When the Session goes Pear Shaped

[evildmguy]

The problem is that what seems good -- correcting DMing mistakes where the game is "too hard" -- can easily become the bad -- OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration)-compliant dungeons, where every danger is bubble-wrapped to prevent the PC's from losing, and thus the adventure and chance for victory are removed from the game.

So I'd rather "let the dice fall where they may" and allow for PC's to get killed, even "if it's not there fault". To me, that creates a sense of danger and excitement.

I don't think anyone is arguing that we, as DMs, should go easy on the players. Far from it. What I am saying, at least, is that I set up what is supposed to be a reasonable fight for the characters and then I play them as intelligent as I think they are and try to "win" that fight. Monsters don't bow down and let themselves be killed for money and xp. But, for the most part, the character do only meet fights they can handle.

At the same time, if something is too easy, I don't try to make it more difficult during the fight. I let it play out and if it's obvious they are winning easily, that's when the enemies surrender. On the other side, if the monsters are winning easily, they push the advantage as much as they can but running is always an option. Again, though, rather than go for a kill, unless it fits, they are willing to capture the PCs for a reward later.

I think, in the theme of this thread, that this is when you try to plan for that but it doesn't work. Again, in the past several fights I have ran, I tried to kill the PCs. I flanked. I used big abilities. I didn't hold back and ran out of encounter powers on the monsters. Having said that, there was still enough random chance as well as good abilities and using them on the player's side, that they win, honestly.

What I am also personally saying, based on my experience, is that as sandbox game doesn't work. My players want a linear game. That still means appropriate fights with the chance of death. But, nothing that they can't handle. If they do come across something they can't handle, and I'm not making it obvious or they aren't getting the hints I think I am dropping, I explicitly tell the players that their characters need to run. I'm the players gateway to the world and that's my job, to spell it out for them if I think it appropriate. I try to avoid those situations, though, and instead make it a fun role playing opportunity.

For example, in my Dark Sun game, they have talked to both the Sorcerer King of the town and the Dragon. As players, they knew they couldn't fight them. However, at no point did the SK or Dragon consider fighting them. The PCs, at this point, are beneath their notice in terms of thinking of them as a threat. Instead, they talk and offer a devil's bargain. The player's accepted it, in this case, thinking they don't have a choice, but they do. The SK or Dragon don't care what their answer is but if they gain another tool in their goals, that's fine with them.

That's how I run it, anyway.

edg

 

[evildmguy]

Of course, if you DM that way, you need to be careful to foreshadow big dangers, etc. And I'm also generally nice about NPC's back in town being helpful with advice, Cure Disease being available in town, etc.

Foreshadowing and suspense work better when players know that legendary scary monsters are actually dangerous to their PC's!

Foreshadowing is also a very tough thing to do, at least in my experience with the players I have had.

I have introduced things in the first session that come back in the final fight. That's both good and bad. When it works out and everyone remembers what's going on, it's great! It comes off well and I am really happy with it. On the other hand, when my players don't remember what I did, including directly stating it to them, then it not only fails but it's nearly an epic fail because all of the time and effort into the setup was wasted.

I don't have numbers in front of me but I have had to spell things out for them as often as I haven't, if not more. So, again, I am finding that I need to adjust for my players, keep the focus on the next session with an eye toward the end, and remind them every time what's going on.

edg

 

[CorditeJimmy]

I had a session start to go somewhat pearshaped due to misjudging how a player would react to an in game event.

In a homebrew dark noir/fantasy detective thing, we had one player playing a gun mage. He had the ability to produce firearms from inside his jacket on demand, and tended to use "shoot all the guys" as the first choice problem solving technique.

In one session, the group is investigating the death of a sun god at a bar during a lockin when an old cowboy guy (very much based on the Saint of Killers from Preacher), starts to leave the bar. Gun mage confronts him, accuses him of killing the sun god and tells him he can't leave. Old Cowboy tells him "I ain't your killer, and I ain't here for you either so sit down boy. These guns never jam, never miss, and always kill. I'm protected by God's own righteous fury, you cannot harm me. Sit down."

