General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I’m DMing an adventure for a group who has changed up some PCs in the middle of it, and I’m seeing what a big difference a change in roster can mean for an adventuring party.
When I designed this adventure, the party I expected was:
Human druid 6
Human fighter 6
Dwarf necromancer 6
Halfling monk 6
Half-elf cleric 4
The druid, fighter, and monk have more magic than normal for their level, so might actually be considered equal to a level 7 considering that.
This group has worked together many times before, and a major thing the druid brings to their big fights is what we call his “wolf bombs” – summoning dire wolves (and sometimes regular wolves) to tank the big enemies. This allows the fighter and monk to spring attack in and out while the big monster takes out its fury on the larger, closer target – the wolves.
This adventure features some fire environmental hazards, but with the druid’s spells, they easily blew through them.
But the PCs had to pull out of the dungeon for a few days. During this time, the druid 6, necromancer 6, and cleric 4 were replaced with a human sorcerer 6, a dwarf fighter 6, and a fighter 4 (archer).
Going back through the first part of the dungeon, the environmental hazards are more serious obstacles. The PCs took much more damage getting through than they did before. And now they are about to enter a fight with a red dragon – they’ve already stepped into its lair and parleyed with the dragon – and they know it will be a very dangerous fight. (They knew the BBEG was a red dragon from the beginning of this adventure.)
I’m looking at the PC roster now, compared to what I expected, and I’m thinking, “This is going to be ugly.”
I run a status quo game. I’m not a DM who changes an adventure based on changes in the PC roster (especially when the Players have an idea of what they will find – volcano dungeon, red dragon – before going into it), so I’m not going to rejigger this encounter for them. I didn’t create this adventure tailored for the previous roster, but I did have their abilities in the back of my mind when I designed it.
They could have bought stuff to cover for the missing characters – potions of protection from fire, etc. – but they didn’t.
Now, I’m not really asking for advice or anything here. I’m just noting how interestingly different, and even drastically different, an adventure can be for a different party roster.
Have you seen a situation like this? Have you seen how big a difference party roster can make for an adventure?
lets see they went from having 3 casters to having 1? and now they have 2 fighters?
I have one player who loved 3e fighters, and played a variety of different styles, but all my other players liked having more versatility.
this is 3.x i presume,
the sorcerers very limited spell selection and available scrolls becomes all important. If they are going after a red dragon, in his lair with none of the readily available fire protections....
Hmm actually I rarely had dragons breathe on well prepared adventures, unless the dragon is in a place of safety. He will know from experience that most people fighting a dragon will be virtually immune to fire.
If you have any encounters left to throw at them, have something burn them, and then remark, "You think that was hot, wait till you face our Master."
__________________ Game Quote:
"Shut up! a giant blue smurf eats your character...zzzz"
(sometimes its important to stop gaming and sleep)
"You all are the worst emissaries, ever!" the silver dragon declares, shaking with rage.
"Its a game, a game, I'm only playing. " E. Wiggen My PbP games , Roll Dice
Yeah. I often forget D&D4 is the default discussion now at ENWorld, and that the new edition is significantly different that it matters for discussions.
I think the largest change was they went from having two people that could cast healing spells, to no people. Plus they lost massive spell selection versatility (a cleric, a druid, and a necromancer, replaced by a sorcerer -- ouch!). That would radically change any party's capabilities in 3e (or 1e or 2e, IIRC).
__________________ - Bob Huss
[H]e's dead and poisoned and possibly insane on another plane. It's a very stylish death, but a definitive one. - Piratecat
Hmm actually I rarely had dragons breathe on well prepared adventures, unless the dragon is in a place of safety. He will know from experience that most people fighting a dragon will be virtually immune to fire.
I usually have a dragon breathe first thing (or as soon as tactical) for two reasons:
It's classic.
It lets the PCs get value for their prep work -- if they prep for the breath weapon and it never gets used, they feel like, "Why'd we bother?"
It lets the PCs get value for their prep work -- if they prep for the breath weapon and it never gets used, they feel like, "Why'd we bother?"
I totally agree with this reasoning. It's fun, as a player, when your prep work pays off. If I have characters who are immune to poison, I'll design in more poison, not less-- it lets the players feel cool and effective and costs nothing. If the players have prepped for a red dragon to breathe fire on them, letting them get the benefit of that prep is fun.
(Obviously, if there is a good reason for the dragon to behave differently-- say, the PCs are systematically hunting red dragons and the red dragon knows that they are coming and protected against flame-- that's different. But you need a high justification.)
Good luck with the encounter-- it should be interesting, at least.
Yes, we had: rogue, scout, melee ranger, warlock, warmage, cloistered cleric, paladin. We subbed out the rogue for a druid and the change was remarkable. We had options, we had summoned allies, we weren't dying all the time...
