Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5016667" data-attributes="member: 18280">Some additional caveats, based off some later posts:So, my understanding of the example is that the DM screwed up royally in prep work, failed to notice his screw up when presenting his materials, and essentially told the players there was an easy encounter ahead when there was a TPK.The question asked is, should the DM change things on the fly?My answer is, No.&nbsp;&nbsp; This would prevent the players from learning some valuable information:1.&nbsp; Just because all signs point to an easy victory, they should not assume that the signs are right.2.&nbsp; Perhaps the DM is not as competent as they might have thought.EDIT:&nbsp; 3.&nbsp; I would also find limited retcon acceptable if, for instance, the DM forgot to mention that the orcs were attacking with turbolasers for three rounds....i.e., a temporal rollback to the point where PC actions would have changed had they better information that the PCs should have had.&nbsp; This does not mean back to before the encounter began, when the DM was telling them how easy it would be -- the orcs could well have been smart enough to avoid making their lair look like a death trap.If the DM error is &quot;Oh, did I forget to tell you that all of your characters know there is an ancient red dragon in this cave?&nbsp; Did I forget to mention the sulphurous scent?&nbsp; Or the tracks?&nbsp; Or the bones?&nbsp; Sorry about that, but you're facing the dragon now.&nbsp; What do you do?&quot; the idea of a rollback is out.&nbsp; The only rational thing to do is end the session and get a new DM.&nbsp; /EDITSome subpoints for (2):2a:&nbsp; In TSR-D&amp;D models, PCs were intended to start at 1st level, and slowly gain in power.&nbsp; This not only gave players a chance to fully understand their characters' powers; it also gave the DM a chance to truly &quot;learn the system&quot; before being thrown into the deep end.&nbsp; 2b:&nbsp; It is easier to balance encounters using the TSR-D&amp;D attrition model than the 3e attrition model or the 4e encounter model.&nbsp; In the TSR-D&amp;D attrition model, if a few encounters are tougher than expected, the usual result is simply that the PCs withdraw (if they are wise).&nbsp; If not, well, they knew they were pretty banged up when they chose to press on.2c.&nbsp; Anyone who can attract and keep players has a perfect right to GM, and to GM their game in whatever manner they desire.&nbsp; 2d.&nbsp; However, simply wanting to sit behind the screen doesn't mean that you are ready to do so.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5016667, member: 18280"] Some additional caveats, based off some later posts: So, my understanding of the example is that the DM screwed up royally in prep work, failed to notice his screw up when presenting his materials, and essentially told the players there was an easy encounter ahead when there was a TPK. The question asked is, should the DM change things on the fly? My answer is, No. This would prevent the players from learning some valuable information: 1. Just because all signs point to an easy victory, they should not assume that the signs are right. 2. Perhaps the DM is not as competent as they might have thought. EDIT: 3. I would also find limited retcon acceptable if, for instance, the DM forgot to mention that the orcs were attacking with turbolasers for three rounds....i.e., a temporal rollback to the point where PC actions would have changed had they better information [i][b]that the PCs should have had[/b][/i][b][/b]. This does not mean back to before the encounter began, when the DM was telling them how easy it would be -- the orcs could well have been smart enough to avoid making their lair look like a death trap. If the DM error is "Oh, did I forget to tell you that all of your characters know there is an ancient red dragon in this cave? Did I forget to mention the sulphurous scent? Or the tracks? Or the bones? Sorry about that, but you're facing the dragon now. What do you do?" the idea of a rollback is out. The only rational thing to do is end the session and get a new DM. /EDIT Some subpoints for (2): 2a: In TSR-D&D models, PCs were intended to start at 1st level, and slowly gain in power. This not only gave players a chance to fully understand their characters' powers; it also gave the DM a chance to truly "learn the system" before being thrown into the deep end. 2b: It is easier to balance encounters using the TSR-D&D attrition model than the 3e attrition model or the 4e encounter model. In the TSR-D&D attrition model, if a few encounters are tougher than expected, the usual result is simply that the PCs withdraw (if they are wise). If not, well, they knew they were pretty banged up when they chose to press on. 2c. Anyone who can attract and keep players has a perfect right to GM, and to GM their game in whatever manner they desire. 2d. However, simply wanting to sit behind the screen doesn't mean that you are ready to do so. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification