Ways to assess an encounter early

[Hautamaki]

I have the opposite problem with my players. They never ask how tough a monster is. Of course I'll describe, and try to warn them if they are in trouble, but they frankly don't care. Even after I've killed them a combined 40 odd times in this campaign, if they see a monster, they're going to try to kill it, regardless of whether it's a lone kobold or two dozen water trolls splashing down a river haha.

 

[pemerton]

Precisely what happened in one of my games. I was a player, and we managed to sniff out where one of the bad bosses lived, and walked in for a "fair fight." I don't want to go into details because (a) I don't want to put the DM on trial here and (b) we, the players, didn't try many of the things I covered in this thread, so we have ourselves to blame.

Was it a TPK?

The one time I had a TPK was at 3rd level. The PCs were hunting goblins in a forest, trying to rescue homesteaders who had been taken prisoner by goblins. In an earlier encounter in the forest, they had been attacked by a deranged homesteader, driven mad by his experiences, and some of the PCs had killed him, triggering recriminations from the other PCs.

Thus, when I described a group of homesteaders huddled around a fire, the players, feeling a little burned by that earlier experience, were predisposed to have their PCs respond with sympathy rather than suspicion. Which meant that the PCs were all seated around the fire in a nice position for my spectre's aura 1 auto-daze, while the "homesteaders" revealed themselves to be pale reavers (from Open Grave) cloaked in illusions.

The players quickly worked out that they were in trouble, but the action denial was utterly brutal - more brutal than I had anticipated in designing the encounter, in part because I hadn't expected the players to be so un-suspicious, because I hadn't anticipated the way this encounter would bookend against the earlier one with the deranged homesteader. So the PCs all went down. But the only one who was confirmed dead (as opposed to unconscious) was the paladin, who was dropped below negative bloodied by some friendly fire from the PC wizard.

The way I handled it was, after the session, to send around an email clarifying who wanted to keep playing their PC, and who wanted to change. Only one player wanted to change. So at the start of the next session, 3 of the PCs regained consciousness in the goblin's prison cells. Imprisoned with them was a strange dark elf (the new PC). They could smell the smell of spit-roasted half-elf (the drow player's old PC). Meanwhile the paladin, whose body was splayed out on the goblin shaman's altar in another part of their goblin caves, was sent back into this world by the Raven Queen at a crucial point in a subsequent encounter, in a way that built on some earlier stuff that had happened in the campaign involving undead and witchcraft.

I'm not entirely sure what I would have done had the Hydra fight TPKed, but I think I would have tried to use the duergar somehow, and also - if the PCs souls had ended up in the Shadowfell - would have drawn in some fashion on their earlier pledge of allegiance to Kas.

I have the opposite problem with my players. They never ask how tough a monster is. Of course I'll describe, and try to warn them if they are in trouble, but they frankly don't care. Even after I've killed them a combined 40 odd times in this campaign, if they see a monster, they're going to try to kill it, regardless of whether it's a lone kobold or two dozen water trolls splashing down a river

Do the players mind having their PCs killed?

Also, with situations like the water troll one that you describe, as a GM what role do you envisage that playing in the game? And how do you communicate that to your players?

(My reason for asking these questions goes back to my earlier comment about the importance of knowing one's GM.)

 

[Li Shenron]

In the past I've let the players roll either Knowledge or Wisdom checks to get a clue of a monster's CR.

But I might as well just flat-out tell them.

It is metagaming? Yes.
Does it spoil the fun? No.

 

[S'mon]

I find that most players are ok with running from/avoiding clearly-unbeatable foes, like the 1st/2nd level PCs who saw two trolls talking to a hag in my Pathfinder game. Deaths and TPKs arise from potentially winnable fights combined with bad luck and, usually, some hindering terrain.
4e Session before last, 5 9th level PCs vs 11th level solo black dragon backed up by a wounded Oni in a sewer. 3 PCs dead, 2 escaped. They had killed the Oni and taken the dragon down to about 1/4 of its starting hp, but I rolled a lot of '20's. I think the most noticeable thing was that the Dungeon Delve 8-3 encounter had triggered early because the lead PC made a DC 32 Perception check to spot the hiding dragon. The encounter said that the dragon attacked once 3 PCs had exited the sewer pipe leading to its lair, but the lead PC shot a bolt at it causing it to attack with 4 PCs still in the pipe. This worked greatly to its advantage with the PCs stuck in the pipe or splashing out into the sewer, unable to maneuver properly.

As far as assessing the threat level: I told the lead PC that the dragon's head was three feet long; they could work out it was an adult black dragon and that it had acid resistance. As soon as a monster attacks the players can work out the creature's attack bonus, which tells them its level within 1-2. I'm not going to give exact numbers for a monsters' stats until they actually attack the monster though, and in this case I doubt its stats would have made them flee.

 

[Hautamaki]

Do the players mind having their PCs killed?

Also, with situations like the water troll one that you describe, as a GM what role do you envisage that playing in the game? And how do you communicate that to your players?

(My reason for asking these questions goes back to my earlier comment about the importance of knowing one's GM.)

I've actually never had a TPK, nor have I literally had them come across two dozen water trolls wading down the river, that was a bit of hyperbole haha.

To answer your question, the players do mind having their PCs killed but they are somewhat resigned to the likelihood of dying at this point. What has happened is they just don't spend any time in character creation and don't fill out any details or backstory or whatever, but rather just sort of make it up as they go along. That way if their character dies, they haven't just wasted an hour figuring out who this character really is only to have to start all over again after 30 seconds of combat. They just have to spend about 5 minutes rolling up stats and picking equipment/feats/skills.

