Two encounters at once: what would you do?

[Manbearcat]

The wizard tried to use burning hands to weld the vault door shut, which I said would not work, though I let it deal half damage to the wyrmlings as they came through.

I'll let others reply to your question outlined in the initial post. I'd like to focus on this bit here. Is there a specific reason you didn't either say yes here or allow the PC to roll the dice and make p42 improv effort to weld the door shut with the fire spell? That seems to be precisely the type of thing you want to be encouraging. It fits the genre and it's quick thinking by your player. And it's fun!

If you felt it needed to be hard, all you needed do was (a) make the of-level DC for the Arcana check high. If he passes, (b) let him roll attack vs Fort vs standard, of-level NAD and boom, the metal hinges of the door are slag and it's impassable (save ends)

I recommend that approach in future circumstances.

 

[Savage Wombat]

If they had been new to D&D, I would have suggested letting them off the hook. As experienced D&D players, I would think they are more prepared to let the chips fall appropriately - but a little slack for "new system" would be in order.

If you give them a clear exit opportunity, and they don't take it - they should know better.

 

[sabrinathecat]

Run the double encounter.
It's a good lesson for the players. "Together is the way, if alive you want to stay."

 

[cmbarona]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not. That second sentence there is almost a textbook definition of railroading.

I'll admit railroading is something I've struggled with in the past. I'm not a great at improv as a DM. But I guess it depends on your definition of railroading, and there are certainly degrees. I've got a general plot and the series (not necessarily the sequence) of events that I want the players to play through. Is having a prepared plot really considered railroading?

 

[cmbarona]

I'll let others reply to your question outlined in the initial post. I'd like to focus on this bit here. Is there a specific reason you didn't either say yes here or allow the PC to roll the dice make p42 improv effort to weld the door shut with the fire spell? That seems to be precisely the top of thing you want to be encouraging. It fits the genre and it's quick thinking by your player. And it's fun!

If you felt it needed to be hard, all you needed do was (a) make the of-level DC for the Arcana check high. If he passes, (b) let him roll attack vs Fort vs standard, of-level NAD and boom, the metal hinges of the door are slag and it's impassable (save ends)

I recommend that approach in future circumstances.

Hmm... this could have worked. I've got to get better about thinking on my feet like this. I guess I was worried about letting it work because 1) the temperature needed to weld metal is REALLY HOT, and I had no idea how hot Burning Hands is intended to be, and 2) I was worried about opening the door to potential future abuses of this power.

Save ends or a Strength/Athletics-to-break DC based on the Attack roll could have done the trick.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'll admit railroading is something I've struggled with in the past. I'm not a great at improv as a DM. But I guess it depends on your definition of railroading, and there are certainly degrees. I've got a general plot and the series (not necessarily the sequence) of events that I want the players to play through. Is having a prepared plot really considered railroading?

The short answer to your question is: yes. The term "plot" is basically synonymous with railroading, because it implies the DM knows how the story is going to end--which implies the players have no ability to affect the outcome (i.e., no choices that actually matter).

I've struggled with it too, and there definitely are degrees, and different players will accept different amounts of it. For my perspective, any time the DM thinks about it in terms of a story that he/she wants the players to experience, that's a warning sign. Sometimes it works great and doesn't feel like a railroad (the classic Ravenloft is a good example), but people don't play D&D to listen to someone tell a story. The DM should frame expectations/boundaries/goals, but within that context, the players should be driving.

It's hard to make categorical statements (especially in 4e, which sort of requires the DM to pre-plan things), but here are a few other warning signs. I consider some of them "big no-nos," some of them fudgeable, and some are inevitable.

• You want the players to do something
  • You try to make them do that thing
• The players don't have a choice
  • The players have a choice that's not a real choice (turn left or turn right?)
  • The players have a choice that doesn't actually affect anything (if they go right, there's an ogre. if they go left, there's an ogre).
• You have one room labeled "start" and one room labeled "end"
• You know what the next session is going to be before you run this one

 

[evileeyore]

Is having a prepared plot really considered railroading?

No. Forcing them to play through it is though.

"Railroad" is a term that gets a bad wrap. It boils down to this, if your players are making train sounds and comments like "Hey, a station, we hope the line stops here long enough for us step out and stretch our legs"... then you are "doing it wrong". If the players are having fun and no one cares that they are being funneled towards specific enemies, encounters, or plots, then you are "doing it right".

Some players prefer the DM to let them run wild and set their own agendas and such, and some players really want a train to get on.

Figuring out your group is half the battle.

...the temperature needed to weld metal is REALLY HOT, and I had no idea how hot Burning Hands is intended to be...

If the players aren't crying about their suspension of disbelief in the Elf Guy With Magic Game, then don't sweat the laws of physics. Straight up, it'll be okay.

I was worried about opening the door to potential future abuses of this power.

This is an entirely valid concern.

I handle it thusly: Do I think it's a Moment Of Cool? Do the players seem to be okay with the generall flow of the Moments Of Cool so far? If both answers are 'yes' then the players get away whatever it is they are trying.

If players start grousing later about "overpowered cheese" than it's time to have a group confab and figure out where the problems are and start tamping them back down. It's okay if stuff gets slightly out of hand for a bit as long as when it becomes a problem, you talk it over with the players and work out a solution going forward.



No one became an awesome DM overnight.
Except of course for everyone who now comes in and claims such.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Sorry to get off topic. To address the original post: In theory, I'd just let the players face the consequences of their actions. If they had the option to run away, and chose to fight to the death, then I would have no problem letting them die. Just a few sessions ago, I remorselessly killed two characters with a Beholder's disintegration ray after they attacked it while it was trying to leave.

To be honest, though, If I was running this game, I don't know what I'd do. TPKs always suck, especially if the players aren't expecting something like this (I'm assuming every encounter until now has been balanced, so it wouldn't have occurred to them that they're not supposed to fight these monsters), and especially if there was cool stuff coming up.

With my old-school sensibilities, I'd say they got what they deserved. I'm not quite sure if the design of 4e would change that answer--Are you running 4e "wrong" if not every encounter is balanced? I don't know.

 

[Manbearcat]

Hmm... this could have worked. I've got to get better about thinking on my feet like this. I guess I was worried about letting it work because 1) the temperature needed to weld metal is REALLY HOT, and I had no idea how hot Burning Hands is intended to be, and 2) I was worried about opening the door to potential future abuses of this power.

Save ends or a Strength/Athletics-to-break DC based on the Attack roll could have done the trick.

I would suggest a few things:

1 - Don't steep yourself too deeply in process. Whether it needs to be 1200 degrees F or 2000 degrees F to compromise the integrity of the material and yield deformation isn't relevant. What is relevant is (a) fire keyword powers burn and melt stuff, (b) it's genre appropriate for a wizard to slag metal with fire, (c) the action resolution mechanics are robust enough to do the heavy lifting in determining outcomes. Get comfortable with p42, and the durability of the system's math by level.

2 - Practice your improv and have your players do the same. Take an evening off of your campaign and just freewheel a series of discrete scenes so both parties can get comfortable with the improv means embedded in the system and each others' genre expectations. This will let you say yes more often or let the PCs take a stab at consulting the resolution mechanics and see what they and the dice have to say on the matter.

It's a learned skill. You will improve and your game will be better for it.

 

[Umbran]

All the theory aside (it is for future problems, and you have a now problem) - the "they get captured, meet the new guy, and have to escape" is a classic, and gives them a reason to bond with the new guy.