D&D 5E When you've made the battle too much to handle...

[DEFCON 1]

Why are you assuming it's the DM who screwed up? It seems to me that the players have options that they aren't considering (e.g. running away)

Uh... it's when the DM said this...

"I believe now the PCs should have been 9 or 10th level before this battle, my bad on that part."

That seemed... rather clear to me.

 

[iserith]

That is all true... but not what was said that I was responding to. Here was the quote that I replied to:

"Don’t fudge dice. It’s so unsatisfying as a player to find out the dm spared you. Suddenly nothing feels like a challenge or is exciting anymore."

A declaration of universality that fudging dice is inherently unsatisfying and that all challenge is now lost for the remainder of the game. A declaration of "fact" that I find silly and not at all true.

Now, if @TaranTheWanderer wants to respond with "Okay, yes, I was exaggerating for effect and that I only meant that some people might feel the way I detailed...", then great! The DM now knows that some players could find being "saved" by the DM because they screwed up the encounter design has now irrevocably destroyed any vestige of enjoyment in the game going forward. Which... yeah, there may be some who feel that way. But then there are also others-- like I myself am-- who wouldn't care that the DM was trying to fix a mistake. And that the implication @toucanbuzz I thought made relatively clear in their post was that the encounter seems overtuned and if they just played the fight as-is... the PCs are going to be mowed down. And based on the fact that @toucanbuzz seems concerned with that happening... it seems to be an indication that just mowing the PCs is not what they or the players would probably want to see happen or would find satisfying.

There's nothing wrong with PCs dying (or having a TPK)... and if it happens as part of something of worth then most of the time the players probably understand and end up okay with it (once they get past any disappointment.) But when there is a TPK that seems worthless... I'm fairly certain most DMs know how that will be received by their players. And since @toucanbuzz specifically came here asking for ideas to not have that happen... tells us that most likely a "Let the chips fall where they may because otherwise why bother playing D&D at all and instead just read them a novel" response ain't exactly going to go over. Or at the very least is not a universal truth of playing this game that could/would/should work every time.

Certainly there are no universal preferences as you say. One person's delicious fudge is another person's poison.

I think what needs to be taken more fully into account here is the player's decisions in arriving at this point with no means of escape or plan B (if that is indeed the case). That's not on the DM.

Also, one thing that I notice DMs do is that they often underestimate how survivable D&D 5e PCs are. One of my own DMs proclaims every session practically that this is the one where the TPK happens. Yet, against all odds, we manage to pull out a win. That may not be the same thing going on here, but the DM will never know if they start putting their thumb on the scale. Players can surprise us often.

 

[aco175]

I watched a Matt Colville video, for what it is worth, that talks about your mistakes as a DM and the player mistakes. If you designed something and then it is proving too difficult because of your fault, then you can/should modify the encounter during the encounter. Just because you wrote something down does not mean that encounter design is over. If things are the player's fault, then they should learn to run away and will know that there are bigger things around than themselves. They might need more levels or knowledge or such and go find it before coming back. It is not bad to run away if you let them. If you prevent them or hound them, then they learn not to run away.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If a dm does this too much, I have seen players begin testing the limits of what the dm will do to save the PCs just to see if the dm will kill them. Also, I have, personally, lost total motivation to play a campaign where the dm fudges rolls or saves my character from some stupidly I’d accidentally put myself into.

so, maybe it’s some people’s preference to be bailed out but it’s not everyone’s cup of tea. According to the OP, they don’t seem like the kind of dm that is trying to prevent a tpk at all costs but is trying to figure out a way to pad a mistake in encounter strength. Fair enough.

I’m recommending they don’t start creating unlikely plots and NPCs to bail them out and make the players feel overshadowed by heroic NPC plot devices. Or fudging dice. If you are going to do that, continuing the fight is pointless. It would be more fair to, as you say, Stop the combat, tell your players that you messed up and work together to come up with a narrative of how they lost/escaped/were rescued. This kind of out of character solution works too. In fact, I’d prefer this to fudging dice.

To me, if you’re fudging dice to give them the win anyways, why waste everyone’s time. Just tell them they won.

If you had said that being bailed out would not be some players cup of tea, I wouldn't have responded to you. But it was only because you had made a seemingly universal declaration (which I had quoted) that I felt the impetus to reply somewhat cheekily.

That being said, I agree with you. Some people would find it to be a betrayal of the game and the ethos of playing it-- no argument there. But we do have to acknowledge that it isn't a universal response and that there will be plenty of tables wherein a DMing copping to a mess up (especially if it's the first time of it ever happening) would be seen as graciousness and concern for the enjoyment of the players.

 

[ninjayeti]

I'd give them a fair opportunity to run. If your group isn't normally inclined to do that you could suggest that to them either in-fiction (maybe the alu-fiend says "He's too strong! We need to get out of here!") or straight up suggest it to them out of character ("The lich seems like he is just getting stronger the longer you fight. You don't know if you can defeat him.") If your PC's choose to fight then they have made a choice and you can let the dice fall where they may. If they run the lich can try to pick off stragglers, so escaping with everyone alive can feel like a "win." (One of my most memorable sessions as a player was narrowly escaping from a massive goblin ambush that would have TPK'd us if we had tried to fight). The PCs now have an long term enemy that they are genuinely hate and his eventual destruction will be far more satisfyingly.

I'd recommend against pulling your punches on this. Deus ex Machina is a bad technique in fiction and it is even worse in RPG's because players understand that the DM has saved them from their own bad choices. Similarly "consequences" like being captured or forced to work for the bad guy rarely work because: 1) players understand that they have been saved by DM fiat, 2) they rarely feel like consequences rather than speedbumps. (I don't think I have ever seen PC stay captured for more than half a game session before they escape and get their gear back; telling adventurers "now you have to go on adventures for the bad guy" is less a consequence as it is a plot hook.)

