Advice on balancing an encounter

[Nail]

The encounter must be set up so that the duke dies.

That's probably too much railroading. The players will be able to sense that, especially after the encounter is over -- and they may feel shafted, etc.

Moreover, your inital description of the "surprise round" doesn't hold water. All sides are aware of each other - regardless of apparent alliances - and so no surprise round is possible. Instead, you should have the wizard try to lunge for the book ....and then roll for initiative. The wizard may or may not get to go first.

 

[LostSoul]

Since you want the duke dead, why not start the game off right there?

"You head into the tower with the duke, the wizard, and their bodyguards. The wizard picks up the book and laughs evilly, then spins around and casts a terrible spell on the duke! He screams in terror and falls to the ground, dead!

Roll for initiative..."

Before the game begins, however, tell the players that you're going to use some railroading to get them into a interesting situation. They should be okay with it, since it's usually more fun to start off with a combat than pinking around town looking for adventure for 30 minutes to an hour.

The wizard casts Phantasmal Killer as his first action, and the duke fails his save. No surprise round here, so the PCs get a chance to respond. His next action is a Dimension Door to get away. (This could fail, especially if the PCs pen him in with Silence and he has to move into a threatened space in order to cast and blows his Concentration check.)

The only problem with the encounter that I see is that the PCs don't really have much to win. They can get out with their lives, but that still smells like defeat. It's more fun to start off with victory. I can't see how they can grab a victory out of this, other than killing the wizard, and you don't want that to happen.

 

[diaglo]

I can't see how they can grab a victory out of this, other than killing the wizard, and you don't want that to happen.

big Railroad idea on the way...




it works great.

PCs have a dead duke and a dead killer. no way to prove they didn't kill both...

except going to the church to ask for a speak with dead.

BBEG is in fact the head of the church. now the church rules the town since the civil authority is dead....

 

[swrushing]

Ok from a Gms perspective, what you are planning is a little far into the heavy handed to be very likely to not come off well.

Its certainly Ok to plan for the duke to die and for the purpose of the scenario being getting the duke dead. That story setup so that can be fine.

But its not as Ok and is more likely to produce bad results when combined with two things...

1. you don't see this scenario as being about spotlighting the PCs.EVERY scenario should be about spotlighting the PCs. The don't need to be the extras watching your NPCs do things. That likely will be no fun for the players.

2. If "the duke dies" is the gotta happen part of the plan, then you need to give your players something other than "protect the duke" as their motivation for being there. Right now, they are being hired, and presumably this will be a "no choice" job, to go with the duke and keep him happy yet you are preordaining that they have to fail no matter what. Its almost always BAD to script mandatory regardless of choices FAILURE for your PCs.

The combo of 1 and 2 make the PCs meaningless to this series of events.

So, what you might want to consider is adding some depth to your setup. Give the PCs a mission other than the one the duke proposes. Maybe, the day before, someone else comes to them and gives them a different goal, maybe he is suspicious of the duke and wants someone "unaffiliated with local politics" to watch him on this quest to see that he doesn't have sinister plans. Maybe he even has "proof" (which is conveniently not available right this second) of the duke's being involved in "an evil scheme".

But you need to look for what "meaningful choices" the PCs can make so that their time here isn't just hanging out with your cool NPCs while the NPCs do stuff and so that they have something to do that isn't total failure.

 

[General Barron]

That's probably too much railroading. The players will be able to sense that, especially after the encounter is over -- and they may feel shafted, etc.

It is more railroading than I'd prefer, but it is a required plot hook. Without it, the following adventure can not occur. If possible I'd like the encounter to feel 'fair' (i.e. the players might have been able to stop it), but it absolutely has to end with the above conditions met.

Moreover, your inital description of the "surprise round" doesn't hold water. All sides are aware of each other - regardless of apparent alliances - and so no surprise round is possible.

"The wizard and the duke walk up to the book. Standing over it, the wizard begins the incantation to safely remove it from its pedestal. Suddenly, he falls backwards, as if unconcious. As the duke steps forward to catch him, the wizard grabs the duke, lightning seething from his hands. Roll for initiative."

