Predict this encounter

[Quasqueton]

My apologies if I have offended you, you seem irritated.

Yeah, I think I did get a bit irritated, here. Apologies for that.

It just got irritating to be told that I was using “table rules” that screwed over the Players/PCs, when those “table rules” have been a basic assumption for every game I have ever played or run.

It’s like being told it’s a table rule to expect Players to track encumbrance and ammo.

Or to expect Players have their PCs buy food and drink for that two-week trek.

Or to expect Players to not hold up the game with counting squares for 5 minutes to determine the absolute best placement for a fireball.

Or to expect Players to roll their dice openly.

I mean, some games may not enforce encumbrance or rations. Some may not care that combats take hours to finish, or that the Players can roll secretly. But the basic assumption, until stated otherwise, should be, I would think, that these expectations are the norm.

If the DM says X happens in 30 minutes, one should assume game time = real time as the base measure unless something comes up to change it (like a combat happens or everyone agrees to fast forward the 30 minutes). Why is this assumption considered a table rule? I’ve never seen anyone say, “Wait, the campaign didn’t stop for us to plan this? That’s not fair!"

And not one of my Players said or suggested that they got cheated out of planning time.

Quasqueton

 

[ThirdWizard]

You were being nice. I have a stopwatch that beeps every 10 minutes. I would have turned it on and placed it on the table face down. Third beep and the structure dissapears.

 

[Quasqueton]

You were being nice. I have a stopwatch that beeps every 10 minutes. I would have turned it on and placed it on the table face down. Third beep and the structure dissapears.

The real funny thing here is that I never even contemplated that they would be so indecisive as to come to the point where the shelter would run out. I fully expected they'd start doing stuff long before the duration would come into play of any combat. I thought they'd either teleport out and just leave it, or they'd use it as a fort or obstacle during a fight. The idea to set a timer never came to me -- why set a 30 minute timer when something will happen in the next 5 minutes? When I looked at my watch and saw 40 minutes had passed, I was surprised they were taking so long.

Quasqueton

 

[Infiniti2000]

And not one of my Players said or suggested that they got cheated out of planning time.

I certainly didn't think that either. In fact, I'd say you were overly generous. I would have turned to the ranger and paladin and said, "The sorcerer casts a spell and touches you two. Are you willing or not?"

 

[KarinsDad]

I personally think that you ran this encounter fine.

Players need to sometimes make quick decisions and if they fail to do so, dire consequences might happen.

Also, I have found that the first casualty of DND combat is the plan. 40 minutes to talk about something is a huge amount of time and as a DM, I think you were very generous.

 

[Lamoni]

I have to side with the DM here. Whether I am a player or a DM, I hate, absolutely HATE it when players bog down the game with useless and unnecessary delay. Encounters are almost ALWAYS easier than some players make them out to be. It should have taken all of 5 minutes, real time, to figure out what action to take here.
If nothing else if there was a "split decision" the party should have pre-selected the 'leader' who has the last say in the matter and followed his/her lead.

I just wanted to re-iterate this. I too hate it when the game is delayed unnecessarily. This is largely due to the fact that we game with our 1 year old daughter and our friend's two sons who are under 4 years old who run everywhere. With all the delays we get from them and the delays we have from just chatting about life our game time is very limited. When I DM, I try to get in at least two encounters per game night, but it is often reduced to one. If it ever took the party 40 minutes to decide how to proceed with an encounter, that would use up the rest of our time and we'd have to do the encounter the following week.

To address the topic, I'd have to say that the encounter was a good one. Easy with very good tactics, doable with fair tactics, but very difficult with poor tactics. I love encounters that require some good tactics to win easily... and hopefully not the same tactics that the adventurers have used during every other encounter they have had. It is too bad that they had to flee in the end, but like they said, it was all their fault.

 

[Bad Paper]

Holy crap. I would have killed them out of spite.

FORTY MINUTES to talk about...what, exactly?

I am RBDM, and would have pulverized them with the giants, used all AoO and full attacks.

When the TPK happened, I would say "see this is what your indecision got you." And then, depending on who bought the beer and pizza, I may have allowed them to have teleported away unscathed. Or made them roll up new chars. Your post makes me grumpy.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It is a good fight because the Giants have plenty of HPs, but the PCs should not have any trouble.

If they can use magic to isolate one target for just a round or so, victory should easily be in their grasp. It is situations like this for which I like to have a Wall of Fire or Wall of Force handy.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Well, I guessed wrong!

Who picked "Stand around picking their noses, and get beaten to death" in this pool?

 

[the_mighty_agrippa]

All that matters is that the high-charisma sorcerer gets to lord this over the high-charisma paladin. If he prevents the pally from getting laid, that's even better.