TLDR; 1) give them a chance to run, 2) flat-out suggest it to them if it otherwise wouldn't occur to them, 3) if they choose to fight to the death - let them.

 

[overgeeked]

"Don’t fudge dice. It’s so unsatisfying as a player to find out the dm spared you. Suddenly nothing feels like a challenge or is exciting anymore."

A declaration of universality that fudging dice is inherently unsatisfying and that all challenge is now lost for the remainder of the game. A declaration of "fact" that I find silly and not at all true.

It all depends on what the players want out of the game. If they want to be told a satisfying story, with a beginning, middle, and end...that includes relevant themes, callbacks, etc...then no, fudging dice can be perfectly satisfying. In fact, using dice at all will tend to be unsatisfying, unless they confirm what the DM has already decided will happen next. If they want to play a game where their decisions matter and there's an element of random chance, then rolling the dice and playing them where they lay is satisfying...but fudging is unsatisfying.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think what needs to be taken more fully into account here is the player's decisions in arriving at this point with no means of escape or plan B (if that is indeed the case). That's not on the DM.

Absolutely. And I also agree with the person upthread who said that it might be worthwhile to point out to the players at the top of the next session that retreating or any other response besides running headlong into battle are all valid options and things to keep in mind. Too often we all see these fights as "fights to the end"... oftentimes because we DMs reinforce this by chasing the PCs down as they try and move away or retreat otherwise-- using the game mechanics of "I move / you move" to never allow a PC to truly get away. Which yeah... the game mechanics allow that to occur and can make it impossible for PCs to truly escape a bad situation. And knowing that... I think oftentimes players believe there IS NO escape from a fight and thus they don't even think about trying.

 

[Krachek]

Some thought from the OP.

If things get out of control, it mean they were in control before?

The fight seem to been setup from a while ago, but unfortunately PC didn't get enough level and enough ally to handle it.
Do the setup expect PCs failure?

The DM already burn a card allowing an unexpected ally, unfortunately the DM didn´t make it powerful enough to reverse the tide. It could, but the DM choose otherwise.
So now let the game roll.

 

[Quickleaf]

I know how moments like these can make us second guess ourselves as DMs. Did I provide enough foreshadowing? Was I clear about the opportunities for power/allies in this dungeon? Did I lean too hard into their weaknesses? I've been there and I'll be there again. The silver lining is that, if I keep my wits about me, moments like this are a great opportunity to explore the story deeper.

For instance, just taking the standard MM lich's Lair Actions, there could be a lot of story implications behind "tether" and "dead spirits."

That "tether" implies some kind of a psychic or soul-based connection between the Lich and the Wizard PC. Even though the MM describes that mechanistically as a one-way street benefiting the Lich, that need not be the case. What does that connection look and feel like? For instance, can the Wizard PC catch glimpses of the Lich's past to ascertain its weaknesses (either mechanical vulnerabilities/weaknesses or roleplaying flaws)? Might there be a way for the Wizard PC to strip away certain condition immunities (e.g. charmed? for the alu-fiend to get charm through) from the Lich by sheer force of will exploiting that connection? As a last ditch scenario, could the Wizard deliberately nuke himself and force the Lich to take half damage in a sacrifice play to win the day or at least cause the Lich enough harm that it retreats?

Or with the "dead spirits", that implies there are a lot of souls that have been bound to the Lich over the years. Maybe in the heat of combat, the Lich's binding on these souls weakens? Could a cleric or paladin use Channel Divinity – perhaps with a bit of roleplay interaction with one of these spirits – to turn the souls against the Lich?

I'd lean harder into your story, and also see what story implications there might be to the scene / stats that maybe heretofore have been hidden or unexplored.

On the plus side, for an experienced group of 5e players, it's probably refreshing for them to feel like something is pushing them beyond their limits. I know you said that a TPK is a foregone conclusion, but I've learned never to underestimate my players, especially when all the chips are down. They just might have a plan (even a reckless one).

 

[DEFCON 1]

It all depends on what the players want out of the game. If they want to be told a satisfying story, with a beginning, middle, and end...that includes relevant themes, callbacks, etc...then no, fudging dice can be perfectly satisfying. In fact, using dice at all will tend to be unsatisfying, unless they confirm what the DM has already decided will happen next. If they want to play a game where their decisions matter and there's an element of random chance, then rolling the dice and playing them where they lay is satisfying...but fudging is unsatisfying.

Or it's not all or nothing.

A table of players can play out an exciting game and compelling story that includes all manner of randomness and following what happens with the dice that are rolled... while also being okay (or not even noticing) if one time the DM makes an adjustment mid-combat because they messed up in the encounter's design.

Now yes... there have been a number of people here on the boards who have stated over the last many, many years that they can tell automatically when a DM has fudged a die roll or adjusted an encounter and that the DM doing so has destroyed D&D for them at that particular table. And if that's actually the case... sorry to hear that. But they should acknowledge that just because they are that good at sniffing out a sting, it doesn't mean everybody else can, or even if others even care enough to bother trying.

I know I certainly don't. I know I don't ever worry about tracking every single goblin's hit point total so I can know for certain that they only fall down when they definitely reached only 0 HP, rather than the DM saying "It's dead" when it reached 1 HP because the fight went on a lot longer than expected and it was the only goblin left and the end result was a fait accompli anyway. Personally I don't give a rat's ass if the DM does that, even if I am told by the DM as it happens. A goblin falling down at 1 HP rather than 0 HP does not matter to me, especially if it has only happened like one time in a years-long campaign. And I'd be willing to bet that there are plenty of others out there like me. Nothing is universal. In either direction.