Altering an encounter on the fly: What would you have done?
- Thread starter Rel
- Start date
Desdichado
Hero
I think so, yes, because that's one of the elements that drives fun in the campaign as a whole. It seems like a short term vs long term conundrum to me; even though last night might not have been a great session in terms of fun, likely the players are much more on their guard now and are taking the game much more seriously. Presumably that leads to more long-term fun with the campaign.Rel said:
If you look at the alternatives, like having pulled your punches, then the PCs don't start making good decisions, don't get as involved with the campaign, and long term the campaign probably isn't as fun.
Greybar
No Trouble at All
I'd say you did the right thing on all counts, really.
My PCs recently got a real bashing. It led me to be worried that I had thrown too much at them, but I think they also realized some serious mistakes that hopefully they won't do again. Essentially they entered a combat split up (like your folks did) and paid the price for it with multiple deaths.
I'd guess your PCs won't forget to post a watch at night again for a while.
john
p.s. only side thought would be for one of the Druids to dispel magic the Rope trick, tumbling the sleeping PCs into the combat to get whooped as well. But given the objectives of the Druids, the way you did it was better.
My PCs recently got a real bashing. It led me to be worried that I had thrown too much at them, but I think they also realized some serious mistakes that hopefully they won't do again. Essentially they entered a combat split up (like your folks did) and paid the price for it with multiple deaths.
I'd guess your PCs won't forget to post a watch at night again for a while.
john
p.s. only side thought would be for one of the Druids to dispel magic the Rope trick, tumbling the sleeping PCs into the combat to get whooped as well. But given the objectives of the Druids, the way you did it was better.
Endur
First Post
The only suggestion I would make is that sometimes a character has a much higher intelligence or wisdom than an over-tired gamer.
So, if nobody mentions anything about setting guards, I will prompt the players and ask are you setting a watch? If they say no, so be it.
But if you ask, 99% of the time they will do it.
They may assume automatically that they are setting their usual watch, etc.
For obvious sorts of stuff, I will ask. I'm not just going to slam them.
On the other hand, if I'm handing out a clue. I might only say it once. If they pick up on it, great; if not, oh well.
So, if nobody mentions anything about setting guards, I will prompt the players and ask are you setting a watch? If they say no, so be it.
But if you ask, 99% of the time they will do it.
They may assume automatically that they are setting their usual watch, etc.
For obvious sorts of stuff, I will ask. I'm not just going to slam them.
On the other hand, if I'm handing out a clue. I might only say it once. If they pick up on it, great; if not, oh well.
Henry
Autoexreginated
As an aside, I've had to treat my players over the past year or so with some hard-won lessons about being prepared, because our play style used to be a lot more lax on that, and after being exposed to some of the excellent DM's here, I'd wanted to introduce that element.
Alas, simply saying, "you will occasionally run into things tougher than you, don't be afraid to run" is not the same as actually throwing the situation in. I've had PC's pay with their lives before when they "meta-gamed" the idea that I wouldn't put something in too tough.
One squad of Bone Devils, 1 Umber Hulk, 1 group of assassins, and 13 Hill giants later, they now don't enter unnecessary combats, and they are careful to be wary of traps that could overwhelm them.
I once had them stumble across a group of hill giants living in the mountains under care of a cloud giant. In the old days, they would have tried to charge in. These days, they watched a tribe of orcs get smashed to pieces by boulders, and did the smart thing: They offered to trade with the giants.
Got some good deals, too, and they know where to go when spring trading resumes.
Alas, simply saying, "you will occasionally run into things tougher than you, don't be afraid to run" is not the same as actually throwing the situation in. I've had PC's pay with their lives before when they "meta-gamed" the idea that I wouldn't put something in too tough.
One squad of Bone Devils, 1 Umber Hulk, 1 group of assassins, and 13 Hill giants later, they now don't enter unnecessary combats, and they are careful to be wary of traps that could overwhelm them.
I once had them stumble across a group of hill giants living in the mountains under care of a cloud giant. In the old days, they would have tried to charge in. These days, they watched a tribe of orcs get smashed to pieces by boulders, and did the smart thing: They offered to trade with the giants.
