Keeping a Group Together

[S'mon]

What's your view about adding new elements into a fight?

In Marvel Heroic RP, this costs dice from the Doom Pool - so the GM has to pay to add enemies.

In my 4e game, I sometimes plan waves of enemies in advance, and sometimes add them in as seems fun and sporting. This doesn't cost me any GM-side resource, but because of the XP and milestone rules for that system, there is at least a rough mechanical recognition of the greater challenge that the players (and their PCs) faced.

Because adding enemies is a transparent GM manoeuvre (and, in my case, an opportunity to poke or gently mock my players) I think it' fair game, at least in systems like 4e where the players have a great depth of resources and flexibility to respond to a GM-delivered twist.

But I can understand that others would see it differently. And there are systems where I don't think it would work, because the players don't have depth and flexibility of resources (eg low level Rolemaster, RuneQuest, non-spell user classic D&D).

I think I would only impromptu add enemies to a fight in a dramatist game where the players get
benefits from me doing so, eg when I screwed over the PCs running OGL Conan I would give them a Fate Point. I've never done this running 4e, though I agree it wouldn't necessarily feel like cheating in 4e the way it would in Classic - my Mentzer Classic game yesterday had a second wave of kobolds come in, but
(a) they were a resource drawn from the dungeon key
(b) the PCs had seen a kobold go off to get reinforcements
(c) the PCs heard them coming, prepped an ambush and massacred them.

 

[S'mon]

I seem to recall similar sentiments in the 1e DMG, though I can't quote page ref's as my DMG isn't with me at the moment.

Gygax's DMG advice: "Never give a sucker an even break".

Not exactly the modern "fudge so your players have a good time' type advice.

Gygaxian D&D is pretty adversarial, fudging would be antithetical to that sense of achievement from
beating the DM's dungeon.

 

[S'mon]

For keeping a group together per the OP, I recommend being completely honest with your players. Preferably that means not fudging. Second best is being open about fudging, but not in a "ha ha I had to fudge so hard to keep you alive!" way - I had that GM. Third best is admitting it only when called. Worst is fudging and lying about it when called out on it.

 

[pemerton]

- my Mentzer Classic game yesterday had a second wave of kobolds come in, but
(a) they were a resource drawn from the dungeon key
(b) the PCs had seen a kobold go off to get reinforcements

That sounds right for a classic dungeoncrawl game.

 

[Hussar]

No, I was fine when my DM told me last session that the 22 hp zombie died after my paladin divine
smited it for 21 radiant damage, because that's what she thought should happen. She was being
completely honest, I was fine with that, so was everyone else (maybe she overdid it a bit when she said 'don't worry, you won't die in this encounter'). Whereas I dislike it strongly when GMs 'secretly' fudge to
ensure their desired outcome, it feels dishonest to me. I leave those games pretty fast.

We used to do that all the time. You drop the critter down to 1 hp, and instead of dragging the game on, we'd say things like, "He stubs his toe and dies" or "He stumbles onto his own sword. Urk". Things like that. Just to speed the game along. My current few DM's don't do that, and I find I'd rather a bit of fudging here just to speed the game up.

 

[S'mon]

We used to do that all the time. You drop the critter down to 1 hp, and instead of dragging the game on, we'd say things like, "He stubs his toe and dies" or "He stumbles onto his own sword. Urk". Things like that. Just to speed the game along. My current few DM's don't do that, and I find I'd rather a bit of fudging here just to speed the game up.

It wasn't about speeding the game up at the end - our 2nd level PCs were faced by a bunch of zombies and a demon spider (pretty sure it would be Beyond Deadly in the encounter building system). This was our last Radiant attack; without Radiant damage zombies are very hard to kill, and there was a good chance we were looking at TPK if we didn't thin the numbers a bit.

Personally when I GM, I describe a monster at 1 hp or so as staggering, covered in blood, chunks
hanging off etc; the players are energised and eager to finish the critter. I've never seen them bored
there; boredom is when the 4e Elite is bloodied but still has a couple hundred hp to go...

 

[ExploderWizard]

It wasn't about speeding the game up at the end - our 2nd level PCs were faced by a bunch of zombies and a demon spider (pretty sure it would be Beyond Deadly in the encounter building system). This was our last Radiant attack; without Radiant damage zombies are very hard to kill, and there was a good chance we were looking at TPK if we didn't thin the numbers a bit.

So pulling out if things started looking bad wasn't an option? One of the most irritating things to come out of modern edition encounter building practices are the expectations of the players and its effect on them.

The idea that a combat must be winnable somehow so we're gonna dig in and win or TPK was crazy talk 30 years ago. Now it seems to be the accepted normal attitude. Cutting and running if things start to go sideways was always an acceptable alternative to a TPK. The game kind of expected it and dealt with evasion & pursuit, the distraction of food or treasure left behind, etc. A lot of fun tension involving chases & escapes is being missed by stubbornly standing ground until the whole party is a pile of mush.

 

[S'mon]

So pulling out if things started looking bad wasn't an option? One of the most irritating things to come out of modern edition encounter building practices are the expectations of the players and its effect on them.

The idea that a combat must be winnable somehow so we're gonna dig in and win or TPK was crazy talk 30 years ago. Now it seems to be the accepted normal attitude. Cutting and running if things start to go sideways was always an acceptable alternative to a TPK. The game kind of expected it and dealt with evasion & pursuit, the distraction of food or treasure left behind, etc. A lot of fun tension involving chases & escapes is being missed by stubbornly standing ground until the whole party is a pile of mush.

We did want to withdraw, but we were surrounded by zombies and a fast-moving demon spider trying to eat us. Also the 3e-4e-5e initiative system makes coordinated retreats very hard, and my Paladin would hardly want to be the first to bug out.

 

[ExploderWizard]

We did want to withdraw, but we were surrounded by zombies and a fast-moving demon spider trying to eat us. Also the 3e-4e-5e initiative system makes coordinated retreats very hard, and my Paladin would hardly want to be the first to bug out.

Another solid argument for group based initiative!

 

[S'mon]

Another solid argument for group based initiative!

Yup, agree strongly! I've gone to single group init roll in my own 5e game, but add individual DEX bonuses so if the two group rolls are close there may be a split result. This seems to work brilliantly.