Dragon Heist TPK

[5ekyu]

Ah, at least he's an aberrant, so there's something telegraphed that he's not joe dude. From the OP that's never discussed.

It is clearly a powerful creature, one of fairly terrible lore in fact.

Ok someone else and- it's a mind flayer.

 

[Reynard]

They did take the back way in and did 88 points of damage before the first bad guy got to go for the round and then he was engaged with multiple enemies.

However, Not till your post did I go look up Plan Shift and was surprised to see it has a casting time of one action. This is where I went wrong. I could have indeed used that to let him escape and not destroyed the party. I didn't realize that the casting time was so short.

How did 1st level characters manage so much damage in one round? Did they just get lucky? If so I tend toward the "so be it" philosophy. Imagine if they had managed to kill the bad guy. The repercussions of that accidental success would be awesome!

 

[robus]

How did 1st level characters manage so much damage in one round? Did they just get lucky?

That is the key question! It must have been crits all round! Or there are 10 PCs in the party!

 

[Blue]

It is clearly a powerful creature, one of fairly terrible lore in fact.

Ok someone else and- it's a mind flayer.

Thank you for that info. Everything I was saying before is incorrect - it is quite well telegraphed that this is no normal baddie, even for newer player not familiar with the lore.

 

[Gradine]

Just finished that chapter, and while they do say the mind flayer heads off when the PCs arrive, it’s all a bit meh as far as a scene goes. The mind flayer doesn’t really care that some PCs infiltrated the secret hideout?

I’d expect some repartee at least: “oh look, some foolish creatures have come to rescue this worthless dreg. Deal with them!” and then off it goes or something.

It’s a bit lackluster.

I mean, it could have been prescriptive in that regard, and people would have complained about DM agency and boxed text and the like. I don't personally mind being left to figure that stuff out for myself.

 

[robus]

I mean, it could have been prescriptive in that regard, and people would have complained about DM agency and boxed text and the like. I don't personally mind being left to figure that stuff out for myself.

Sure, but what confuses me is the inconsistency in the level of characterization. Some random NPCs get lots of detail and others (seemingly more central to the story - such as a "boss") get little to none.

What is the purpose of this hideout? What is the mind flayer doing there? Just interrogating Floon? And with its detect thoughts why is an interrogation even needed? Weak story logic is not a good aspect of an adventure, because not only are you having to try and follow it, but you're also having to make excuses for it as you go...

To my mind, building a good core adventure skeleton is job one, then fleshing it out with interesting characters and locations is job two. WotC seems to start with 2 and then try and retrofit an adventure story.

 

[cmad1977]

They did take the back way in and did 88 points of damage before the first bad guy got to go for the round and then he was engaged with multiple enemies.

However, Not till your post did I go look up Plan Shift and was surprised to see it has a casting time of one action. This is where I went wrong. I could have indeed used that to let him escape and not destroyed the party. I didn't realize that the casting time was so short.

Welcome to 5e. Where the DM is actually responsible for their game.
The encounter isn’t bad and it isn’t bad design. You made a mistake. Happens.

 

[5ekyu]

Welcome to 5e. Where the DM is actually responsible for their game.
The encounter isn’t bad and it isn’t bad design. You made a mistake. Happens.

I have over time caught some flak for the approach i tend to take both in game, gaming and in life.

When something goes awry, a way i did not want, did not like etc... I ALWAYS start with "what could i have done differently to get to a better outcome? How was i responsible for that outcome and how could i do better?"

Obviously, not everything is my fault all the time... But to put it simply what I do is what i have the most control over and can change the most easily. So, those are the "ways to do better" i can actually act on the quickest.

So i always start there.

When GMing that often comes down to descriptions, dialog, setups and perceptions that make the "better" options more noticable and the "worse" options more obviously bad.

Maybe this is as easy as describing hostages in such a way as to make help/rescue seem more immediate a necessity than pursuing a fleeing enemy. Maybe its having a hostage blurting out last gasps "have to tell you..." or "trap..." to stop the rush to "rush in".

Obviously, should leave choices to Characters but gives them a beat or a note and an opportunity to realize and recognize other options are there on the buffet.

In fact, most of the times i have encountered "seeming inexplicable character actions or encounter results" i could on reflection find a few key points where a little difference in description or scenery could have resulted in more explicable or acceptable outcomes.

All the "change others" corrections are usually a lot more work and less productive.

 

[cmad1977]

I have over time caught some flak for the approach i tend to take both in game, gaming and in life.

When something goes awry, a way i did not want, did not like etc... I ALWAYS start with "what could i have done differently to get to a better outcome? How was i responsible for that outcome and how could i do better?"

Obviously, not everything is my fault all the time... But to put it simply what I do is what i have the most control over and can change the most easily. So, those are the "ways to do better" i can actually act on the quickest.

So i always start there.

When GMing that often comes down to descriptions, dialog, setups and perceptions that make the "better" options more noticable and the "worse" options more obviously bad.

Maybe this is as easy as describing hostages in such a way as to make help/rescue seem more immediate a necessity than pursuing a fleeing enemy. Maybe its having a hostage blurting out last gasps "have to tell you..." or "trap..." to stop the rush to "rush in".

Obviously, should leave choices to Characters but gives them a beat or a note and an opportunity to realize and recognize other options are there on the buffet.

In fact, most of the times i have encountered "seeming inexplicable character actions or encounter results" i could on reflection find a few key points where a little difference in description or scenery could have resulted in more explicable or acceptable outcomes.

All the "change others" corrections are usually a lot more work and less productive.

Yup. Any time my players completely ‘wreck’ an encounter it’s one of two things.
1: most likely they simply ‘outwitted’ me or came up with an exciting idea that I didn’t anticipate and ran with.
2: slightly less likely but still plenty likely... i goofed something up. Forgot a power, neglected a resistance... it happens.


This instance is a clear example of ‘number 2’ (tee hee). The plane shift power is clearly described in the monster description. It was simply forgotten.

 

[Ymdar]

You can even foreshadow the tone of the adventure: use Simon and Garfunkel* if the PCs will overcome Evil in the end. Use the Disturbd remake** if the PCs should expect not to.

* light and dreamy, emphasizes the warning nature of the vision
* heavy and ominous, emphasizes the wrong / bad / misguidedness aspects of the vision

Yeah I've was referring to this superhero funeral scene