Got some good deals, too, and they know where to go when spring trading resumes.
Last edited:
BSF
Explorer
Rel,
I do not think you should have pulled any punches on that one. It was a non-lethal encounter. The fact that the party helped drive the goals of the NPC's was wonderful.
They aren't acting like a seasoned group, but this was a nice way to encourage it, since a PC death was not involved. They need to get up to speed quickly. The party was travelling through the wilderness with no known creatures that should pose a serious threat. That is a far cry from nothing dangerous. The players heard what they wanted to hear and made an assumption. In other circumstances, that assumption could have been fatal.
As a player, I enjoy having consequences for my actions. Even if they are harsh, it makes it seem like I affect the game rather than participate in a script. If I make a big mistake, I expect the DM to take advantage of it. And, if my mistake isn't pounced upon, I expect there to be a good reason why. Even if it is simple, like nobody noticed, or the NPCs were too dumb to do so.
As a DM, I try to provide the same things that I like for my players. Sometimes that is less successful when my likes don't mesh with theirs, but it's a collaborative effort. You have given them a good story, introduced the NPC Druids, emphasized that they NPC's really disapprove of the quest and the only reason half the party didn't get to fight was because of the choices made by the players. Not a bad payoff really. If you still feel bad, find a way to shine the spotlight on those PC's next time. Even things out a little bit.
I do not think you should have pulled any punches on that one. It was a non-lethal encounter. The fact that the party helped drive the goals of the NPC's was wonderful.
They aren't acting like a seasoned group, but this was a nice way to encourage it, since a PC death was not involved. They need to get up to speed quickly. The party was travelling through the wilderness with no known creatures that should pose a serious threat. That is a far cry from nothing dangerous. The players heard what they wanted to hear and made an assumption. In other circumstances, that assumption could have been fatal.
As a player, I enjoy having consequences for my actions. Even if they are harsh, it makes it seem like I affect the game rather than participate in a script. If I make a big mistake, I expect the DM to take advantage of it. And, if my mistake isn't pounced upon, I expect there to be a good reason why. Even if it is simple, like nobody noticed, or the NPCs were too dumb to do so.
As a DM, I try to provide the same things that I like for my players. Sometimes that is less successful when my likes don't mesh with theirs, but it's a collaborative effort. You have given them a good story, introduced the NPC Druids, emphasized that they NPC's really disapprove of the quest and the only reason half the party didn't get to fight was because of the choices made by the players. Not a bad payoff really. If you still feel bad, find a way to shine the spotlight on those PC's next time. Even things out a little bit.
tonym
First Post
Rel said:
I'd totally agree with that.
However, in this particular situation, it might've been okay to decide that the storm had caused the five Shambling Mounds to get spaced apart a little. With the Shambling Mounds spaced apart, you could have had two Mounds attack during the first round, have another arrive and join the battle in the second round, and have the last two arrive and join the battle in the third round. This way the entire party could've been mobilized, allowing all the players to kick some vege-butt.
Oh. And the 'lesson' about being careful could still have been imparted.
Of course, this idea took me a couple minutes to think up. On the fly, I probably would've done just what you did (that is, assuming I was a DM these days, instead of a Player).
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
Tony M
JRRNeiklot
First Post
I think you handled it well. Better than I would have. I would have left a dead barbarian and druid on the ground for their friends to find in the morning. Not setting a watch is bad enough, but when there's only TWO of you? Not smart.
Rel
Liquid Awesome
While I feel sure that the players "learned a lesson", it's not because I was out to teach one. I don't generally game like that. I try instead to simply come up with the backdrop for the world and populate it with individuals who have their own adgendas, goals and dreams. Then they implement those goals to the best of their ability, sometimes to the detriment and sometimes to the benefit of the PC's (and very frequently in utter secrecy to no clear detriment or benefit at all as far as the party is concerned).
With that in mind, if it were the primary goal of the enemy Druids to kill the party then things would be different right now. If that had been their primary goal, I'd have probably scrubbed the encounter entirely, knowing that to proceed with it would have likely meant the certain deaths of a pair of characters who were being roleplayed fairly well and just got a tad careless at a bad moment. It's not much fun being beat down with virtually no chance to defend yourself. It's far worse to have your character get killed with virtually no chance to defend yourself. In the case of it being the first night of the campaign with one character that had just been made and another that was the primary link to the previous campaign, it just wasn't worth having that encounter if it was going to be an almost certain slaughter.
