• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

When the Session goes Pear Shaped

I standby the fix to bring in an outside assist. The player/PC knew they lost, no sense killing them and ruining a longer story arc. If an encounter's going bad and you want to spare the PCs, you have to bring in an external event or party to change the nature of the situation, so they can escape, parley or win. The trick is to not be deus ex machina about it.
. . .
It's time for the dragon to not be home, and for enemies of the current encounter to be in the area for some "enemy of my enemy assistance". I'd be really hesitant to follow the original adventure if the first encounter nearly trashed the party, and they haven't gotten any new advantage. Something's gotta change, or defeat is obvious.

My view is, if the PC's can't be defeated, they can't win. It annoys me when I realize a DM is "adjusting" the difficulty of encounters based on how well or badly we're doing, instead of letting/making us earn victories against whatever was there at the start. To me, it's just another form of railroading -- and it reminds me of computer games and why they (with engineering for fun, with concepts like aggro and balance) aren't actually as fun as a "real" D&D game.

My two cents anyhow. Though I remember discussing it here with Gygax. He was against "safety helmets" and "trophies for showing up" too.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Gimby

Explorer
My view is, if the PC's can't be defeated, they can't win. It annoys me when I realize a DM is "adjusting" the difficulty of encounters based on how well or badly we're doing, instead of letting/making us earn victories against whatever was there at the start. To me, it's just another form of railroading -- and it reminds me of computer games and why they (with engineering for fun, with concepts like aggro and balance) aren't actually as fun as a "real" D&D game.

My two cents anyhow. Though I remember discussing it here with Gygax. He was against "safety helmets" and "trophies for showing up" too.

Well, theres a variety of reasons why a group of PCs are not capable of beating an encounter and not all of them are their own fault.

Its entirely possible that the DM is not very good at estimating encounter difficulty and has presented the players with a selection of options which are all too hard. Now, it may be that the "proper" response is to leave the area entirely, but this is no guarentee that the DM won't come up with another set of overly or underly challenging threats.

So, recognising that you've faced the party with something that's too difficult for them, its not unreasonable to provide contact with allies (particularly if you've already introduced them).

I'll certainly agree that adjusting things repeatedly on the fly in order to reach some predetermined outcome is railroading, but recognising where you've severely miss-estimated party capability and correcting for that is, IMO, good DMing.
 

aboyd

Explorer
I want to hear about you guys: how have things went south for you? Where the ball seriously was dropped, and how you managed to get it back (or not!).
I ran a sandbox game that was too sandboxy. The players could go anywhere and do anything -- including fighting great dragons at level one, if they were that stupid. I had wandering monster tables that were not level adjusted. The characters were supposed to be willing to run, if they needed to do so.

Unfortunately, by level 7, each player (except one) had gone through many different characters, and the game was just getting annoying to them.

In addition, I enforced alignment changes if their actions dictated it. So some of the players were playing characters that had been set to chaotic evil (due to a few murders), and thus had endured some class feature loss (Dragon Shaman losing his patron dragon, for example).

So the players were playing 3rd or 4th or 5th generation characters, and those characters were no longer optimal. Some fatigue had set in among the players, and some disillusionment with their character sheets. Cue fight with long-term enemy who is very powerful and while certainly beatable, not beatable by them.

Now, this enemy was a lawful neutral hero of the realm who was actually inserted into the game as an escape clause -- the players had backed themselves into a corner and were in for a TPK if they didn't get help. So they stumble across this hero and potentially can form an alliance. Instead, they choose to fight him. One player in particular kept insisting, "I can beat him, I'm sure of it!"

Everyone groaned. One player said, "Look, we don't even care about these characters anymore. Can't we fast-forward this?"

I said yes, as soon as the "I can beat him" player breaks off and gives everyone a chance to roleplay a way out of the situation. But said player won't. Eventually the rest of the group joins in. TPK (almost) -- one player teleports out. Everyone else dies. When this happens, the kid who was sure he could win sits there with the character sheet of his 5th dead PC in hand, staring at it in disbelief. He says, "But that's not fair. We should be able to beat him!"

The death of everyone else? Actually makes the players happy. They were sick of the game, and that one session in particular just wasn't fun for them.

What did I learn? Well first, there are a couple things I know I did right. Players who assume they will always win, and in so doing they shut off their critical thinking? That's not my bad. Having real danger in my campaign is a feature, not a bug, and I'm happy with that. Second, Giving players repeated hints & tips that they ignore? I did that right. If the players discard useful information, repeatedly, then they've made it clear they are insisting on following a dangerous path. So, OK. They got it. No apologies for that. But that's where my own good thoughts end.

