The awesome encounter that wasn't.

[DrunkonDuty]

>>>>Is it my fault?<<<

Not completely. Communication is a two way street. You were communicating but the players weren't picking up on your signals. You didn't realise (or else didn't want to go all meta-gamey?) that they weren't. Ah well, mis-communications happen all the time. They're no-one's fault. (I wouldn't want to go all meta-game myself, it takes away MY fun to have to sit down and explain what the hell is happening. Like having to explain a joke.)

As an aside: I think your players were wusses for refusing to play. I mean, , what's the worst that'll happen if you keep playing? Your fictional characters all die. What happens if you refuse to play? Your fictional characters cease to be used. Net result: the same.

So they got their arses handed to them by a bad guy. That's what happens sometimes. A game where the PCs win every encounter because they're supposed to would be bloody tedious if you ask me. That's why I think the OP's scenario would be a fun one to play (or GM.) Without knowing the actual context allow me to put forward a context in which it would be quite reasonable:

The heroes are seeking a way into the impregnable Drow Fortress that has resisted attack for a thousand years. When it turns out the Impreganable Fortress is actually pretty tough no-one should be surprised. After all an Impreganable Fortress that was only Impregnable to characters of 5th level or down but perfectly Pregnable to 6th level characters (which is the implication of strict CR encounters) just strikes me as, um, <insert expletive here>.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

...yet they still told me the fight was too tough and refused to play Ravenloft anymore.

To me, I'm just surprised that the party expected Ravenloft to be a walk in the park. Whenever I run that setting I make it clear that the 'evil' is powerful and I won't hold back from having a PC or three get killed.

However, there was a bit of misleading in your presentation, as typed above. Nothing in the post would lead me to beleive that the Lycanthrope was allergic to gold. Matter of fact, I have never read of such a critter.

A dangerous trap in running a game is assuming the clever hints are obvious... or even point to what you think they do.

 

[Rystil Arden]

The example you give is actually perfectly okay DMing imo, except that it didn't go as the DM planned so he'd obviously misjudged the tactical situation. But I think it is fine to present PCs with a foe (or situation) too tough to beat, *even* if the players haven't been 'stupid', *even* if there's no warning, provided the players have a chance to respond meaningfully in some way - running or talking are the only options I can think of. (I'm not including surrender cuz I know how much players, rightly, hate it.)

I've done much worse as a DM, and recently too, in fact it was the last session I ran. It ended in a TPK as a result of an umber hulk's confusion. All the PCs failed their saves. This was really horrible because it completely removed the player's decision making. It 100% disempowered them, reducing them to dice rollers for the duration of quite a long fight scene, 20 mins or so. No chance to decide to run, talk or flee. Obviously I didn't realise quite how bad that is at the time but now I do.

Removing a player's agency = BAD.

Yeah, I've found that Umber Hulk battles tend towards two different extremes, each of which is not that interesting. On the opposite extreme from the TPK, our group recently had a fight with one (Fiendish at that) in Shackled City, and my PC with high knowledge recognised the beast, so we kited it with ranged weapons well outside the gaze attack range. The Umber Hulk's movement speed is atrocious, so it never had a chance. I could easily have seen it becoming a near-TPK if our Ranger tried to melee it and wound up getting Confused. He is a damage-dealing monster when buffed and probably would have slaughtered the whole party except my Archivist, whose AC is high enough that the Ranger really has no chance ot hit her.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

what's the worst that'll happen if you keep playing? Your fictional characters all die. What happens if you refuse to play? Your fictional characters cease to be used. Net result: the same.

I heartily agree with your assessment of communication being 2 way, however I don't fully agree with your 'net result'. Not playing an un-fun game does give more time to do fun things other than d&d.

In the OP, the players were left feeling frustrated. That's the key message for the dm to take home from this. It does not matter the in-character justifications, the fairness of rules, the <insert-good-justification> behind the encounter, the fact of the matter was that it basically sucked.

Now I wouldn't start laying the blame on the poor overworked dm. If the communication is working the dm and the players will just need to take it as a lesson and move on.

 

[moritheil]

I don't think it's a problem IF the DM was trying to make a point (suppose you were intending to infiltrate a Drow city; that could be his way of pointing out how bad it would be for you to get caught.) But even if it was meaningless, worse things have happened. I'd cut him some slack for one event; if it happens all the time then you need to talk.

Regarding removal of player agency and surrender being the worst, I ran a campaign where the PCs annoyed the ruling powers in a foreign land, were hunted down by mercenaries (only two, and at their level, but capable of dealing out massive nonlethal damage and ambushing them) and thrown in jail. They promptly broke out of jail (psionics was unknown in that land) and led the many political prisoners in a revolt that joined up with the resistance and toppled the government. A great many long-standing plot points were resolved.

In short? If you are going somewhere with the railroad moments (the real railroad moment here was the ambush where they all got knocked out in 2 rounds, then woke up in jail sans items) it can be OK. But the players need to trust you.

on one player's suggestion that 'any monsters are level appropriate so they can't kill us'

This does NOT mix well with Ravenloft.

Is it my fault?

Well, only in the sense that you agreed to DM for a group that doesn't grasp the fundamental tenets of Ravenloft: the players are boned, and pretty much every encounter can easily be their last.

 

[S'mon]

The example you give is actually perfectly okay DMing imo, except that it didn't go as the DM planned so he'd obviously misjudged the tactical situation.

Seems fine to me. The DM isn't obliged to have every encounter beatable. The players did well, seeing that retreat was the best option. Personally as a player it's the kind of thing I'd have found fun exciting & enjoyable. Sometimes running away can be fun too!

 

[S'mon]

In the OP, the players were left feeling frustrated. That's the key message for the dm to take home from this.

Nothing wrong with players occasionally feeling frustrated, especially as in this case there are plenty of things they could do after retreating. Of course not *every* encounter should frustrate them, but even 3e suggests that a certain proportion of encounters should be overwhelming and require retreat.

I guess if the players will complain because not every encounter is beatable, ultimately those aren't players I would wish to GM for.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Nothing wrong with players occasionally feeling frustrated...

I guess if the players will complain because not every encounter is beatable, ultimately those aren't players I would wish to GM for.

I reckon we broadly agree.

Frustration & irritation are not emotions we need to see much of around a cooperative game table. The dm's in the drivers seat to determine what goes into a planned encounter, so they can largely control the emotions. Ime I've found the RAW to have plenty of frustration built into it - there's no need for more.

We dm's get to game for the players we have. If they love beatable encounters, we're going to have to have a good chunk of encounters being beatable. Or yes, we can form a more suited group.

The basic point I think is for the dm to know their players. Getting fancy with a planned encounter without knowing player wants (and character capabilities) just risks having a rotten session. And no matter how much you're in the right, if you're the dm of a rotten session, you've done something wrong.

 

[EricNoah]

I've had played in quite a few encounters where the PCs got spanked but survived, fled, and then came back better prepared and kicked some butt. Yes, it is frustrating at first. Later, the victory is pretty sweet.

At least you survived! I've also played in quite a few encounters that ended with PC deaths and we got spanked and fled and came back and won. Not quite as sweet!

 

[Engilbrand]

In regards to the Ravenloft game:
I think that was an excellent encounter. He mixed some things up. If the players didn't bother to ask question or make skill checks, they didn't do what they needed to do. He even said that the town used silver coins, but they shied away from gold. The players were coming into it with prior knowledge that was incorrect, but they decided not to test that knowledge. It was their fault for being stupid. It's an idea I might actually try at some point. There's nothing wrong with changing minor things around in the monster manual.