5e GMs - Why or Why Not Wandering Treasure?

[Sadras]

The GM doesn't like how the PCs won, and so changes the outcome.

So a combat is falling short of being challenging and maybe even entertaining (drama element), which can easily happen when you're converting modules from one edition to the next. You decide at some point as DM to add an additional critter or two, increase opponent hit points, add or improvise a spell or ability...etc

The combat becomes enjoyable and no one is the wiser, except in this guy's case cause he lacked the necessary experience. Sure the outcome has been engineered, but @pemerton what does it matter if it is done in the moment, like your story now approach this is very much encounter now.

 

[5ekyu]

So a combat is falling short of being challenging and maybe even entertaining (drama element), which can easily happen when you're converting modules from one edition to the next. You decide at some point as DM to add an additional critter or two, increase opponent hit points, add or improvise a spell or ability...etc

The combat becomes enjoyable and no one is the wiser, except in this guy's case cause he lacked the necessary experience. Sure the outcome has been engineered, but @pemerton what does it matter if it is done in the moment, like your story now approach this is very much encounter now.

Recent in game encounter, my sorcerer halfling got bitten by a giant spider thing. gm gave me the base damage then frowned as he saw the poison damage was "save for half" turned in game with quizzical look on face to say "it says save for half, i dont know, maybe i will only do save for none" and stared until i responded and my response was "give me the damage it says no problem" but he then went ahead with save for none. (had already saved.)

That was not satisfying and i as a player knew "it wont matter in the overall outcome."

meanwhile in another encounter prior to that one he had introduced homebrew critters that rolled over us like we were not even there but let us go. (no warning, no preamble, they just rolled up on us at the point we had just stopped and bam)

So, the combo of those two felt "wrong" and added up to a big sense that its the Gm choosing not just the encounter but the outcome.

I myself am a fan of (and recommend for GMs unfamiliar with the balance elements such as conversions they are inexperienced with) to use what 5e calls "extended encounters" as the base setup as often as possible. these allow for waves to come in in rapid succession and if the Gm is unfamiliar and wants to cover his bases he can have the setup be one where "how soon does the next waves get there" and "how many waves show up as opposed to hold their positions awaiting orders" fall within the realm of GM option for NPC choices. these also tend to provide opportunities for the PCs to see the way things are going and adjust as well in ways that "everything on the table" sometimes do not.

thats for the challenge part and uncertainty...

for the lack of entertaining - that need not be tied to how many HP the bad guy has.or how you tweak a spell on the fly for power... and IMX if a scene was playing out unentertaining i would be looking for story and drama ways to make the scene more personal rather than prolonging more rounds of a uninteresting combat. "More of stuff that sux so far" is not usually the best off the cuff solution - its spending good time after bad. instead, let the combat finihs and then have the aftermath be the "oh boy" of the scene.

I mean, would Empire have been better if off the cuff Lucas decided to have Luke hold his own in the fight against Vader with more HP and a new jedi ability instead of getting cut apart (literally literally) and then told "I am your CONTENT CENSORED AS SPOILER"

Now, dont lump me anywhere near the other guy's railroading camp, not at all, no way jose... but some techniques and some "fixes" have more significant drawbacks in my experience.

and BTW the "no one is the wiser" is practically speaking in my experience a fallacy that gets trotted out in discussions but rarely is seen in play. Gms who tend to rely on these things tend to provide encountered and combats that get to feel rather "similar" and scripted as whichever way it starts off going in a big way suddenly things start going the other way until a very familiar "who will win" degree of difficulty is achieved. The exception could be the "well this one time only" theory but in my experience those are more mythical than the beasts our characters are fighting.

On the other hand, having combats and encounters which clearly go "off script" and yet get played thru adds a sense of "its not scripted".

 

[Sadras]

....(snip)...thats for the challenge part and uncertainty...

Not really. My advice is play by the book, using the encounter guidelines until you have a handle of the game.

for the lack of entertaining - that need not be tied to how many HP the bad guy has.or how you tweak a spell on the fly for power... and IMX if a scene was playing out entertaining i would be looking for story and drama ways to make the scene more personal rather than prolonging more rounds of a uninteresting combat. "More of stuff that sux so far" is not usually the best off the cuff solution - its spending good time after bad. instead, let the combat finihs and then have the aftermath be the "oh boy" of the scene.

