You win some, you lose some

[SnowleopardVK]

I don't know if my players would have run because after fighting monks they would kind of guess that the boss monk would be able to come after them and pick off the slowest members.

What makes them think that the boss monk would just let them run?

She likely wouldn't have let them get away entirely, but running just far enough back to claim a chokepoint (like the doorway that was one move action away from them) would allow them the clear advantage of having their melee fighter in the door with the casters behind him so that the casters couldn't all get picked off first. There were better tactics they could have gone with than a head-on attack when they were weakened.

SnowleopardVK, you say they are sore losers and they need to suck it up. What is their opinion if what happened? Do you know it?

That's a bit harsh... I didn't use the words "suck it up" at any point, I just feel that they took the loss worse than they should have. Anyways, from their conversation afterwards (what I've heard since posting this topic) they seem to have decided this result was their fault and that they made poor decisions in an encounter that they should have been able to handle. They're still mad at me, though apparently they don't believe I gave them an unfair encounter.

I can only assume from that that they had assumed TPKs don't happen. I thought I'd made it clear to them that I have had TPKs in the past with my other group, but perhaps they assumed that I'd treat their group differently. Not sure.

That's pretty egregious in some social contracts. Even in groups that won't nerf the battle when it's going against the PCs, escalating the battle when the party is barely winning as it is is pretty bad, even if it's written down in the adventure.

True. I usually trust these modules to be fairly well done, because they usually are, and following things as-written generally leads to fun encounters and situations. This was an exception, and unfortunately not one that I anticipated ahead of time or caught in my playtesting. So yes, I probably could have done better by not running the encounter as written, but I also think the bad reactions of the players was an issue.

You know this whine DMs have of player entitlement is getting old. DMs are not gods they make mistakes. Personally I don't care how a module is written a DM needs to be able to adjust it on the fly.

Yup. Expanding on that, and continuing on what I said above, I'd say it's also important for a DM to be able to recognize when a module needs adjusting at all, which is something I apparently need to work on a bit.

I'm not sure why it would be unwise for them to target enemies with special powers or are in charge. It's a good way to force a moral check on your enemies, and if they aren't attacking right away, it's a good way to drop them before they get a hit. If you know that an entire group is going to attack you, I don't think who is currently choosing not to attack you really factors in to who to attack.

In many situations it is a very good idea, hence why they often do it. In this situation I knew it would go badly for them though, which is why I tried to avoid a situation where they could try it.

Also, in the "the whole group is going to attack you "situation it does make a slight difference who isn't attacking. Fighting enemies one at a time, or in waves is easier in most cases than fighting the same number of enemies all at once. Provoking those who aren't attacking into joining the fight makes the fight slightly harder than it would be if they join after you defeat the others.

 

[Elf Witch]

She likely wouldn't have let them get away entirely, but running just far enough back to claim a chokepoint (like the doorway that was one move action away from them) would allow them the clear advantage of having their melee fighter in the door with the casters behind him so that the casters couldn't all get picked off first. There were better tactics they could have gone with than a head-on attack when they were weakened.



That's a bit harsh... I didn't use the words "suck it up" at any point, I just feel that they took the loss worse than they should have. Anyways, from their conversation afterwards (what I've heard since posting this topic) they seem to have decided this result was their fault and that they made poor decisions in an encounter that they should have been able to handle. They're still mad at me, though apparently they don't believe I gave them an unfair encounter.

I can only assume from that that they had assumed TPKs don't happen. I thought I'd made it clear to them that I have had TPKs in the past with my other group, but perhaps they assumed that I'd treat their group differently. Not sure.



True. I usually trust these adventures to be fairly well done, because they usually are, and following things as-written generally leads to fun encounters and situations. This was an exception, and unfortunately not one that I anticipated ahead of time or caught in my playtesting. So yes, I probably could have done better by not running the encounter as written, but I also think the bad reactions of the players was an issue.



In many situations it is a very good idea, hence why they often do it. In this situation I knew it would go badly for them though, which is why I tried to avoid a situation where they could try it.

Also, in the "the whole group is going to attack you "situation it does make a slight difference who isn't attacking. Fighting enemies one at a time, or in waves is easier in most cases than fighting the same number of enemies all at once. Provoking those who aren't attacking into joining the fight makes the fight slightly harder than it would be if they join after you defeat the others.

it sounds like they could have used better tactics but then so could you have, I would have least given them a round or so for some healing and then had the big boss show up.

