Altering an encounter on the fly: What would you have done?

I'm curious about your opinions on a situation from our session last night:

This was the first session in the resumption of a previous campaign. There are now 5 players, 2 of whom participated in the last campaign. All characters are 8th level. In particular they are a Druid (with a Dire Mountain Lion animal companion), a Wizard, a Rogue/Royal Explorer, a Fighter/Cleric and a Barbarian.

The party started play in a town on the edge of a vast wilderness. Their goal was to cross this wilderness, pass through a land controlled by barbarians and proceed on to a mountain range that holds the main objective of their quest.

It has been established (in the previous campaign) that the wilderness through which they were initially traveling held no known monsters that would pose a serious threat to the party. But it was still a wild, untamed land.

The encounter I had planned was a group (5) of Shambling Mounds that were set upon the party by a group of Druids that oppose the quest the party has undertaken. In particular, they wished to warn the party Druid away from his present course of action. The encounter was also designed (from a metagame standpoint) to be a fairly straight forward melee that would test the party's skills in battle and let them "unlimber their sword arms" a bit at the start of the campaign. Instead what happened was this:

The weather had turned quite bad as a moderate-severe thunderstorm was upon them. They checked their gear and came to the conclusion that nobody had a tent. Most of them had no desire to spend the night in the rain so the Wizard cast Rope Trick and he, the Rogue/RE and the Fighter/Cleric got inside out of the weather (and also out of any possibility of immediate contact with the other two characters). The Druid and the Barbarian decided to sleep out in the rain more or less just to show the rest of the party that they weren't wimps (there was also the matter that the Druid didn't want to leave his Dire Lion companion sleeping alone in the rain). Furthermore, when asked, they flatly stated that they were going to post no guard and were counting on "sleeping lightly" in case something happened in the night.

I did not alter the circumstances that I had intended to initiate the encounter. The Shambling Mounds approached as stealthily as possible and the Druid, Lion and Barbarian all blew their Listen checks (which were hampered anyway by the noise of the storm). The Shambling Mounds achieved total surprise and got off their attacks during the surprise round as well as winning initiative and getting their full set of attacks on the prone party members. They easily incapacitated all the party members outside the Rope Trick before they were able to mount any sort of defense or clambor up into the Rope Trick to warn their companions.

The enemy Druids swept in and stabilized them and then carried them quite some distance away where they left the party Druid a stern warning to discontinue his present course of action. The rest of the party slept through the whole thing, safe in the Rope Trick and didn't notice that the others were even gone until close to morning.

Now I'm not really concerned about the long-term consequences for the campaign. I didn't (though I probably could have given the circumstances) do a TPK on the first night of the campaign. But the session was not as "fun" as I would have liked because half the party didn't get to participate in the only combat of the night and the other half's participation was limited to getting severely beat down in two rounds. I considered throwing together some other sort of combat to give them something to repair their egos, but it would have felt forced and it was getting late in the evening by that point anyway.

My question is this: Should I have altered the circumstances of the attack by the Shambling Mounds in order to assure that everybody got to participate if by doing so I was removing the consequences of their somewhat foolish behavior (i.e. splitting the party via the Rope Trick and then failing to post any sort of guard)? Without question my overarching goal is to make sure everyone has "fun" including me. But do you have more "fun" by making choices and living with the consequences or by having the GM alter things such that everyone gets to have maximum participation and efficacy?

Generally, I'd say don't change it just because they did something foolish, except to avoid a TPK (or near TPK). If anything, you could have fudged the damage rolls down to give them a bit more of a chance to wake their friends in the rope trick. Other than that, I don't think you should have changed anything.

I think you handled it very well.

First of all: POST GUARDS. You've got a pretty experienced group; this was just a clear oversight from not thinking it though, and this is as good a lesson as any to remind them.

Holy crud! I just looked up the hide and move silent of a Shambler in the woods! Great god, those are some stealthy hillocks! All the more reason to realize that just because someone SAYS there's no danger doesn't mean there IS none.

Second: They would not have been reminded of this lesson had you turned it into a "gimme" encounter. While I think a party kill would have been excessive, it also would have been out of character for the enemy druids. As it is, they know now what kind of force they are up against, and learned accordingly.

On the Devil's advocate, 5 however, might have been a bit much, because that's the equivalent of an EL 10 encounter, is it not? (CR 6 + double the monsters (EL+2), plus double the monsters again makes EL10?) I might have that formula wrong, but I am thinking it's on the high side - but if the druids are into overkill to make a point, then you're dead on.

So in summary, sometimes you've just got to let the dice fall where they may, because fun doesn't have to be found in every single second in order for the game to still be fun. They may well remember this in future game reminiscences as "Hey, guys, remember that time we didn't post any guards and those shamblers cleaned our clocks! God, were we dummies!"

I have many of those.

Not from what I'm sitting (on a stool at work in case you wondered)

I would say no, the druids behind the attack had no reason to change their plans, and the splitting of the group worked even better for them.

Interesting question. I think you did the right thing in not altering the combat. I'm a firm believer in the characters actions having consequences. What they did was rather silly from a metagame stand point. But from a simple we thought this area was safe standpoint it made sense.

So three things have now been learned by the party.

1) No place is "safe" in DnD for the heros.

2) There are definite opponents to their plans and they have already reveled
themselves.

3) Our in game actions need to be thought out and will ultimatly reflect on the
game.

Number three I think is the biggie here. If you do something silly like unleash the emtombed evil avatarish creature from its millinea long imprisonment in the mind of a mad demented god of ice and snow, you might get spanked by it and let it loose on the cosmos. Making you pulic enemy number one on many peoples radar for you role in freeing him. (yes, this actually happened, a paladin just couldn't leave the great evil he was sensing behind the wall alone, so he broke through the seals and freed it)

Actions have consequences, just as in real life. Up to a point at least. Yes this should be fun, but would the encounter have been fun for you and would you have enjoyed it if you had to nerf it to cover for their sillinesss?

