D&D 5E "Once an encounter begins, I will make changes to it for balance, fun, or rules reasons." (a poll)

[Seramus]

False. I almost never change an encounter after it has begun. It needs to play out as fairly as possible.

I do use things like enemy morale and surrender/fleeing. But that is because many enemies don't want to die, never because I want the encounter to suddenly become easier.

 

[J.Quondam]

I have no problem compensating for my own errors.
I generally won't let a random encounter be a PC killer, or at minimum I'll open up an obvious route to flee.
I'll handwave away foregone conclusions (eg, PCs overpowering the opponents) to save time if the players are cool with that.
I don't change numbers or dice rolls (any more), but I will change pre-planned monster traits or tactics (eg, deciding to have them flee instead of fight to the death or whatever); and/or improvise surprise events (eg, environmental hazard, reinforcements, etc) to make a slog more interesting, provide an escape route, slow down an onslaught, or whatever.

In the end, the most important factor in deciding this sort of thing boils down to table expectation and who I'm playing with. Grizzled players with 30 years of experience get different consideration than kids who are new to the game. Beer-and-pretzels gamers get different consideration than ones highly focused on their characters' stories.

So I voted "true", especially with respect to "fun." Because it depends.

 

[CleverNickName]

I wonder how many players expect their DMs to make such changes.

I mean, it's one thing for the DM to tweak things a bit every now and then, behind the scenes, to ensure the encounter goes Just So for the evening and everyone is having fun. But are there players who actually expect the DM to keep them entertained and their characters alive no matter what? (Or worse still, require it? Insist on it?)

I ask because at a gaming session a couple of weeks ago, a battle was going poorly and one of the players was starting to stress out about the possibility of a TPK. Another player at the table reassured her by saying "Don't worry, the DM will fix it for us." And then a couple of rounds later, the monsters fled.

 

[John R Davis]

Again I'd expect another 90%+ true answer, but clearly not. Interesting.

I fiddle stuff on the fly all the time, and have always done.

 

[payn]

I wonder how many players expect their DMs to make such changes.

I mean, it's one thing for the DM to tweak things a bit behind the scenes, to make sure that the encounter goes Just So for the evening and everyone is having fun. But are there players who actually expect the DM to keep them entertained and their characters alive no matter what? (Or worse still, require it? Insist on it?)

No matter what? No, I expect this to be a whopps gotta save the session and make this fun event that happens maybe 2-3x a campaign. Bonus points if they can pull it off without me noticing.

 

[CleverNickName]

No matter what? No, I expect this to be a whopps gotta save the session and make this fun event that happens maybe 2-3x a campaign. Bonus points if they can pull it off without me noticing.

I mean, I get it: it's frustrating to have to reroll one or more characters, and then try to figure out how to incorporate them into the story without it feeling contrived. (Ask me how I know!) I don't blame the DM for doing what they gotta do, to save the campaign.

But I'm talking about players who expect the DM to fix the game in their favor, who expect the DM to let them win (or at least survive) every battle. The assumption being that (A) it's no fun to lose, and (B) it's the DM's job to make sure they are having fun...ergo, (C) the DM mustn't let them lose. So they take unnecessary risks, they handwave resources, etc., because it doesn't really matter: they're gonna win anyway.

I think that style of play would make me lose interest very quickly--to me, a big part of being a hero is beating the odds, and discovering the odds were always weighted in my favor would cheapen everything.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But are there players who actually expect the DM to keep them entertained

That is the job, yes.

I find it weird that this is an affront on par with 'keep your characters alive no matter what'.

 

[Lanefan]

Poll #20 in an ongoing series. . ..

To what is this series building up, asks ever-curious me.

As for this poll, solid 'false'. Encounters are what they are, and changing them mid-flight runs close to DM-side cheating. And if I have to change an encounter for rules reasons I'm clearly incompetent as a DM, as I should have sorted that long before the encounter began.

 

[Draegn]

I give my players a choice of dying or having something bad happen. Bad being potentially anything one might read in a real trauma center report.

 

[Lanefan]

But I'm talking about players who expect the DM to fix the game in their favor, who expect the DM to let them win (or at least survive) every battle. The assumption being that (A) it's no fun to lose, and (B) it's the DM's job to make sure they are having fun...ergo, (C) the DM mustn't let them lose. So they take unnecessary risks, they handwave resources, etc., because it doesn't really matter: they're gonna win anyway.

Players like that would* have, in the end, exactly one option at my table: the exit door is that way, please close it quietly as you leave.

* - I say "would" as, mercifully, I've yet to DM a true example of such a player.