What did I do wrong? Two big things I ignored. First, I failed to recognize the DMPC problem. It was in my game, but masked so I didn't see it. Usually the DMPC is bad because the DM loves his own creation and gives it too much attention or power. The players sit bored while the DM's awesome PC does everything cool. Well, I wasn't quite doing that. In fact, the players kept trying to recruit new NPCs onto their team, knowing full well that I'd have to run them. I tried to avoid it. So I'm in the clear, right? Wrong. My DMPC was the enemy monsters -- too many that were too powerful to beat. Plus many NPCs both powerful & noble, constantly outshining the PCs. Too many that got to do cool stuff. One player discarded a cleric character, and I immediately had that character take over the local temple -- but the character was too low-level, so I had the character's god come down to walk among them, blessing the now-NPC with an ability boost and level boost. I never would have considered having the PCs interact with gods at level 5 -- but hey, it's an NPC now and I need to do something with him, so problem solved. Right? Well, yeah, except the players are relegated to witnesses, rather than being prime movers.

The second fault? Chekhov's Gun. That is, "One must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it." I put a lot of stuff into my game world that I assumed the players would not mess with. I was God saying, "don't eat the apple." I had many things that were in the game simply because they made the game world more sensible to me, or they helped me to enjoy my game world, but they were also intended at some sub-conscious level, to be things that they players would appreciate but not touch. This became frustrating not only for them, but for me as well. They kept fighting villains too soon. They kept wandering into modules that were too high level. They kept seeing cool plotlines about saving the world and assumed they were for them. But of course those stories were for the background NPCs.

Now, there are good intentions. A game with a rival NPC party that puts some time pressure on the players can be really cool. A game where the players start small and gain huge power is quite fulfilling. But my mistake was withholding too much too often, and giving the power to NPCs. Partly I knew that my group was composed of so many evil-minded power gamers, that if I gave them power early on, they would just go nuts and the game world would collapse. So I saved my game from a miserable end. But I saved it by imposing another more boring end.

The correct thing? Well, it's impossible to be perfectly "correct" in this situation. But I could better walk the line, balancing the "realism" of my game world with the focus on the PCs. They need more opportunities at their level, and fewer high-level NPCs interfering. Less "brutal uncaring sandbox," more "cool stuff about the PCs."

(For those that remember my previous posts about my game, yes, I'm overstating the badness of it all to make my point, and yes, the players are actually quite excited about the upcoming game on Saturday where all the new PCs get introduced. But even in a fun good game there are things that go wrong and things you can learn to do better. Having a player say, "we don't care anymore, let's fast forward," is a good sign that something needs to change.)
 

evildmguy

Explorer
I have had campaigns seem to go pear shaped when player's expectations and my own don't match up.

With 3E, or WoD, I ran campaigns that lasted about nine months. I had one player drop out because he wanted to play a game that lasted two years minimum. Even then, I knew my campaigns didn't last that long and could have said it.

I had a campaign where I thought my players and I were on the same page for expectations. I was asking for a paragraph or two between games on the wiki for each character. It didn't even last a week. But, instead of making changes, I kept hoping it would happen. Again, six to nine months later, I lost interest in the campaign and nothing can save it when the DM doesn't care anymore.

I think I have great players so when they come to me and say they are going to write stuff, it's tough not to get caught up in it. I mean, I only had one reference point and it was me "forcing" it on them so this will be better! Nope, same result.

In the recent game, I didn't make it a requirement, but I was trying to "empower" the PCs to do what they liked to add to the story. Again, there is a miscommunication between the PCs and me in that they really just want to who up and have an adventure. I can do that but need to know that. And some of that happens behind the scenes but even then I can't expect it.

What I really like about 4E is that hopefully with 30 planned levels in the base game, and hopefully with 30 levels that play well, I plan on the overall idea taking 30 levels, with adventures in between to help them reach that level goal. So far, it's helped my thinking and planning in terms of getting to that goal and having it work out.

(In contrast, 3E for me as a DM, broke down around level 13 and apparently just when the players think it's fun, because they are all getting their best abilities, I find it tough. So, when it stopped about then, they weren't happy even if they understood my perspective.)

edg
 

evildmguy

Explorer
I ran a sandbox game that was too sandboxy.

He says, "But that's not fair. We should be able to beat him!"

It's been my experience, but I haven't DMed that many players, probably less than forty, that all players have this expectation. No matter how many times I told them, and tried to explain to them, they might have to run, they kept thinking they could win or shouldn't have to run.

I still haven't found a good way to address this so let us know if you have success!

What did I learn? Well first, there are a couple things I know I did right. Players who assume they will always win, and in so doing they shut off their critical thinking? That's not my bad. Having real danger in my campaign is a feature, not a bug, and I'm happy with that. Second, Giving players repeated hints & tips that they ignore? I did that right. If the players discard useful information, repeatedly, then they've made it clear they are insisting on following a dangerous path. So, OK. They got it. No apologies for that. But that's where my own good thoughts end.

