Is this "Fair" - Part II

Is the encounter "Fair"?

  • Yes

    Votes: 86 83.5%
  • No

    Votes: 7 6.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 10 9.7%

  • Poll closed .
Not only would I call it fair, I think it's a good idea to hit the players with it while their characters are so low level, before they learn bad habits and at a point when it's clear that they have no chance.

There are many ways of running a campaign world. If you're going to have an organic campaign where the players have to decide whether or not they're up to a particular challenge, that's the sort of thing they should know. It's the sort of thing the GM should mention when discussing his play style, and an encounter like this will make it clear what you mean.

It's entirely possible that some of the PCs won't hide. That's not entirely their fault; they may very well be so used to a play style where every challenge they face is level-appropriate that they don't consider any other option. The next PCs the players roll up will have learned the lesson.

To be fair, though, this should be an IQ test, not an insta-death encounter. Unfortunately, running away (particularly from creatures with a faster speed) is rather difficult in D&D, so you should design the encounter so that the players realize they have a way out. You need to give no indication that they have any chance of actually taking on the giant.

Remember the flip side of this campaign style, however. Once you teach the players that there are challenges they should walk away from, you're stuck with that lesson. That means that if your campaign style hinges on players diving into danger and assuming they can handle anything, you're sabotaging yourself.

Some GMs like to run what they call 'heroic' campaigns, where PCs leap on plot hooks and dive into danger (because at the end of the day, if they do what's right, they'll come out on top). Other GMs prefer to run what they call more 'gritty' campaigns, where death lurks around corners and PCs need to know their limits (because sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, and there's no kindly deity/GM fudging for them if they get in over their heads).

Neither play style is better or worse. The important thing is to make sure everyone is on the same page, and that if the GM has encounters that teach a lesson, that the group is learning the lesson that reinforces the behavior he wants.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Not only it's fair.
I'm doing it in the next campaign we start!!!
I once threw a Manticore at a group of 1st level players... they decided not to run and hide (they could, they knew they could). After a couple of incredible arrow shots (one player kept rolling 20's as if his life depended on it, not just his character's) everyone was dead (even the Manticore!) but for an elven archer who was severly wounded but still alive.

He died the next season when he believed he could take on anything "since he took down a Manticore at 1st level".

Learning when to run is a VERY important lesson in D&D. It might get several DMs frustrated (specially those who believe in balancing every single encounter against the strengths and weaknesses of the PCs) but in the end it's an important factor if you want to survive through the upper levels (where fleeing is a lot easier with al the teleport madness).
 

Gold Roger said:
What Lockridge said. A rumbling could be anything, but once you see that giant, you better run (though if someone mistakes it for an ogre things could get messy).

Heck at 1st level against an Ogre I'ld think about running as well if we didn't drop it with ranged attacks in first few rounds. One hit (2d8+7) from it will probably drop most 1st level character, and might even drop a Barbarian, it could easily kill outright a Wizard or Sorcerer.

It's fair they can always run even once they have seen it.
 
Last edited:


Sure, that's fair.

What wouldn't be fair is if the party were walking through the woods and they were suddenly ambushed by giant. Especially if the party hadn't had the chance to detect the ambush ahead of time (via Spot and/or Listen checks). However, that's not the case here.
 

Perfectly fair. This came up in a game I was playing as well.. although we were level 5. But we encountered a half-sleeping giant (Not sure what type, but since the DM described it as wearing furs and having a very bad smell, Hill sounds about right). Needless to say, we did not think we could win and didn't fight it.

Now, forcing the PCs to fight it is unfair and makes you a RBDM. What you did, however, was show them that this isn't a videogame, and not all "random monsters" in their area are tailored to their level. I applaud you, sir.
 

Fair. In a campaign, 1e circa '79, we played as soon as you left the farmland the encounters were run off the 3rd level dungeon charts from the 1e DMG. We typically rolled up 2 or 3 characters, 3d6, in order so that everyone had a chance to have at least one survive.

One memorable encounter was when we had three characters each, one in the front o fthe marching order, one in the middle and one in the rear. There were about 8 players so we had 24 characters!

A red dragon bellyflopped into the middle of the party. :eek: The ones in the front ran for the dungeon because it would be safer.... The ones in the back ran back to town. They got some exp for surviving the encounter. Their next foray out of town they went a different direction and got a much more reasonable encounter. I think everyone carried spears held straight up....
 

This thread reminds me of how I had the PC's up against a family of athachs. At third level.

The athachs wheren't there to be fought, of course, but instead to 1)make clear that this area may still be out of reach for the and 2) once they decided to chack it out and ended up stranded on a high ledge with the only way out through the athachs encampnent as fun obstacles.

I played up the athachs stupidity and realocated their spot and listen ranks (I don't know what the designers thought giving all the goons in the MM spot and listen. One would expect those goons to be easily passed by, it's a standart of incompetent evil inc.)

We had a blast with the PCs first using a passing athach as ladder to the ground level, then having PC's running from, hiding from and distracting athachs. Once or twice things even looked like one of the PC's would have to sacrifice himself to save the others.
 

OK, so lets add a few more details to the encounter....

Two party members are dwarves in heavy armor so there is no way they can hide, or run away, since they are slow, loud, and easy to spot.

The giant has cover from the trees, and begins to throw rocks at the party.

Everyone in the party, except the monk (my character) is standing in the middle of the road because they believe that any creature they encounter will be of a equivelent challenge for their level.

Does this change your opinion?
 

spectre72 said:
Two party members are dwarves in heavy armor so there is no way they can hide, or run away, since they are slow, loud, and easy to spot.

The giant has cover from the trees, and begins to throw rocks at the party.

It's unfair to spring a combat on characters that they cannot reasonably survive and cannot avoid. So, this would be unfair.

Everyone in the party, except the monk (my character) is standing in the middle of the road because they believe that any creature they encounter will be of a equivelent challenge for their level.

However, this is just dumb play, and the PCs in question deserve to be splatted.

All these "Is it fair?" scenarios boil down to one question: is it possible for the group, through good play, to survive without fatalities? In your original scenario it was, through the simple expedient of avoiding combat with a known (and overbearing threat). In the scenario with the map it was, through doing basic research of the dungeon beforehand.

In the revised example with the dwarves who couldn't run away, and the giant who immediately attacked, it was not. Likewise, in the map example where research was predetermined to fail by the DM, it was not. In either of these cases, I determine the scenario to be unfair.

The example with the lever is more tricky. I still maintain that merely having a lever in the room is not sufficient information for good play to lead to survival (because either pulling the lever or not pulling the lever could be the required response, and there's no way to know). However, I'm less certain of that than I am of the fairness or unfairness of either of the other scenarios.
 

Remove ads

Top