It makes perfect sense to me to let the wizard act before anyone else. What would the PC's do, if they beat the wizard on initiative for this first round, anyway? The wizard wouldn't have done anything at that point yet, so it would make no sense to move into a combat round.

If you want to be completely literal about it, then read the first line of "surprise" (PHB pg 137): "...if you are not aware of your opponents and they are aware of you, you're surprised". The PC's do not know the wizard is their opponent, until he attacks the duke. The wizard knows the duke is his opponent. Therefore, the wizard surprises the duke and the PC's.

If a PC had spellcraft skill, asked and succeeded in identifying the spell cast (shocking grasp), and decided something wasn't right, then I would allow them to go on the surprise round.

Since you want the duke dead, why not start the game off right there?

"You head into the tower with the duke, the wizard, and their bodyguards. The wizard picks up the book and laughs evilly, then spins around and casts a terrible spell on the duke! He screams in terror and falls to the ground, dead!

Roll for initiative..."

That is essentially what I'm planning. Surprise round -> wizard kills duke -> roll for initiative. I guess I should have made that more clear, that the duke won't really be fighting.

The only problem with the encounter that I see is that the PCs don't really have much to win. They can get out with their lives, but that still smells like defeat. It's more fun to start off with victory. I can't see how they can grab a victory out of this, other than killing the wizard, and you don't want that to happen.

1. you don't see this scenario as being about spotlighting the PCs.EVERY scenario should be about spotlighting the PCs. The don't need to be the extras watching your NPCs do things. That likely will be no fun for the players.

2. If "the duke dies" is the gotta happen part of the plan, then you need to give your players something other than "protect the duke" as their motivation for being there. Right now, they are being hired, and presumably this will be a "no choice" job, to go with the duke and keep him happy yet you are preordaining that they have to fail no matter what. Its almost always BAD to script mandatory regardless of choices FAILURE for your PCs.

The combo of 1 and 2 make the PCs meaningless to this series of events.

Let me try a different approach...

The encounter does spotlight the players, just not in terms of combat.

The wizard is framing the PC's for the murder of the duke, the guards, and himself. The entire adventure is about the PC's proving their innocence, while being fugatives from the law. This is how they get themselves into that situation. If the PC's weren't there, the wizard would have no one to frame for the murder; therefore, the PC's are a vital part of the plot. Later on they will get their revenge against the wizard, but that is a long ways away. This is just the start of the adventure/campaign.

 

[ThirdWizard]

What if the PCs have no desire to prove their innocence? Most PCs, in my experience, will flee to another country, remain on the run, and never try to prove anything legally. If they end up with that, do you further push them back on the path that you have envisioned?

It's counter-productive to start with a railroading adventure as the first session of a game if you intend not to have a railroading campaign. If the campaign is it is isn't going to involve much railroading, then there's no reason for the PCs to ever be on the run.

A better solution might be to start the game after all this has occured so that the encounter is background information. Give the Players the details as a handout, say it happened a year ago, and give the PCs contacts within the government/clergy/etc that they've gained in the past year. Give the PCs some important information that only these people believe and have the NPCs want the PCs to try and bring this information to light.

Thus, no railroading, the NPCs are pushing in character for events to occur but the PCs can make up their own minds, they're fugitives from the law but they have help so they probably won't skip the country, and they can have goals that mesh with your story.

 

[General Barron]

A better solution might be to start the game after all this has occured so that the encounter is background information....

Thus, no railroading, the NPCs are pushing in character for events to occur but the PCs can make up their own minds, they're fugitives from the law but they have help so they probably won't skip the country, and they can have goals that mesh with your story.

I fail to see how that isn't railroading. Instead of having the players participate in the background events, I have just narrated it to them. The end result is the same, except now the players will have less of a connection to the story, since they are only being read the background, instead of actually 'being there' for it.

What if the PCs have no desire to prove their innocence? Most PCs, in my experience, will flee to another country, remain on the run, and never try to prove anything legally. If they end up with that, do you further push them back on the path that you have envisioned?