__________________ All role playing advice is given without knowledge of you and your group. Only you and your group knows what is fun for you. What you are doing is not badwrongfun. My advice is offered based on what I think might be fun for you to try.
"Art is the demonstration that the ordinary is extraordinary." - Amedee Ozenfant, Foundations of Modern Art
"I already have a place where I can get little recognition for my accomplishments, advance at a very slow pace, and have to work hard to eke out minimum rewards for my efforts. It's called work." - toberane.
This is a problem I have to deal with regularly. My group consists of nine players, but typically only 5-6 show up for a given session. So I do not know beforehand what party setup I'm going to have and it can and probably will change several times within the same adventure (we're dealing with missing characters by simply having them fade into the background).
What I _will_ adjust is the number of monsters in an encounter if the number of characters is noticably lower (or higher!) than what I expected when creating the encounter.
What I will not adjust is the nature of the encounter or the monster types. I'm always trying to have a good mix of all monster types. Right before the session starts, I'll point out obvious missing roles, like: "remember, you don't have anyone with rogue or skill-monkey today" or "today you gotta be extra careful: no cleric!". Then I expect my players to adjust their tactics accordingly.
And it works pretty well. It took them awhile to figure it out, but as of now, they've made sure they can replace any character in a pinch. They've bought a couple of potions, scrolls and wands and generally get more careful and creative.
I recently had great fun watching them struggle their way through a nasty encounter-trap without any trapfinding/disable device support.
The result of the dragon encounters was essentially a TPK. (Was encountered twice -- jumped in, got roughed up, retreated, regrouped, rested, went back in, got roughed up again.)
There were 5 character deaths against the dragon. 4 of them were killed by fire damage.
The result of the dragon encounters was essentially a TPK. (Was encountered twice -- jumped in, got roughed up, retreated, regrouped, rested, went back in, got roughed up again.)
I find this interesting. Why did you play it that way if it wasn't enjoyable to either you or the players?
Many people would say that it was played that way because you didn't want to metagame. I would say that I have enough of "not metagaming" in real life, and I want fun in my games. Metagaming was included when you created the encounter, so why refuse to metagame at the table, even at the expense of a good time for everyone?
I am curious what the driving force is to play a game that is not enjoyable.
May I ask if the players are accepting any responsibility for this turn of affairs? Because those three players ensured that the team had no divine casting and little arcane magic. They also have just one skill monkey type, the monk. If they didn't have fun, did they learn the value of teamwork and communication in party design? Or is it, unfairly, only your fault?
__________________ All role playing advice is given without knowledge of you and your group. Only you and your group knows what is fun for you. What you are doing is not badwrongfun. My advice is offered based on what I think might be fun for you to try.
"Art is the demonstration that the ordinary is extraordinary." - Amedee Ozenfant, Foundations of Modern Art
"I already have a place where I can get little recognition for my accomplishments, advance at a very slow pace, and have to work hard to eke out minimum rewards for my efforts. It's called work." - toberane.
Why did you play it that way if it wasn't enjoyable to either you or the players?
That's sort of like asking, "Why did you ride the rollercoaster if it wasn't enjoyable?" You don't know how it's going to be until it starts.
Quote:
Many people would say that it was played that way because you didn't want to metagame. I would say that I have enough of "not metagaming" in real life, and I want fun in my games. Metagaming was included when you created the encounter, so why refuse to metagame at the table, even at the expense of a good time for everyone?
In the first encounter with the dragon, it breathed fire on them in the first few rounds. No one was killed that time. But they saw the shape and range of the breath weapon.
When they realized how powerful the beast was, they retreated out of the dragon's cavern and down a 10'-wide corridor. The dragon could have followed them down the corridor (Large size), but it chose not to. In fact, it wasted a whole round standing put outside the mouth of the corridor and inhaling for a breath to come next round (4 rounds reset).
2 PCs ran down the corridor as far as they could in that round. 2 PCs just moved a little ways into the corridor, but they were just barely out of the 40' breath range. I don't know if they measured the distance (in their heads) or just got lucky. 1 PC took the delay by the dragon as a chance to get in another spring attack. When the dragon breathed the next round, the spring attacking PC died.
The dragon then turned around and walked away from the corridor, satisfied that the intruders were sufficiently terrified of it. Then the sorcerer, who had been missed by the fire breath by just 5 feet, went back to the mouth of the corridor and got off a single spell -- blindness -- and then ran away. The dragon failed it's save versus the blindness.
Later, after the dead PC was raised, the PCs went back to take on the now blind dragon. Unfortunately, dragons have blindsense. But the dragon was very unhappy with being blind, so it wanted to parley to get the sorcerer to remove the spell.