So what does the gun mage do? He pulls out a shotgun and has a pop. Old Cowboy, true to his word, kills him.

Well damn, now I have a dead plot-critical PC. In the long run it worked out okay, since it started a whole side quest of making a deal to get resurrected as a divine angel of death, discovering the deal wasn't really with god and he'd sent a lot of souls to an Elder God, and the subsequent search for redemption. But at the time it was definitely an "Oh crap, how do I fix this situation?" moment.

So yeah, the mistake was setting up an all or nothing encounter, and misjudging which way a player would jump.

 

[haakon1]

I don't think anyone is arguing that we, as DMs, should go easy on the players. Far from it. What I am saying, at least, is that I set up what is supposed to be a reasonable fight for the characters and then I play them as intelligent as I think they are and try to "win" that fight. Monsters don't bow down and let themselves be killed for money and xp. But, for the most part, the character do only meet fights they can handle.
. . .
At the same time, if something is too easy, I don't try to make it more difficult during the fight. I let it play out and if it's obvious they are winning easily, that's when the enemies surrender. On the other side, if the monsters are winning easily, they push the advantage as much as they can but running is always an option. Again, though, rather than go for a kill, unless it fits, they are willing to capture the PCs for a reward later.
. . .

What I am also personally saying, based on my experience, is that as sandbox game doesn't work. My players want a linear game. That still means appropriate fights with the chance of death. But, nothing that they can't handle. If they do come across something they can't handle, and I'm not making it obvious or they aren't getting the hints I think I am dropping, I explicitly tell the players that their characters need to run. I'm the players gateway to the world and that's my job, to spell it out for them if I think it appropriate. I try to avoid those situations, though, and instead make it a fun role playing opportunity.

That's how I run it, anyway.

Nod. I doubt there's much difference in how we actually are running our games.

BTW, I do have just as much of a problem with the idea of upping the difficulty of a fight that's going too easily as I do with nerfing a fight that's too hard. But since you're not doing either thing, we're more-or-less agreed, I guess.

I can't remember a situation where I told the players they couldn't win and should run for it, but I've probably done it too. I find the most exciting fights are when the PC's win the impossible fight through some weird idea or fluke of the dice. (A fight I DM'd in the late 1980s in Oriental Adventures AD&D, where the PC's accidentally summoned and then drove off Demogorgon through an unrelenting series of nothing but natch 20 crits comes to mind!)

 

[haakon1]

Foreshadowing is also a very tough thing to do, at least in my experience with the players I have had.

I have introduced things in the first session that come back in the final fight. That's both good and bad. When it works out and everyone remembers what's going on, it's great! It comes off well and I am really happy with it. On the other hand, when my players don't remember what I did, including directly stating it to them, then it not only fails but it's nearly an epic fail because all of the time and effort into the setup was wasted.

I don't have numbers in front of me but I have had to spell things out for them as often as I haven't, if not more. So, again, I am finding that I need to adjust for my players, keep the focus on the next session with an eye toward the end, and remind them every time what's going on.

edg

Interesting. The way I do the curtain finally being raised/the pieces falling into place is by reminding the players of what their characters know if they aren't getting it -- I'll either do something like say "Zardog remembers the beggar he met back in the village -- so that was the high priestess all along!" or "Zardog remembers he heard about a magic rift from the old man at the pub", if it's something the character would remember, even if the player can't.

That or I'll have an NPC/DMPC give them a hint/nudge/missing piece. It seems to work best if you lay the pieces out again by reminding them of stuff, and then let the players do the final assembly of "so that's what it was about".

Perhaps I'm blessed in my players though . . . two of them are DM's themselves.

 

[evildmguy]

My players like that level of foreshadowing but away from the table, they have lives and thinking about gaming doesn't seem to be a priority for them. It just is for me.

As I said, it's not that I mind reminding them but I feel like the impact is less when I have to lead them to a conclusion rather than watch as they "get it."

edg