it's absolutely relevant to 5e:
thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2050/roleplaying-games/revisiting-encounter-design

What's obvious to the GM is rarely obvious to the players. So if, in a game where default is fighting rather than running(and, in fact, the mechanics make it pretty damn DIFFICULT to run away successfully unless you can teleport or use other equally powerful abilities), the players are choosing to fight rather than run away, chances are that it's because you didn't make it clear enough that they're supposed to run, not because they're shitty players.

Do-gooders you say?
And they want to always have the option to survive?
Make the boss target their friends, relatives, or if you don't wanna seem a dick, the general civilian population. Wanna run? Fine. Hope you can sleep with random innocents getting killed/eaten/raped/enslaved/oppressed because you decided to do nothing. Wanna fight cautiously? If you want to prevent collateral damage, you need swift action.
Let's play a game. It's called "How many times can you lie to your own conscience?"
If they have no problem boing that, introduce a new band of idealistic starry-eyed heroes bent on saving the land from the evil bastards. Let the players realize *they* are the villains now.

You shouldn't be running dark fantasy in 5E but on the other hand it is a good system for the the kind of game you're players want, either change the type of game you're going to run for your players or switch systems

Yeah, seems fair, thanks.
This is interesting! Thank you.
Yeah, I'm slowly starting to compare it with other systems mechanically to see which fits me best.

Very this. But also one must not forget that in some systems (most notably d20, worse yet 3.X and Pathfinder), If something is a deadly threat, it is also most likely nigh-impossible to hide from or escape, because the process of being that dangerous means its perception score and methods, as well as its means of movement, are almost guaranteed to also be superior!

Under d20, anything requiring you to turn tail and run except for "there's two hundred thousand normal soldiers on the horizon they WILL win attrition if they get to you" is BEST dealt with by standing your ground: Running is just giving it free turns to eat you (and also lowering your defenses actually) while at least you can hope for nat 20s and maybe killing it if you're lucky.

No see, the trick to moral problems is for both sides to be irreparably right. This gets REALLY twisted if you know there's an afterlife, too.

>railroading players into unavoidable bossfights
>good DMing

alternative to single boss are proper major battles where they can be a lynchpin. If the enemy has dozens of cannons; they can handle that while normal troops are outranged and vaporized on contact (because it's fucking grapeshot and you're infantry).

Those 3-4 wyverns doing air-raids in the battle; the PCs can handle that: sure the troops can to but unless they get lucky on that initial ballista volley (if they even have that) chances are they'll suffer significant losses before they take them down.

Meanwhile the party AoE blaster has to choose which chokepoints to support, leaving the rest of the party to perhaps do a run on the enemy general. A big, glorious fucking battle with two sides and multiple elites; not "every fucking icon on the map is gunning for you lol" but a whole lot of busy shit that sure it'll try to deal with you if it can, but has enemies to consider too.

Don't have them face A dragon. They'll two-round that and loot it. Have them face its fucking army, on the open field, with the army that they're backing: A REAL battle where their choice of buffs, AoEs, targets and all that WILL mean "okay this round these pikemen can advance since they're not in melee" or "the archers switch targets and volley this other infantry here now", to actually affect the flow, not handwave it.

the key is setup. Establish in the story that the villains or bosses that are acting in the setting are powerful and everyone knows it. As a part of finding out information about htem and what they're doing, they should naturally also hear how powerful they are and maybe a hint or two as to what they're capable of.

5e's solution to BIG BAD SOLO BOSS getting creamed is the Legendary Monster system and Lair system.

Basically they get a bunch of special powers that counter the natural action economy problem, letting them do stuff on player turns, shrug off saves that would otherwise end the fight (hold monster I'm looking at you).

With a good amount of health and a lineup of dangerous powers, you can have an epic showdown.

I suggest Legendary Actions like:

at the end of turn, take an action to move its movement speed without provoking attacks of opportunity and attack a new target.

at the end of turn, teleport 60 feet and heal some amount and roll a save for any ongoing effects

at the end of turn cast some annoying area control spell (stuff like grease, web, etc).

Then you have lair actions, occuring when they not only fight a legendary enemy but fight it ON ITS HOME TURF.

These should always strive to set up the monster to best use its existing powers, or create interesting terrain for a climatic battle, rather than a static slapfest.

If you use these systems well you can make any encounter as dangerous as you want, it all depends on how much power you give them.

And for fucks sake if you roll magic items for their loot, have them USE THEM ON THE PLAYERS.

What's wrong with that cat's arm?

>There are far, far more things you can make players fear for than just their lives, and putting those at stake as a result of a fight can be just as interesting, if not moreso, than just having lethality at play.