Disagree. You're making combat sound flat instead of dynamic. Instead of the dragon tail slap doing x points of damage, have the character make a strength check or get pushed 5 feet per 5 failure, perhaps getting pushed closer to the edge of a chasm. Give the villain a few more hit points and have him make an interesting proposition before his inevitable defeat. Let the evil warlock push himself into a state of exhaustion or unconsciousness to have a shadow (his shadow) emerge out of him.

I mean, would Empire have been better if off the cuff Lucas decided to have Luke hold his own in the fight against Vader with more HP and a new jedi ability instead of getting cut apart (literally literally) and then told "I am your CONTENT CENSORED AS SPOILER"

Poor example and besides Luke was the PC not Vader.

Now, dont lump me anywhere near the other guy's railroading camp, not at all, no way jose... but some techniques and some "fixes" have more significant drawbacks in my experience.

Sure.

and BTW the "no one is the wiser" is practically speaking in my experience a fallacy that gets trotted out in discussions but rarely is seen in play.

Change your table.

 

[TwoSix]

The combat becomes enjoyable and no one is the wiser, except in this guy's case cause he lacked the necessary experience. Sure the outcome has been engineered, but @pemerton what does it matter if it is done in the moment, like your story now approach this is very much encounter now.

If you think "story now" play and fudging combat mechanics are in the same wheelhouse, you probably need to review quite a few threads.

 

[Sadras]

If you think "story now" play and fudging combat mechanics are in the same wheelhouse, you probably need to review quite a few threads.

It was tongue and cheek.
Let that be a lesson to the rest of you who don't use the correct emoji.

 

[5ekyu]

Not really. My advice is play by the book, using the encounter guidelines until you have a handle of the game.



Disagree. You're making combat sound flat instead of dynamic. Instead of the dragon tail slap doing x points of damage, have the character make a strength check or get pushed 5 feet per 5 failure, perhaps getting pushed closer to the edge of a chasm. Give the villain a few more hit points and have him make an interesting proposition before his inevitable defeat. Let the evil warlock push himself into a state of exhaustion or unconsciousness to have a shadow (his shadow) emerge out of him.



Poor example and besides Luke was the PC not Vader.



Sure.



Change your table.

"You're making combat sound flat instead of dynamic." The post I responded to described it as less entertaining. So, nah, wasnt my call.

As for the new tail strike and gotta survive the kill to proposition and sudden shadow exhaustion, I value consistency along with in my games and inventing brand new powers on the fly is too easy an out for me to see it as that useful for off the cuff fixes to a bad scene.

I would rather foreshadow the shadow with several in game events to make it a big unique element, not my gm equivalent of phone a friend lifeline to "fix" a scene not going how I like.

I would rather have the villain make the offer at a time when he still has hp, not wait until the party surprises me then throw it in **in spite of their results**. Or give the offer before the combat, maybe even before conflict.

But that's me. Seems to have worked so far.

 

[Sadras]

The post I responded to described it as less entertaining. So, nah, wasnt my call.

That is fair.

As for the new tail strike and gotta survive the kill to proposition and sudden shadow exhaustion, I value consistency along with in my games and inventing brand new powers on the fly is too easy an out for me to see it as that useful for off the cuff fixes to a bad scene.

I would rather foreshadow the shadow with several in game events to make it a big unique element, not my gm equivalent of phone a friend lifeline to "fix" a scene not going how I like.

Understood. Your play-style demands your DM notes include the push ability with the tail sweep and the shadow creation, just in case those pesky players audit your notes, as they generally do for all social and exploration pillars too, because nothing is created on the fly.
Also you don't bump a critter's hp once combat has started.

Got it. We have differing playstyles. No problem.

I would rather have the villain make the offer at a time when he still has hp, not wait until the party surprises me then throw it in **in spite of their results**. Or give the offer before the combat, maybe even before conflict.

But that's me. Seems to have worked so far.

I'm envisioning the villain making the proposal when he/she is on their last legs or can see the outcome will end with his/her defeat. However, best made plans and what not sometimes bring forth surprise critical hits..etc which might do more damage than the NPC has...

