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

[Mort]

Seppuku?

Must be a lot of dead DMs around your parts!

 

[Lanefan]

But what if you realize, after the encounter begins, that you (the DM) inadvertently conveyed incorrect information to the party or otherwise made a major mistake on the actual encounter? That the group would have acted very differently if they had been conveyed the correct information.

To me, though it would obviously be my mistake as DM and I'd own up to it later, it's no different than if the PCs had blown some observation rolls and completely misjudged the difficulty of the battle.

Such that, and encounter you telegraphed as, and intended to be, easy (and that the group engaged on based on the information provided) is actually deadly (for example)?

That can just as easily happen if my dice run hot and-or theirs don't - I've seen encounters that on paper should be pushovers for the PCs strain them to their limit; conversely I've also seen them just waltz through encounters that on paper should be deadly.

If you saw the mistake only after the group engaged, would you change anything?

Yes, but only after the fact: I'd change the amount of attention I was paying to the encounter write-ups and-or creature abilities.

 

[DND_Reborn]

False.

The world is established and it does not change just because something turned out too easy, too hard, or whatever. Now, I can change things before it happens, of course, but not during.

If afterwards I realize it was unbalanced, not fun, etc. I will work on making my encounters better for next time. DMing, like anything, is a learning experience IMO.

 

[aco175]

Of course. The odds of me creating perfect encounters over and over are zero. Why wouldn't I? It isn't a competition, it's a time for fun. I literally can't think of any reason not to.

I don't think I can say it better than this.

 

[Brotton Goodfellow]

Gotta play it fast and loose. I generally only have 2.5 hours to play, so if I need to change something to speed things along I will. The other night was combat heavy and I felt we didn’t need to play out the party beating the crap out of the last skeleton. So I said everyone roll to attack and the player with the lowest roll takes one hit but the skeleton is defeated.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think there's a pretty big disconnect here. I'm talking about the player characters losing a battle, possibly dying, and it sounds like you're talking about never being able to play with those characters ever again.

The post in which you started this digression specifically referenced a TPK. That does generally mean "never being able to play with those characters ever again".

People have mostly been responding to you on that basis rather than talking about fudging to avoid a single character death (and resurrection) or simple defeat I believe.

 

[Reynard]

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 often wonder why people assume that "random encounter" automatically means "combat." Random encounters have encounter distance and reaction rolls and in-fiction context and evasion procedures all working AGAINST them defaulting to combat.

Of course they will be combat if you have murder hobo PCs, but honestly there's something truly satisfying about a random encountering wiping a murder hobo party because they started the fight.

 

[Reynard]

Because my time creating them from the mechanics to the aesthetics, to the personality to the backstory just got wasted. Because all of my anticipation and expectation for them has just just cut off. Because their story just ended unsatisfactorily at best and ignobly at worst.

Because there's an inherent promise in the 'often' that this will not be the first time for that.

I don't make characters to be throwaway proxies for the DM's story. I make character who are my part to play in a collaborative story and I do so with care and effort and hope for something interesting to come of them.

And not, the 'danger' isn't fun for me. It's stressful in the activity I do to destress and have fun. I'm left sitting there wondering if all my time and effort and care is about to be slam-dunked into a trashcan and whether the one who does is is going to do a victory dance and expect me to smile and clap at the masterful job they did of just laying waste to my free time and interest.

This is definitely a case of wanting to match player expectations with GM style and campaign tone. There is nothing wrong with what you want and what you prefer but it just wouldn't be compatible at my table most of the time. Adventuring is dangerous business etc...

 

[CleverNickName]

I often wonder why people assume that "random encounter" automatically means "combat."

This is a good point.

I feel that random encounter tables (if you use them) should have a mix of hostiles and friendlies. On the highways between town, the party might run into bandits, sure. But it should be much more likely for them to encounter a farmers on their way to market, a traveling merchant, or soldiers on patrol. IMO, anyway.

 

[Reynard]

This is a good point.

I feel that random encounter tables (if you use them) should have a mix of hostiles and friendlies. On the highways between town, the party might run into bandits, sure. But it should be much more likely for them to encounter a farmers on their way to market, a traveling merchant, or soldiers on patrol. IMO, anyway.

It is more than that. Just because you roll "orcs" doesn't mean it is a fight. Any number of things could happen.