Then provide some, Mr Master of Imagination.

some cats just do that

I have a very long cat who always extends one arm all the way no matter how he sits, its quite goofy looking.

The boss, has basicly 4 or 5 minutes being super tough, extremely lethal and fast, but after that hes about as tough a hill giant.
They know this, boss man is bashing up the town and guards, nobel patriots, king and the church giving them the beating they will all but assuredly loose, they can claim to be good and wait out the murder mode.

Or rush in and be heroic actually

I like your long cat. Looks pretty chill.

Such as, O great Swami of infinite imaginative prowess?

Thanks, dickhead. But I was already aware I'm great :)

System aside, your players sound like the sort of twats who aren't willing to buy into the sort of game you want to run, and never will. Tell them to build for dark fantasy and expect a decent amount of grit. If they don't like it, I guess they'll need to find a new GM.

5e is a faily nonlethal game so you really have to be trying to kill players

>telling players " of you might die"?

Okay, first of all, why would you ever _say_ that? Just start dealing hits that do 90% of their health in damage. That'll communicate the danger real fast.

Throw a cat at them, cleverly hidden behind your gm screen for extra suprize

I miss him

it's better to do "you might fuck up and lose too much valuable resources, time and rewards to profit from this fight, if you dont come up with a damn good plan"

why would you tell the players beforehand how many of them are going to die

>threat, danger, risk
>equates this with fearing for their lives
>never going to kill them = never going to lose
jesus, no wonder people on this board are so shit at roleplaying games. is this really the best your imagination can do? pathetic.

his players' preferences are incorrect.

I always go along with the DM's rails because that's the shit he spent dozens or hundreds of hours preparing, for free, for my entertainment, and going off not only makes me an asshole, it's also less fun because there isn't shit to do.

more importantly, the DM is a human being and my friend, and I want him to have fun too.

>Except it's entirely possible to create threat, danger and risk without death
Stopped reading there
There is no risk if there is no real sense of risk of death.

No, I won't spoonfeed you. Figure it out yourself or let someone who isn't completely dead inside GM the campaign.

>You have been visited by DM catto
>exciting adventures and freedom of choice will come to you, but only if you post "dont railroad me, catto!"

Lol, this board really is full of idiots, this guy isn't even being ironic

I just use a wounds system that I shamelessly stole from Savage Worlds.

Eventually they won't want to use their characters if they die enough.

You and the players want different things. Talk it through and try to reach some mutual solution.
If no understanding or agreement can be reached then just don't run that campaign or system.

You all need to be on the same page about what the game's going to be or people are going to have a shit time on both sides of the screen.

I agree with this completely, and am consistently disappointed when people are so massively unimaginative that "threat of player death" is the only way to create tension. "EVERY COMBAT IS A DEADLY COMBAT!" Ugh. So stupid.

This is more to do with memorable villains than with challenging ones, but it's also worth a look.
thealexandrian.net/wordpress/36383/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots-you-will-rue-this-day-heroes-the-principles-of-rpg-villainy

Here's what I would do. Firstly, never tell them if a character is going to die or not. Death is always possible, and just because you survive a fight doesn't mean you walk away unscathed. It's like the old example in the Shadowrun core about burning edge goes.
>"You can burn edge to survive a bullet to the head, but you're probably gonna be in a coma for a few months"
Make injury and consequences possible in lieu of character death, and most importantly remind them that a character's story doesn't have to end at death. It can keep going.

>the boss reliably takes 90% of their health each time

OP
the solution is here
They cannot die but they get increasingly close

This is a hilarious concept.

Seems like it would be really awkward to write around certain scenarios (for example, an infinite stream of suicide-prevention kittens would be a bit much) but I think it motivates characters to be more considerate

Have you considered playing a wargame instead?

Lie to them, curse them, steal from them, break their stuff, smear their reputations, kill their horses, burn down half of their beloved peasant village...

Basically anything that will impact their play that they can't immediately undo with their own resources. Something that needs work to fix.

Shalzham the Maroon, Sorcer-Prince of the Fanduvian Isles stands between you and the door. You are his master in sword-play and magic both, but he possesses just enough skill and enchantment that you may not defeat him in time to interrupt the ceremony beyond the portal.

Yes, first of all find another system. 5e is shit.

Secondly, tell them to tone it down with their requests for plot armor. Argue that, if their characters wouldn't have a chance to die they wouldn't feel invested in keeping their characters alive. It's not exactly healthy to cling on to one specific character and it is not exactly mature to want to play only that one specific character.