Now, since the druids were only trying to make a point and not really kill any one yet you could have modified the encounter to become them sneaking in and rendering the pc's helpless. Giving their lecture and then leaving. When the PC's didn't stop their march torwards their goal THEN have the druids unleash the shambling mounds.

Would have accomplished all the above goals and still left you with a combat to have some fun with. Of course this kind of mental rethink is sometimes hard to do in the middle of a gaming session.

Ashrum the Black said:

Now, since the druids were only trying to make a point and not really kill any one yet you could have modified the encounter to become them sneaking in and rendering the pc's helpless. Giving their lecture and then leaving. When the PC's didn't stop their march torwards their goal THEN have the druids unleash the shambling mounds.

Click to expand...

In retrospect, that would likely have been the best answer to the situation. As it stood, I was thinking that if the PC's won initiative that they might have been able to alert the guys in the Rope Trick and, while it would have been tough, they may have salvaged a win out of the encounter or at least managed an escape.

Henry said:

On the Devil's advocate, 5 however, might have been a bit much, because that's the equivalent of an EL 10 encounter, is it not? (CR 6 + double the monsters (EL+2), plus double the monsters again makes EL10?) I might have that formula wrong, but I am thinking it's on the high side - but if the druids are into overkill to make a point, then you're dead on.

Click to expand...

I wrestled long and hard with this question, Henry and I don't strongly disagree with your assessment. But, with this being a party of 5 PCs, all of whom are brand new and have a full a compliment of custom-selected gear AND the Dire Mountain Lion to add an extra combatant, I felt it was within their capabilities. That of course would suppose that the group wasn't split in half and sleeping when the encounter took place.

After the session, one of the players said that the actions of the party were certainly questionable, but he sincerely believed that there was no "major opposition" in the area. I pointed out that a single Kobold with one level of Rogue could have represented a "major opposition" to three sleeping individuals when nobody was on watch in the middle of a thunderstorm.

Actually, in retrospect, the whole "half the party killed by a single, 1st level Kobold who then got away with all their gear" schtick would have been hilarious (to me anyway). I must be slipping in my Rat-Bastard ways.

I would have done the same thing. I often find that one "un-fun" session is made up for by the next session, or by the session when the group gets to take revenge.

That being said, if only half of the group is in combat I often ask the other players to play the monsters, just so they have something fun to do. Alternatively, I'd try to make sure that the fight went really quickly.

just a couple questions to clear things up in my mind?

how did the shamblers and the druids know where to find the party?

how did they know to attack the prone victims. were they in clear sight?

why did the mountain lion not do some of its natural instinctive stuff to get out of the rain. and thus why didn't the party do normal, at least for that level, stuff like avoid getting caught so off guard?

edit: my guess is: you metagamed the situation. and thus the response you got was....or should have been expected.

and they didn't set up guards and such b/c they were not a cohesive team...they hadn't gamed with these characters before so starting them at 8th lvl was like giving them 1st lvl characters with more powers.

Piratecat said:

I'd try to make sure that the fight went really quickly.

Click to expand...

That part was not an issue. They were all down in under 2 rounds. The battle only really took as long as it took me to make the attack and damage rolls for the Shambling Mounds.

As for diaglo's questions:

how did the shamblers and the druids know where to find the party?

Click to expand...

I don't want to reveal too much since some of them may read this thread (which is fine by me as things stand) but they were following a fairly predictable path toward their destination and moving at a steady pace.

how did they know to attack the prone victims. were they in clear sight?

Click to expand...

Yes. The party was camped in the open. They were moving in an area close to a large forest across a rolling plain dotted with scattered copses of trees. Doubtlessly one of these copses would have made for better cover from the rain and their enemies. But, at the time they made camp, they didn't know they had these enemies and more than half the PC's didn't care about the rain since they had the cover of the Rope Trick.

why did the mountain lion not do some of its natural instinctive stuff to get out of the rain. and thus why didn't the party do normal, at least for that level, stuff like avoid getting caught so off guard?

Click to expand...

The mountain lion is no stranger to sleeping out in the elements and there was no good cover from the rain to be had nearby in any case. As I said before, better cover from the rain was probably available if they had sought it out but, with visibility being bad due to the storm, they would have been mostly wandering blind, hoping to stumble into a copse of trees. For his part, the party Druid wildshaped into a boar and "wallowed in the mud", unbothered by the situation and accepting that the storm was just "part of nature". The barbarian decided to sleep outside in the rain for good roleplaying reasons (he doesn't fully trust the "civilized characters" yet, who also happened to be the ones sleeping in the Rope Trick).

In short, those who slept outside had good reasons and those who slept in the Rope Trick had good reasons. But the fact that nobody was on watch was still not a smart move and, I'd venture to guess, not a mistake that they'll soon repeat.

The main thrust of my question is whether a certain amount of "fun" should be sacrificed for the sake of consistancy and consquences and whether the consistancy and consequences themselves are primary sources of "fun".

diaglo said:

edit: my guess is: you metagamed the situation. and thus the response you got was....or should have been expected.

Click to expand...

I'm not certain what you mean by this. Could you clarify?

and they didn't set up guards and such b/c they were not a cohesive team...they hadn't gamed with these characters before so starting them at 8th lvl was like giving them 1st lvl characters with more powers.

Click to expand...

I'll agree with this.

Are you saying that I was metagaming by expecting them to act more like a "normal" party who would assume that camping in the wilderness could be dangerous and who would therefore set a watch? If so, I'm probably guilty of that.