I do not want to explore why the villain would make their proposals before combat when they are at full strength. I have a decent imagination to come up with a reason, but that is not what I was going for when I made my suggestion.

 

[5ekyu]

That is fair.



Understood. Your play-style demands your DM notes include the push ability with the tail sweep and the shadow creation, just in case those pesky players audit your notes, as they generally do for all social and exploration pillars too, because nothing is created on the fly.
Also you don't bump a critter's hp once combat has started.

Got it. We have differing playstyles. No problem.



I'm envisioning the villain making the proposal when he/she is on their last legs or can see the outcome will end with his/her defeat. However, best made plans and what not sometimes bring forth surprise critical hits..etc which might do more damage than the NPC has...

I do not want to explore why the villain would make their proposals before combat when they are at full strength. I have a decent imagination to come up with a reason, but that is not what I was going for when I made my suggestion.

Not sure why you chose to invent players auditing notes as a factor in my play. Must have some meaning to you i suppose.

Hp on the fly - nope. I frequently adjust hp at creation but not once action has begun.

The why is simple, to me, giving them more or less hp on the fly is little more than a procastinating flavor of "they drop when i want them to" npcs by fiat. It doesnt matter really in that case what the players do, what their characters do etc beyond "how do i as gm like it" since the enemies will fall or not by my choice not by game mechanics and the results of the players choices and characters action.

Games like that can be fun of course in the right crowd, but the best systems for those dont involve a lot of chargen nitty gritty that pretends to matter but really doesnt cuz when it matters, its what i want that hapoens - fall now, fall in 2 more turns.. Which do i like better... Thats it.

I have never seen players in a game with as much fiddly gritty combat bits as dnd who liked the "fall when gm likes" npc approach when discussing systems of play. "Why make me do all this work for a result of GM chooses?"

But suppose some do it seems.

Not my thing tho.

 

[Sadras]

"Why make me do all this work for a result of GM chooses?"

But suppose some do it seems.

Not my thing tho.

Lol. I wonder who decides what and how much information to provide the characters on a knowledge check? I wonder who chooses whether an opponent will stay or leave the battlefield or at what point? I wonder who chooses whether 1 persuade check will be enough to convince the NPC to reveal information?

Still not your thing tho, right?

 

[pemerton]

So a combat is falling short of being challenging and maybe even entertaining (drama element)

<snip>

The combat becomes enjoyable and no one is the wiser

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] didn't say the GM notices the combat failed to entertain and so spices it up. He said the GM thinks the PCs won too easily and so throws in more enemies. I am responding to that: the GM wanting to change an outcome.

And you introduce the notion of "no one is the wiser". In my view this just doubles down on the GM manipulating outcomes. If the issue is about entertainment, then there is no reason why the GM needs to keep what s/he is doing secret. Here's an example from my own RPGing:

As the PCs continue through the tunnels, I described them coming to a cleft in the floor, and got them to describe how they would cross it. The drow sorcerer indicated that he would first fly over (using 16th level At Will Dominant Winds) and then . . . before he could finish, I launched into my beholder encounter, which I had designed inspired by this image (which is the cover art from Dungeonscape, I think):

[section]

[/section]

I'm not sure exactly what the artist intended, but to me it looks as if the central beholder is hovering over a chasm, with uneven rocky surfaces leading up to it (archer on one side, flaming sword guy on the other). I drew up my map similiarly, including with the side tunnel (behind the tiefling) which on my version ran down into the chasm, and the columns, stalactites, etc.

I didn't use four beholders, only 2 - an eye tyrant (MV version) and an eye of flame advanced to 17th level and MM3-ed for damage. And also a 15th level roper from MV, introduced on a whim when the player of the wizard asked, before taking cover behind a column, if it looked suspicious. (Response to result of 28 on the Perception check before adding the +2 bonus for knowing what he is looking for - "Yes, yes it does!")

I hadn't intended to use a roper in the encounter, but the player made it salient via his action declaration, and I took up the idea and ran with it. I didn't keep it secret from the player what I was doing! I don't need to keep it secret that I'm doing stuff that I think will be fun.