GMs could really benefit from knowing the basics of cinematic story-telling. A basic screenwriting course could tell you everything you need to know.

First, setup the boss's strengths and hint as his weaknesses. Second, remind the party of said strengths and weaknesses. Third, the payoff--the party exploits the boss' weakness while also being intimidated by his strength.

Same for making the villain out to be a bad guy. Make it clear he's bad, then later do it again but worse

Players should ALWAYS expect death. If they don't you're babying them.

>Ugh.
Ugh

Because there should be no such thing as an easy encounter? Come on user, games need pacing, if every encounter is hard then there's no juxtaposition. That, and if you start arms racing your players, they'll start bringing in increasingly more bullshit characters with each consecutive death until the game is like the 24th season of dragonball Z.

The trick is to make players think they're in danger when they're not. Never allow this illusion to be broken.

>How do you make a bossfight hard without telling players " of you might die"?
Give the boss some other goal than "kill the PCs", so there's a failure state that's not "you died".

>How do you make a bossfight hard without telling players " of you might die"?

Have the party find a deck of many things at first level...

Watch fireworks.

consequently, all of the players in the party I DM'd could make a first level character of any class in 3 minutes, without consulting the players handbook once.

including skills and feats.

Play it slowly. If that's the game they want to play, gravy, but it isn't the one you have to be playing by the end.

Give them simple moral choices with small but largely equally beneficial outcomes Gizmo v Killian in Fallout 1.

Start to ramp things up once you've made them feel like hero's, maybe take inspiration from some really good comics on how to give your players a good moral dilemma, if they chose wrong give them a chance to right their wrongs but make them live with the consequences.

Finally force them to confront something that, while evil, is difficult to argue against The Master from Fallout 1 looking to build a better humanity and Caeser from FO:NV trying to build a better society in the wasteland. While one is undeniably wrong and the other is arguably wrong, you can see where both are coming from and can, if you put in the legwork, kind of beat both using words alone. In my opinion, that should be your ultimate goal, but you shouldn't start out with that kind of weight on your players, you gotta build up to that.

very much this.

underrated

Fuck off tripfag

>Bullshit. If you want someone to fear for their lives, you need to actually threaten their lives. You don't have to kill them, but actually fucking dying has to be a very real possibility. If the players catch on that you're never going to kill them, and never expect to lose, you're all just going through the motions.
That's a bit of a strawman. There's a large gradient between "mortal danger" and "no risk happy place". The PC's care about things. In fact, there are a lot of things that PC's care about MORE than their characters' survival. Threaten the things they care about, and you have tension.

Think about RL for a moment. How many times has your life been in real, immediate jeopardy? Unless you have a high-risk career or you're an adrenaline junky, the answer is probably "not very often if ever". Does that mean you've never FELT anything? Never been excited? Frightened? Happy? Sad? Your players are capable of more emotions than just Pure Terror. Use them.

What can change the nature of a man?

>Updated my journal

>some cats just do that
Yeah, cats are weird. My wife's cat always insists on sleeping in positions that make it look like it fell off a building and broke its spine in six places. It's ridiculous.

Tell them to make a few characters with backstories. At least three, tell them they can use that next one when the first one dies. Hopefully this will make them excited, and less afraid of death in the sense that right now they want no death at all.

...

...

...

...

...

...

These cats are amazing :3

...

...

...

...

Cats mix so well with PnP. Always good for a laugh.

See the problem with all these "there are challenges other than knife fights to the death on perilous rope bridges" fags is simple.

You can actively not try to kill your players. That's all well and good. Plan things about not doing that. Unfortunately reality is such that humans have free will (from our own perspective). Thing is, at some point on a campaign especially one that runs through literally every character level. A player is going to end up in a situation you didn't want them to get into, shouldn't have gotten into, etc. Now they're going to die and there are 2 things you can do about it.
You could either let them die which you absolutely should do.
Or
You can bend things over backwards and state that you will either not let them perform whatever got them into this situation, or that you will not let them die. Either way you're telling them that the only thing that matters is what you say. You are by forcing them to live or otherwise avoid death breaking the fundamental conceit of playing a roleplaying game. That their choices matter.

Also nigga you playing a game for fuck sake. They don't want to play a game why the fuck they here?

Hardest boss encounter we ever had was a seven phase bossfight spanning land sea air space and time

Star-Lich final boss where the party was a Psywoken Grunge-Barbarian, a Moon Priest of Groove, an Ace Pilot Spacerogue,
a Technomancer Theurge, and a Math Wizard.

...

What's wrong, someone have a different opinion from momma's special little boy?
Don't worry it's ok. Don't think about it. Momma's gonna make it all better baby.