Altering an encounter on the fly: What would you have done?

[S'mon]

BTW re Scrying - this grants a Will save, and AIR characters who have to make a Will save are always aware they've done so, so it's pretty easy to work out if you're being Scryed in 3e. Plus you can potentially Spot the sensor (invisible so DC20 to be aware of it, DC40 to pinpoint it). If characters are over 10' apart Scry will only see 1 of them, anyway, since it only reveals an area 10' around the target. And it's not a magical tracker; it doesn't automatically make you aware of the scryee's precise location.

As DM, what I'd expect from a PC group travelling in the wilderness is that normally they'd sleep under canvas, or maybe outside on a warm clear night, with at least 1 guard posted. A lone PC would probably climb up a tree to sleep in a crook or somewhere as safe as they can find. If it's their home area (like the druid) they would know safe/hidden areas/lairs to rest in of course. In a severe thunderstorm I'd expect all PCs to seek the best shelter available - in this case, rope trick. If some refused to go in the rope trick for RP reasons a sensible party would either all go in or all stay out, unless maybe there was a particularly vulnerable PC (eg party Wizard) who needed to be sheltered in the Rope Trick while the others stayed outside. The worst possible decision would be to split the party, have roughly half stay outside, and not post guards. I would probably have the PCs outside in the open take subdual damage & Fortitude saves to avoid fatigue though, and most likely they'd be unable to sleep, so they'd be awake when the Shamblers attacked. OTOH I'd have druids with Call Lightning etc hiding & ready to heal the Shamblers if they got injured...

 

[Wraith Form]

I would have done the same thing. I often find that one "un-fun" session is made up for by the next session, or by the session when the group gets to take revenge.

I think you did the correct thing, Rel....but I also think P-Kitty is onto something here.

Assuming the players (and, it seems, the DM ) have learned something from this experience, you can now make amends by allowing those PCs to go and whomp the buttocks of these druids. See? You showed them their error, now allow them some fun. (1st session = bad trip for players, 2nd session = good time for players) That seems to be a fair and equitable solution for all..! Do you agree?

(P.S. -- This was a great post, and very thought-provoking. Thanks for posting it; it raised questions--and answers--that I hadn't thought of. KEWL!)

 

[Rel]

(1st session = bad trip for players, 2nd session = good time for players) That seems to be a fair and equitable solution for all..! Do you agree?

Well I certainly agree that the next session should be a "good time" for the players. But then that was really my goal for the first session too.

I appreciate that most of you supported the decision I made and agreed that it isn't always easy to come up with the perfect solution to such a problem in the middle of a session. As I said right from the start, there's been no lasting harm done by the way I handled the encounter. But I do think that I've arrived at a philisophical "middle ground" between the two extremes (in my view) of sticking to the letter of what I have written in my notes (even if it means wiping out the party when they make a questionable decision) and "spoon feeding" them the encounters so that even if they make bad decisions that they'll still be just fine.

This middle ground is thus: I'm going to try to keep firmly in my mind the purpose behind the encounter in the metagame sense and alter things such that this purpose can be achieved if at all possible.

In retrospect, after careful consideration, I think the call I made was not the best one. That isn't because it wasn't a reasonable outcome given the circumstances the party put themselves in compared with the preparations the bad guys made. It was not the best call because the encounter failed to achieve its purposes.

There were two goals that I was going after with the encounter. First I wanted to just give the party a chance to test themselves in combat against opponents who were tough, but straightforward and beatable. Second, I wanted to plant the suspicion in the mind of the party (and in particular that of Speaks With Stone) that it might be enemy Druids who sent the Shambling Mounds after them.

Neither of those goals were met. The combat was entirely one-sided and, once the Druid and Barbarian lost the Initiative they were doomed. And instead of hinting at the Druids, I laid those cards right out on the table. And that's why I should have made a different call: The path I chose left very little chance that either of my goals for the encounter would be met.

But it did teach me this valuable lesson about being mindful of the purpose of an encounter in deciding how to react to changing circumstances during the game. And so in that sense it was very instructional.

I thank you all very much for helping me organize my thoughts and give other insights to the situation. This is one of the primary reasons that I value this community so highly.