I just had a lengthy conversation with the player of the Druid. The unintended consequence of this encounter is that the Druid in the party is now convinced that they have run afoul of enemy Druids of at least 17th level, the level that would be required to cast the 9th level Shamblers spell. This could be considered a bit "metagame" in terms of thinking, but not much. I have no trouble imagining him saying, "Oh crap! The only person I know who could summon that many Shambling Mounds was the head of the whole Druid Order!"
He is therefore certain that his enemies have the means to kill him (and probably the rest of the party) whenever they want. The only thing holding them back is that they apparently lack the will to do so. He is afraid that by continuing on their quest that he may give them the necessary will and the party will be slain out of hand.
And this is where my normal style of play kind of falls apart. Because clearly the campaign is designed with the primary goal of the party being to continue on their quest. But doing so could well provoke an attack by a force far more powerful than they are and result in their deaths. For me, as the DM, to just say to him, "Trust me." is to violate the basic philosophy that my campaign world is built upon. He has some (small) evidence to support the idea that there could easily be high level Druids out there that want him to not continue on his quest. For me to just wave such concerns away by saying, "Trust me." runs counter to the way I've been trying to run things.
Fortunately, the rest of the party has strong motivations for continuing the quest and here's where their unfamiliarity with the party Druid helps out. While he may have some misgivings about continuing in the face of a possibly overwhelming threat, they can just as easily write those off as the paranoid ramblings of a man who clearly has spent most of his adult life in isolation and may be a touch crazy.
So, "Voila!". My campaign is simultaneously screwed and saved on the first night by good roleplaying surrounding an encounter that was botched by the party and questionably handled by the GM.
Weird, huh?
With that in mind, if it were the primary goal of the enemy Druids to kill the party then things would be different right now. If that had been their primary goal, I'd have probably scrubbed the encounter entirely, knowing that to proceed with it would have likely meant the certain deaths of a pair of characters who were being roleplayed fairly well and just got a tad careless at a bad moment. It's not much fun being beat down with virtually no chance to defend yourself. It's far worse to have your character get killed with virtually no chance to defend yourself. In the case of it being the first night of the campaign with one character that had just been made and another that was the primary link to the previous campaign, it just wasn't worth having that encounter if it was going to be an almost certain slaughter.
I just had a lengthy conversation with the player of the Druid. The unintended consequence of this encounter is that the Druid in the party is now convinced that they have run afoul of enemy Druids of at least 17th level, the level that would be required to cast the 9th level Shamblers spell. This could be considered a bit "metagame" in terms of thinking, but not much. I have no trouble imagining him saying, "Oh crap! The only person I know who could summon that many Shambling Mounds was the head of the whole Druid Order!"
He is therefore certain that his enemies have the means to kill him (and probably the rest of the party) whenever they want. The only thing holding them back is that they apparently lack the will to do so. He is afraid that by continuing on their quest that he may give them the necessary will and the party will be slain out of hand.
And this is where my normal style of play kind of falls apart. Because clearly the campaign is designed with the primary goal of the party being to continue on their quest. But doing so could well provoke an attack by a force far more powerful than they are and result in their deaths. For me, as the DM, to just say to him, "Trust me." is to violate the basic philosophy that my campaign world is built upon. He has some (small) evidence to support the idea that there could easily be high level Druids out there that want him to not continue on his quest. For me to just wave such concerns away by saying, "Trust me." runs counter to the way I've been trying to run things.
Fortunately, the rest of the party has strong motivations for continuing the quest and here's where their unfamiliarity with the party Druid helps out. While he may have some misgivings about continuing in the face of a possibly overwhelming threat, they can just as easily write those off as the paranoid ramblings of a man who clearly has spent most of his adult life in isolation and may be a touch crazy.
So, "Voila!". My campaign is simultaneously screwed and saved on the first night by good roleplaying surrounding an encounter that was botched by the party and questionably handled by the GM.
Weird, huh?
Similar Threads
