Do you "save" the PCs?

[ExploderWizard]

Well let's put some nuance in the situation. Let's assume that this is not a game where the PCs have normally have access to the monster stat blocks or current monster hit points. Which kinds of scenarios would you, or the other posters in the thread find acceptable?

1. You, as the DM, have decided that the necromantic power in the room gives the skeletons within the ability to regenerate 15 hit points a round. After a few rounds, it becomes apparent that if the PCs can win at all, it will take hours to resolve. Without announcing the change, you reduce the amount of regeneration to 3 hit points.
2. Same as above, but you announce it, attributing it to one of the PCs actions. "As you bring a holy symbol near the evil altar, the necromantic energy in the room dims!"
3. You want your villain to be powerful and menacing, so you give his main attack the ability to crit on a roll of 16-20 for 6d8 extra damage. His first crit, on a natural 20, kills a PC. You decide to immediately remove the extra critical range.
4. Same as above, but instead of being your own creation, the villain came from Dragon magazine or the Monster Manual.
5. Same as #3, but you did not immediately decide whether to remove the extra critical range. You've just rolled a 17 against a PC you know has 5 hit points left. You announce a normal (non-critical) hit and roll normal damage.
6. You are running a one-shot adventure with your normal group, but at a much higher level than you normally play. Your players have been bragging about how optimized their characters are all week. You decide to add 2 extra monsters to each planned encounter. As the first combat breaks out, it becomes apparent that the players barely know what their characters abilities do, and are actually less effective than normal. You remove the extra monsters from future combats.
7. Same as above, but you remove the extra monsters from the present combat by sneaking the figures off the table when no one is looking.
8. Same as above, but instead, you announce that the extra monsters are joining another, nearby battle with some NPCs that the players are not expected to participate in.

I guess the point of the above examples is that as a DM, you are responsible for designing the scenario, and sometimes you make mistakes. You typically only have one chance to correct the mistakes, and that is right at the table, as you play.

1) Nope. If powerful regeneration was important to the area I wouldn't discard it. It would be very obvious to anyone there what was happening. There would certainly be alternative ways of dealing with the situation other than chopping through a roomful of augmented skellies.

2) As per #1

3) Could only happen if handed material to run verbatim on a playtest.

4) See #3

5) See #3

6) If I added the extra monsters then I would have added additional rewards as well. I would let the extra monsters stand in that situation. The players can learn on the fly or suffer a TPK.

7)

8) I would rather have a reputation as a killer DM instead of setting up my game for major league action then playing teeball once the PC's are at bat.

 

[Fifth Element]

Give me an example? (I'm pretty sure I already covered what you mean with my suggestion to "make the roll with different parameters," above, but I'm not positive.)

Examples abound in the thread. I just mean that I see some room between DM fiat and complete randomness. Specifically, randomness that is nearly always applied as the dice fall, but with the DM reserving the right to override if he feels necessary.

 

[Fifth Element]

3) Could only happen if handed material to run verbatim on a playtest.

I disagree. It could also happen to a DM who designs a monster or encounter or what have you without fully realizing the implications of the mechanics designed. Thus a mid-fight adjustment might be called for.

 

[Benimoto]

1) Nope. If powerful regeneration was important to the area I wouldn't discard it. It would be very obvious to anyone there what was happening. There would certainly be alternative ways of dealing with the situation other than chopping through a roomful of augmented skellies.

3) Could only happen if handed material to run verbatim on a playtest.

The examples are exaggerated so that it's obvious what's wrong, but the context here is that you, as the DM, have gone into these combats without fully realizing the implications of what you've done. Since the idea here is that you've made a mistake, pretend you've made a few. Say that you've also made the combat difficult to predict, nearly impossible to escape, and failed to include any alternate means of getting through the obstacle. That's a lot of mistakes, and it's unlikely that you'd make that many at one time, but if you did, would you start fudging, or would you let the PCs suffer the consequences of your obvious mistakes?

The examples I gave are all combat, because that was the general context of the thread, and because combat is the most dice-based of the activities in the adventure, and so changing the combat is more often seen as fudging than simply improvisation.

Since combat is so mechanically handled, combat against accidentally unkillable, way-too-tough, or too numerous monsters has the potential to derail a session before it can get to the good stuff. It's less changing major league action to tee-ball and more realizing that giving the opposing pitcher a 400 mph fastball is somewhat unfair.

Essentially, if you have the fortitude to discard a one-shot adventure you've spent 2-8 hours designing in the first 30 minutes of play because you made the first combat way too powerful, then more power to you. I certainly don't, and that's a prime example of where I would choose to fudge.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Examples abound in the thread.

Okay, can you quote one?

I just mean that I see some room between DM fiat and complete randomness. Specifically, randomness that is nearly always applied as the dice fall, but with the DM reserving the right to override if he feels necessary.

I'll be happy to respond, but I really would like to see a specific example of what you mean.

 

[Ariosto]

I disagree. It could also happen to a DM who designs a monster or encounter or what have you without fully realizing the implications of the mechanics designed.

I reckon ExploderWizard was speaking for himself, who happens to have a sound grasp of what's involved.

Thus a mid-fight adjustment might be called for.

That is to assume what is actually in question.