How did one character kill all the party? How many rounds did battle go and how injured were the party?

Did they try and heal the ones not in the encounter?

If they are spread out the monk can only attack one per round giving the others a chance to heal.

Was this monk killing one a round and then moving on? I am just trying to picture this in my head. The monk was one level higher so it was not like they were facing a dragon.

 

[malcolypse]

SnowleapordVK:
It sounds like after their initial uproar your players thought about the situation rationally. They may be PO'd about getting their butts handed to them, but at least they seem to realize that they initiated the combat with the boss, who was demonstrably more powerful than them.

Others:
I'm of the opinion that if players make poor choices, then they are willing to face the consequences. If that isn't the case, then I'm more than happy not to DM for them in future. I devote too much of my time behind the scenes to worry about foolish players undermining the game. I expect that people will think through their actions and plan accordingly.

If someone falls into a 100' pit and gets too busted up to assist in their own rescue, then you can be sure that I've planned for that eventuality. If the wizard announces that he jumps in after then, well, he made a stupid move and gets his just reward and a blank character sheet.

If I ran a game where my players told me I'd effed them over, I'd calmly explain that I didn't, I'd show them evidence to support my statement, and tell them that they can trust me absolutely not to eff them over. If that was enough for them, cool. If not, I would bow out a DM. I have better things to do than plan and run a game for a group that will blame me for their bad decisions.

Everybody:
I'm currently playing in a game where the DM openly takes it easy on the players who make bad decisions.

He's told us on several occasions about how things were meant to go, but he had to either flush his week of work on the plot down the drain or deservedly kill a character who acted unwisely.

I feel sorry for him. He doesn't deserve that kind of headache. He put in hours of work to create a game for us. I keep expecting him to just give up.

Respect your DMs or lose 'em.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

[MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]: They actually did get two rounds to heal between the two portions of the fight. They put a lot of that focus onto the alchemist first since he's their melee fighter and they were counting on him to protect them in case any more enemies came in before they were ready. The combat itself lasted 3 rounds.

By the time combat started the sorcerer and witch were at about 10hp each, the alchemist's hp was in the mid-20s, and the fighter's hp was nearly full (around 50hp). The enemy monk had 57hp to start with I believe. (Additionally the monk had no buffing aside from her invisibility, which ended when combat began, whereas the alchemist had his mutagen boosting Str, and the witch and sorcerer both had mage armour active.)

As for how it went, the witch provoked the monk into combat with a lightning bolt, but the monk avoided the spell entirely thanks to evasion. The monk then punched the sorcerer first, taking him down to 0HP, he attempted to blast her with a fireball (which was avoided with evasion) and knocked himself to -1 by doing so. The alchemist and fighter began attacking her in melee and range respectively while the witch moved to cure the sorcerer, but the witch provoked an AoO from the movement and was taken down from the hit before she could get to the sorcerer. On the next round the alchemist was struck by both hits of the monk's flurry of blows for close to max damage, which dropped him slightly below 0HP. The fighter then surrendered.

 

[Elf Witch]

[MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]: They actually did get two rounds to heal between the two portions of the fight. They put a lot of that focus onto the alchemist first since he's their melee fighter and they were counting on him to protect them in case any more enemies came in before they were ready. The combat itself lasted 3 rounds.

By the time combat started the sorcerer and witch were at about 10hp each, the alchemist's hp was in the mid-20s, and the fighter's hp was nearly full (around 50hp). The enemy monk had 57hp to start with I believe. (Additionally the monk had no buffing aside from her invisibility, which ended when combat began, whereas the alchemist had his mutagen boosting Str, and the witch and sorcerer both had mage armour active.)

As for how it went, the witch provoked the monk into combat with a lightning bolt, but the monk avoided the spell entirely thanks to evasion. The monk then punched the sorcerer first, taking him down to 0HP, he attempted to blast her with a fireball (which was avoided with evasion) and knocked himself to -1 by doing so. The alchemist and fighter began attacking her in melee and range respectively while the witch moved to cure the sorcerer, but the witch provoked an AoO from the movement and was taken down from the hit before she could get to the sorcerer. On the next round the alchemist was struck by both hits of the monk's flurry of blows for close to max damage, which dropped him slightly below 0HP. The fighter then surrendered.

So at this point they are not dead. Unless they didn't stabilize or did the monk kill them after they were all down?

Is this Pathfinder or 4E? They must not have had a lot of good healing left if all they got back was that little hit points.