What I have found is that "critical thinking" is based too much on personal experience. What I thought they should be doing and what they think won't line up without out of character discussions, which usually breaks up the verisimilitude of any situation. It's like riddles. They are either known or not, it seems.

As for hints & tips, my wife and I argue about this, not in DND terms, in that what we each think is a hint or tip just plain isn't one for the other person. For myself, I usually spell it out for my players now, so they know exactly what I mean.

I also found that for my group, sandbox doesn't work. They WANT a linear path, very choices, adventure and treasure. They want to feel that they earned it, not that it was handed to them, but they don't want a sandbox. Again, it could be my limited set of players.

I hope the new campaign goes better!

edg
 

S'mon

Legend
aboyd:
"One player discarded a cleric character, and I immediately had that character take over the local temple -- but the character was too low-level, so I had the character's god come down to walk among them, blessing the now-NPC with an ability boost and level boost. I never would have considered having the PCs interact with gods at level 5 -- but hey, it's an NPC now and I need to do something with him, so problem solved. Right? Well, yeah, except the players are relegated to witnesses, rather than being prime movers."

Ouch, that's really bad!

PCs turned NPC can just leave the area, retire, fade away. Or do something appropriate to their level. Maybe die heroically. Doing what you did is really really bad. Worse than killing them in some horrible humiliating way, even.
 

S'mon

Legend
aboyd:
They kept seeing cool plotlines about saving the world and assumed they were for them. But of course those stories were for the background NPCs.

That's pretty bad too, one of the main traditional objections to canon Forgotten Realms.
 

Rechan

Adventurer
Evildmguy said:
I also found that for my group, sandbox doesn't work. They WANT a linear path, very choices, adventure and treasure. They want to feel that they earned it, not that it was handed to them, but they don't want a sandbox.
I remember a quote in someone's sig that I try to follow:

DMing is letting the PCs win without the players knowing it.

The second fault? Chekhov's Gun. That is, "One must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it." I put a lot of stuff into my game world that I assumed the players would not mess with. I was God saying, "don't eat the apple." I had many things that were in the game simply because they made the game world more sensible to me, or they helped me to enjoy my game world, but they were also intended at some sub-conscious level, to be things that they players would appreciate but not touch. This became frustrating not only for them, but for me as well. They kept fighting villains too soon. They kept wandering into modules that were too high level. .
Yeah, I'm in a Sandbox-Esque game, and the DM told us up front "Yeah I plan on putting stuff in here too high level for you so you will run away if you kick over a too-big ant hill".

And then all the plot points point towards the big tough monsters in really dangerous areas, while we're low level. So the response is pretty much "Well we're too weak to go challenge that guy. Guess we'll just wait a few levels. Let's go kill some more goblins."

This response annoyed the DM. Because apparently he was levelling the monsters to be reasonable. But because he gave us the big "I expect sometimes you to run" speech, we didn't want to bite off more than we can chew.
 
Last edited:

Well, theres a variety of reasons why a group of PCs are not capable of beating an encounter and not all of them are their own fault.
...
I'll certainly agree that adjusting things repeatedly on the fly in order to reach some predetermined outcome is railroading, but recognising where you've severely miss-estimated party capability and correcting for that is, IMO, good DMing.

The problem is that what seems good -- correcting DMing mistakes where the game is "too hard" -- can easily become the bad -- OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration)-compliant dungeons, where every danger is bubble-wrapped to prevent the PC's from losing, and thus the adventure and chance for victory are removed from the game.

So I'd rather "let the dice fall where they may" and allow for PC's to get killed, even "if it's not there fault". To me, that creates a sense of danger and excitement.

Of course, if you DM that way, you need to be careful to foreshadow big dangers, etc. And I'm also generally nice about NPC's back in town being helpful with advice, Cure Disease being available in town, etc.

Foreshadowing and suspense work better when players know that legendary scary monsters are actually dangerous to their PC's!
 

DMing is letting the PCs win without the players knowing it.

Perhaps, but not letting them know it is key.

Because apparently he was levelling the monsters to be reasonable. But because he gave us the big "I expect sometimes you to run" speech, we didn't want to bite off more than we can chew.

Which just goes to show you, there's a lot of aspects to the DM's job:
-- setting the ground rules for the table and being clear what they are (like an umpire talking to the managers at the beginning of a pro baseball game about rules for the Big Green Monster, etc.)
-- being a good story teller
-- being a good teacher in the Socratic method of facilitating players learning the game for themselves
-- being a good manager of the rules, the D&D accounting (character sheets, dungeon denizens, NPC's, etc.), and the meeting details (when, where, what and when to eat and drink, etc.)
-- keeping players engaged in the game, keeping them friendly with each other, preventing bullying, encouraging mentoring, and keeping the party headed in the same direction (hopefully in one group!)
-- giving the players what they want (most of the time) without removing the challenge from the game.

So pretty much exactly like a gang leader. :)
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top