The reason they die so much is not that I throw in the odd unwinnable fight with the expectation that they will run away. It's that they charge into every battle without a good plan for how to win the fight. Two of them are new players so it's understandable; there's another experienced player who is a good tactician but tactically selfish--it's never his guy that bites the dust! The other experienced player is a great role player but a horrible roll player. So we have a high mortality campaign. After every death they know what they did wrong and what they'd do differently next time, but for some reason this group seems to find the learning curve incredibly steep. But at the same time, they don't me to start sandbagging them. I put them in a lower level dungeon once that they were able to clear out no problem, and after only 1 character had had a near death experience they were left bored and disappointed. 'Nobody died? What a sissy dungeon that was! Lame!'

So I guess there's no real problem here after all, just an outlier group.

 

[Ferghis]

I have the opposite problem with my players. They never ask how tough a monster is. Of course I'll describe, and try to warn them if they are in trouble, but they frankly don't care. Even after I've killed them a combined 40 odd times in this campaign, if they see a monster, they're going to try to kill it, regardless of whether it's a lone kobold or two dozen water trolls splashing down a river haha.

As pemerton notes, I think this is a case of table expectations, and I think my group was in a similar mental place.

Was it a TPK?

Just about. Several party members had failed three death saves: we (the players) wanted to keep things going because one of us managed to roll above 19 on their death save, get lucky on a bluff check, and all that was left was the main bad guy at very low HP and one minion. If he managed to take out the BBG, he might have survived another round against the minion, and we would be victorious (in quite a Phyrric manner). He missed, and the DM generously drew the curtains and ended the session there.

Like your case, we're discussing who wants to play what, and how to pick up the pieces. But unlike you, there was no ace up our sleve. The "strange helper" is a tactic I've seen many DMs use successfully, and I think it is a good one.

Do the players mind having their PCs killed?

We were suprisingly okay with it. For one, we knew it was a tough fight to walk into. For another, the two players whose PCs first died were particularly fine with it for their own reasons. That, I think, set the tone for the other players' reactions. Finally, I think I may have the player most attached to the character, and was/am playing a warforged, so I never feared a technical death. I was more afraid that the campaign might end, and it appears that it might not (although discussions are ongoing).

Deaths and TPKs arise from potentially winnable fights combined with bad luck and, usually, some hindering terrain.

I've read this often, and it sounds very plausible, although I haven't run into it these situations myself.

As soon as a monster attacks the players can work out the creature's attack bonus, which tells them its level within 1-2.

I've always wondered if that was cheating: using 4e design math to figure out monster capabilities. If you know the numbers (I only know some of them) and role, it's pretty easy to derive all the other numbers from the single one you might learn. I avoid doing this, but I think knowing that we were facing an elite of level+5 would have given us pause in continuing the assault - or might have at least induced us to propose a ceasefire, since both sides had taken significant losses.

 

[S'mon]

I've always wondered if that was cheating: using 4e design math to figure out monster capabilities.

I don't think it's cheating, the players figuring out how tough the monster is in game mechanics terms maps pretty closely to the PCs figuring out how tough it is in in-world terms. I just don't like the metagaming inherent in PCs rolling Knowledge checks so Players are told precise numbers, far more precise than anything the PC could possibly know at that point.

 

[Randomthoughts]

Another issue in 4e, again, perhaps only for me, is figuring out if you can take a certain enemy. <snip>


In addition to the actual description of the monsters (which ought to be somewhat indicative of their roles or capacities), some intel is already coded into the game mechanics <snip>

What kind of information would you be willing to reveal to an inquisitive player, and how or when would you make that information available?

I use the monster knowledge checks if requested by a player, but I have decided that a particular monster would not be known by the PC, so I don't follow RAW in those rare instances.

I haven't codified my descriptions to the point some seem to have done (like the color of their eyes), though that's a good idea. I think I informally give a clue on how dangerous the creature is based on the amount of detail I give. If the creature is especially dangerous (like +5 level or such), it would be involved in a special encounter where clues would be given beforehand to give PCs a sense of the difficult encounter to come.

But I've found that the in-combat indicators are pretty useful. Players tend to figure out how tough the encounter is quickly based on rolls missed and damage given/received. As both a player and GM, I like the "bloodied" status as a "mid-fight" milestone. I know my players have asked, in hard encounters, "the creature's not bloodied yet?"

Overall, I find that 4e PCs can take a lot of damage (or heal) and have a lot of resources (powers, magic items) at their command. So, I see players constantly using powers, even dailies. The biggest restraint I've seen is trying to use a daily (for instance) when it makes "the most sense" - like using an AOE only when enemies are bunched up - but that scenario may never materialize.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

My Co-DM and I have done away with monster knowledge checks for our game -- as a house rule experiment. We had reached a point where it was just part of the standard procedure at the start of an encounter, and was used to determine what the monster's weaknesses might be, etc.

What I do -- as I try to make more of an effort to describe the scenes we set up for the players -- is I keep a matrix of skills my PCs are trained in handy, and I try to make some notes of details of a room or opponent that they might notice or be able to take advantage of because of their training in that particular skill. I don't do it as often as I want to, but it's my own way of trying to both encourage myself to develop some better habits about describing the encounter areas for my players and replacing the pro forma monster knowledge check.

-rg

 

[pemerton]

I've found that the in-combat indicators are pretty useful. Players tend to figure out how tough the encounter is quickly based on rolls missed and damage given/received. As both a player and GM, I like the "bloodied" status as a "mid-fight" milestone. I know my players have asked, in hard encounters, "the creature's not bloodied yet?"

This fits with my experience. Especially using "bloodied" as a rough marker of progress. If the PCs are starting to run out of juice and there are still half-a-dozen unbloodied NPCs/monsters on the battlefield (as happened in the hydra/salamander/archon encounter I mentioned upthread) my players start to get a bit anxious!