The witch and the sorcerer basically had first level hit points they with that low level did not stand a chance if they got hit.

Hopefully you guys can work all this out and move forward. Maybe they have learned that there are times to run and to surrender.

 

[prosfilaes]

There were better tactics they could have gone with than a head-on attack when they were weakened.

There's always better tactics in retrospect. It's easy to say that you could have done better tactics, but it's a lot harder to come up with them on the fly in the middle of the game.

I'm not clear with the Pathfinder rules here, but I'm calculating that this is above a CR 9 in Pathfinder. Six monks of fourth level would have been a CR 9, but five 4th level monks and 1 7th doesn't quite hit APL+4. That is, in Pathfinder it's beyond a "hard" encounter, and it's pushing the limits of "epic" into an unnamed range.

they initiated the combat with the boss, who was demonstrably more powerful than them.

That's not how I'm reading it; they could not have retreated, and surrendering would have gotten them killed. They may have been able to choose a better fighting location, but that was the best they could do.

I'm of the opinion that if players make poor choices, then they are willing to face the consequences.

Poor choices is a relative term. I'm of the experience that chess players don't like playing people a thousand ELO points above them. Yes, most theoreticians believe the only reason anyone loses a game of chess is poor choices, that a sufficiently good player could always at least draw. That doesn't make it more fun to be repeatedly stomped by a better player.

If I ran a game where my players told me I'd effed them over, I'd calmly explain that I didn't, I'd show them evidence to support my statement, and tell them that they can trust me absolutely not to eff them over.

On paper, the numbers for this battle is putting it at the very least close to the "effed the players over" line

I'm sorry, "you can trust me absolutely" are not words that make me any calmer. People who refuse to accept the possibility of error worry me.

Respect your DMs or lose 'em.

Again, DMs aren't special here; a lot of groups have a replacement just waiting to seize the reins. Both DMs and players need to work out an agreement as to what they want out of a game, how deadly they want the game to be.

 

[SnowleopardVK]

[MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]: It was Pathfinder, and yes they were running a bit low on healing (doesn't help them that only the witch is capable of it).

There's always better tactics in retrospect. It's easy to say that you could have done better tactics, but it's a lot harder to come up with them on the fly in the middle of the game.

True, unfortunately. Though I know that they're smart enough to have come up with something better. I've seen them come up with great plans in the past, they're not incapable of it.

I'm not clear with the Pathfinder rules here, but I'm calculating that this is above a CR 9 in Pathfinder. Six monks of fourth level would have been a CR 9, but five 4th level monks and 1 7th doesn't quite hit APL+4. That is, in Pathfinder it's beyond a "hard" encounter, and it's pushing the limits of "epic" into an unnamed range.

Yes, all at once it's slightly above CR 9, but essentially close enough to make facing all 6 monks and their leader at once a CR 9 "epic" encounter difficulty. As it went though, they faced 3, then another 3, then the leader. Which is three CR 6 encounters, each an "average" encounter difficulty, one after another (with short gaps in which some healing was possible). The one after another aspect makes it slightly more difficult than normal average encounters, but not to the point of epic difficulty.

That's not how I'm reading it; they could not have retreated, and surrendering would have gotten them killed. They may have been able to choose a better fighting location, but that was the best they could do.

Retreating to a better location is still a tactical retreat in my books.

That aside however, they were actually told that they would not be killed if they surrendered and cooperated. They chose not to.

 

[wingsandsword]

[MENTION=9037]Elf Witch[/MENTION]:

That aside however, they were actually told that they would not be killed if they surrendered and cooperated. They chose not to.

Problem is, that demanding surrender is a typical enemy statement and characters do not have their level/CR tattooed on their foreheads.

From where I am sitting, it was perfectly reasonable for pc's to assume this was yet another fight to win. From the sound of it, only the monks evasion changed the outcome. Also, this was all assuming that the players even considered surrender as a legitimate option.

Bad mod writing, bad dice rolls, and some miscommunication between players and the DM over plot and behavior standards led to this.

 

[prosfilaes]

That aside however, they were actually told that they would not be killed if they surrendered and cooperated. They chose not to.

So? If the DM hadn't softened it, they would have been killed had they surrendered. If the DM had softened it, they would have been captured if they had surrendered. Not surrendering earlier didn't change anything.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=6677945]SnowleopardVK[/MENTION]

Or we could be going about this wrong... How about instead you invite over a guest DM to run a one-shot game? A real killer rat bastard old school DM. Then they'll run back to you with open arms.