Now, the dragon didn't beg and plead or anything like that. It demanded and threatened the party with destruction if the mage didn't remove the spell. The party apparently were not interested in removing the spell (where not even interested in the attempt to parley), and wanted to take the opportunity to fight the dragon while it was blind.
Unfortunately for the party, blindsense works just fine for area affect spells and breath weapons.
The dragon dispersed the group with a stinking cloud and then jumped into the fray to grab a bargaining chip. It grappled a PC and threatened to kill him if the mage didn't remove the blindness. The party continued to attack the dragon, and the PC escaped its clutches.
For many rounds, the dragon did not use all its attacks on anyone. It just used one attack to get a grapple. Unfortunately for me (trying to give a hint), the PCs didn't realize the dragon could have done more attacks. (Although one of the Players mentioned, after the game, that he knew it could have made more attacks.)
One round, though, the dragon gave full attacks on the PC most likely to survive. The PC retreated with single-digit hit points.
Then the dragon grappled another PC and again threatened to kill him if not unblinded. The PCs continued to attack the dragon. Although the dragon only used one attack (of its multiple) in the round it grappled, it should have just done nothing but hold its victim for one more round to really give the point that it was trying to pause hostilities. But the PCs were hurting it.
So the dragon did its full attack options on the grappled PC and tore it to pieces. The fight continued.
Then the dragon got ahold of another PC and held him over some lava, and threatened to drop him in if the mage did not remove the blindness. The other PCs continued their attacks, and the grappled PC tried to escape. (I don't know where the grappled PC thought he would go if he got free -- he was hanging over a pool of lava.)
The dragon dropped the PC into the lava. (I gave him a ref save to throw himself on the edge, but that failed.) PC took 70-some damage and was gone.
More attacks on the dragon. So the dragon moved up and breathed on two of the remaining PCs who were grouped together. They both died in the fire.
After a few more rounds, the last PC standing (with only a handful of hit points remaining, himself) managed to kill the dragon with spring attacks.
Note also, there were also 4 minor critters in the dragon's cavern. They were not much of a threat to the PCs -- they did minor damage (if they hit) and the PCs killed them with one attack each.
I had pulled the dragon's punches a great deal. For many rounds, the dragon made just one attack or just grappled and held instead of totally going whirlwind of death on the party. But I guess I was being too subtle with my hints. One Player commented after the game that if he were the dragon, he would have grabbed a PC and flown up out of reach and then tried parley.
A simple potion of protection from fire for each PC would have saved even the one dropped into the lava.
Quote:
I am curious what the driving force is to play a game that is not enjoyable.
The expectation/hope was that it would be fun. The result turn out to be not enjoyable.
May I ask if the players are accepting any responsibility for this turn of affairs? Because those three players ensured that the team had no divine casting and little arcane magic. They also have just one skill monkey type, the monk. If they didn't have fun, did they learn the value of teamwork and communication in party design? Or is it, unfairly, only your fault?
In my eyes:
My fault:
1. Not toning back the dragon's power because the party changed line-up (but I just never do that)
2. Apparently being too subtle in my hints with the dragon's actions (even though I think I was pretty blatant with the dragon's verbal threats)
Players fault:
1. Changing line-up after starting the adventure, especially when they knew what they were up against
2. Not preparing for what they knew they were up against
In the Players' eyes:
My fault:
1. Making the encounter far too tough
I think the largest change was they went from having two people that could cast healing spells, to no people. Plus they lost massive spell selection versatility (a cleric, a druid, and a necromancer, replaced by a sorcerer -- ouch!). That would radically change any party's capabilities in 3e (or 1e or 2e, IIRC).
If the Sorcerer has Haste, Resist Elements & Enlarge Person he could help a lot (with a wand for spamming Magic Missile). Fireball, Scorching Ray & Burning Hands less so.... (though energy substition would improve this).
Anyway the build of an individual character let alone the mix of characters can make a big difference.
The expectation/hope was that it would be fun. The result turn out to be not enjoyable.
You can lead a horse to knowledge, but you can't make him think.
You gave the players a half-dozen opportunities to re-access their tactics. They stubbornly continued to ignore the facts and instead continued with their ineffective methods.
The issue is way bigger than just the choice of classes, but the choice of actions. Not just before the fight, but during.
Quote:
In the Players' eyes:
My fault:
1. Making the encounter far too tough
If they thought that, then they shouldn't have went back for seconds.
But to the point about class rosters making a difference, aye.
Among other things, the game assumes that you have a party consisting of: 1 tank, 1 skill guy, 1 arcane caster, 1 divine caster. A DM can adjust things if his party composition waivers a little (No rogue? No stealth or traps), but too much and it gets ugly.
Like I said in another thread, after about level 4, you take spells out of the equation of 3e and things go down hill, fast.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