Most of the countries in the region are allied, and in such a high-profile murder, extradition would be likely. So they would have to run far away, or go deep into hiding. Neither option is very appealing when you are actually innocent, and can prove it (they just need to figure out how). Also, one of the characters is a paladin, and he especially should have ethical problems with hiding like a rat, when he is truly innocent.

Besides, my players have told me they want a story-driven campaign, as opposed to an open-ended one. So from a metagaming perspective, I see no reason why they would run from the story, when that is exactly what they are looking for.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I fail to see how that isn't railroading. Instead of having the players participate in the background events, I have just narrated it to them. The end result is the same, except now the players will have less of a connection to the story, since they are only being read the background, instead of actually 'being there' for it.

No more railroading than any other background information. One way you're handing them a piece of paper and saying "read this it happened a year ago and now you can decide what you're doing right now." The other way you're saying "sit through a session where I'm going to tell you a story about what's going on around you."

Besides, my players have told me they want a story-driven campaign, as opposed to an open-ended one. So from a metagaming perspective, I see no reason why they would run from the story, when that is exactly what they are looking for.

Are you telling them that you want them to try and prove their innocence? They might not think of it.

Story driven doesn't necessarily mean railroading. A game could be story driven without the entire campaign being ruined by an NPC living as long as the story is created by both the DM and the Players. The problem isn't just this one session, the problem arises when the next session comes and you have to railroad again for it to stay on track. I bring this up because you noted that this was more railroading than you are usually comfortable with.

You've described many things. The bodyguard escaping and coming back later (in a situation you've already anticipated before the campaign has started?), the wizard escapes with the book, the duke is killed, etc. The "problem" that arises isn't really this encounter. It's that if the campaign revolves around these things, then what happens in future sessions if the PCs get off track. What I'm saying is that you might have to railroad constantly to keep things going how you forsee them. PCs are fickle creatures; even if they want a story driven campain, they can't read your mind to know what their roles are.

 

[LostSoul]

The wizard is framing the PC's for the murder of the duke, the guards, and himself. The entire adventure is about the PC's proving their innocence, while being fugatives from the law. This is how they get themselves into that situation. If the PC's weren't there, the wizard would have no one to frame for the murder; therefore, the PC's are a vital part of the plot. Later on they will get their revenge against the wizard, but that is a long ways away. This is just the start of the adventure/campaign.

I think that's okay, just let the players know what's up before you start. (Don't give away the plot, though; just tell them "I've got a cool idea for an adventure, but we need to begin in a certain way. You cool with that?")

It almost seems like this encounter is backstory; the result of the encounter is what thrusts the PCs into the adventure, but if it doesn't go a certain way, things will fall apart. It might be worth it to consider starting the game after this encounter has already happened. (You could "flash-back" to this encounter, and in that case, the players will realize that they don't have a chance to influence the outcome; they're just playing through the backstory. They might be cool with that.)


Anyway... what I mean when I talk about a "victory" for the PCs is something that they can walk out of the encounter with. For example, what if the wizard forgot to take the Duke's signet ring? Or he forgets some other important MacGuffin? Then the bodyguard can say, "Grab the ring - without it we are all lost!" or something like that. If you have something like that, then the PCs can succeed in this encounter.

You don't even need to decide what this MacGuffin means at the moment. Establish that it is valuable, have some NPCs go after it, and figure out where it fits in later on.

 

[LostSoul]

Besides, my players have told me they want a story-driven campaign, as opposed to an open-ended one. So from a metagaming perspective, I see no reason why they would run from the story, when that is exactly what they are looking for.

There are pretty much two ways (as I see it) to run a story-driven game. One way is for the DM to make a story up and tell it to the players. This pretty much demands railroading, because you have to control the player's choices in order to tell the story you want.

The other way is to have the players create the story as they go along. The DM makes NPCs and has them interact with the PCs. The choices the players make create the story.

(There is a middle-ground there, but it's dangerous territory and I'll avoid talking about it for now.)

When your players want a story-driven game, what kind are they talking about?