I just mean that I see some room between DM fiat and complete randomness.

Yes. It's called rules.

For instance, suppose I'm using someone else's encounter table, and an entry or three happen not to fit the ground-rules of my world. If I had bothered to design a table of my own, then those encounters would not have been included in the first place. Therefore, if I roll one of them then I either roll again or substitute something appropriate (considering frequency).

The reason for the change is a rule, part of the structure of information that players explore and exploit in the course of play.

 

[Ariosto]

Essentially, if you have the fortitude to discard a one-shot adventure you've spent 2-8 hours designing in the first 30 minutes of play because you made the first combat way too powerful, then more power to you.

Why would we do that?

Never mind that this is not the subject raised in the OP. Never mind that it is so preposterous that the really proper answer is that someone who screws up that badly is the last person to whom we should turn for a solution.

The bottom line is this:

There is no reason at all that we can't turn right around and, with whatever adjustments (to scenario and/or characters) may seem meet, play the scenario.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The examples are exaggerated so that it's obvious what's wrong, but the context here is that you, as the DM, have gone into these combats without fully realizing the implications of what you've done. Since the idea here is that you've made a mistake, pretend you've made a few. Say that you've also made the combat difficult to predict, nearly impossible to escape, and failed to include any alternate means of getting through the obstacle. That's a lot of mistakes, and it's unlikely that you'd make that many at one time, but if you did, would you start fudging, or would you let the PCs suffer the consequences of your obvious mistakes?.

I didn't mean to sound as if I have never made any errors as a DM. That is not the case. Your preposterous set up just made me chuckle and think of the old MAD TV Spishak Cola skit. ( I would link it but the only clip I can find is in German )

Since combat is so mechanically handled, combat against accidentally unkillable, way-too-tough, or too numerous monsters has the potential to derail a session before it can get to the good stuff. It's less changing major league action to tee-ball and more realizing that giving the opposing pitcher a 400 mph fastball is somewhat unfair.

A session can only be derailed if it's on the rails to begin with. The "good stuff" can come from the most surprising of places when the players control the action.

Essentially, if you have the fortitude to discard a one-shot adventure you've spent 2-8 hours designing in the first 30 minutes of play because you made the first combat way too powerful, then more power to you. I certainly don't, and that's a prime example of where I would choose to fudge.

I don't have a working crystal ball so I am unaware of when or where that first combat will be. If I forced my players to jump through hoops and dance to my tune then perhaps I would be more inclined to help players out of situations that I forced them into in the first place.

 

[Fifth Element]

The reason for the change is a rule, part of the structure of information that players explore and exploit in the course of play.

I can't parse this, so I can't respond to it.

 

[pawsplay]

1. You, as the DM, have decided that the necromantic power in the room gives the skeletons within the ability to regenerate 15 hit points a round. After a few rounds, it becomes apparent that if the PCs can win at all, it will take hours to resolve. Without announcing the change, you reduce the amount of regeneration to 3 hit points.

Acceptable. If the parameters were badly chosen, the best I can do is try to remedy the situation. I wouldn't bother telling the players and distracting them with maths they can't see anyway. If they ask, I would tell them I decided the regeneration rate on the skeletons was wrong and I have corrected it.

2. Same as above, but you announce it, attributing it to one of the PCs actions. "As you bring a holy symbol near the evil altar, the necromantic energy in the room dims!"
Probably not a good idea. That one throwaway comment says way too much about holy symbols, and also implies a rather wimply necromancer aura. This is one of those off-the-cuff calls that can begin unraveling the campaign because I didn't think things through.

3. You want your villain to be powerful and menacing, so you give his main attack the ability to crit on a roll of 16-20 for 6d8 extra damage. His first crit, on a natural 20, kills a PC. You decide to immediately remove the extra critical range.

Unacceptable. There is no logical connection between the crit range and the natural 20. All I would be saying is that I'm sorry a PC died in the first round, and I'm not. Hopefully, the remaining PCs will decide to run if things get hairy. They've already had ample demonstration that this NPC is not to be trifled with.

4. Same as above, but instead of being your own creation, the villain came from Dragon magazine or the Monster Manual.

No change, although I might look at such a stat block and consider carefully if the bad guy's attack is more swingy than I want. Fine for a boss fight, though, in my opinion.

5. Same as #3, but you did not immediately decide whether to remove the extra critical range. You've just rolled a 17 against a PC you know has 5 hit points left. You announce a normal (non-critical) hit and roll normal damage.

Unacceptable. Now I'm just pretending to use the rules.

6. You are running a one-shot adventure with your normal group, but at a much higher level than you normally play. Your players have been bragging about how optimized their characters are all week. You decide to add 2 extra monsters to each planned encounter. As the first combat breaks out, it becomes apparent that the players barely know what their characters abilities do, and are actually less effective than normal. You remove the extra monsters from future combats.

No problem. Personally, I would leave the monsters.

7. Same as above, but you remove the extra monsters from the present combat by sneaking the figures off the table when no one is looking.

What?

8. Same as above, but instead, you announce that the extra monsters are joining another, nearby battle with some NPCs that the players are not expected to participate in.

That's just going to complicate things. Acceptable, if your goal is to make the encounter a dissatisfying experience involving way too much work.