Last week during an Expeditions game I ran, the store had to close before we could finish the session. This week, two of the players from the previous week were absent, but two new players arrived. I improvised the narrative to get the new players in on the action ASAP, but the APL went from strong to weak with this exchange.
I ran the last combat encounter for a "strong party" without thinking, and the party (predictably) wiped. We moved onto another module and resumed fun and good times, but I felt pretty crummy about my mistake.
My basic question, is it "AL legal" to entirely rerun a failed encounter when the DM has made a glaring error that would have completely changed the outcome? Or do I just chalk it up as a live and learn experience and move on?
Characters cannot legally replay an adventure that they've already participated in. You may be able to un-kill the party via creative DMing (i.e., the bad guys were driven off by other adventurers before you bled out, or your factions recovered and raised your corpses, etc.), but re-running the adventure for the same PCs is prohibited.
D&D doesn't have save points.
If it happened and you reran it immediately; I would say that should be fine if the players are/were fine with it. If the players dispersed, ran another module, even if it was just one of the players in the original group, and then you try to rerun the encounter... I would say, "No". That's just me though; definitely not an official answer either.
No rerunning, but a good learning experience for you.
What is the worst that could happen? They die again?
It could depend on exactly where you left them off too....if they all got knocked out within a few rounds, you can easily have them revived as prisoners in the dungeon, or in another appropriate place. If 2 or 3 of them had slowly bled out and already died several rounds before and 2 people ran away and got chased down, that makes a lot less sense. TPKs definitely suck, but the nice thing about AL is that you can pretty much auto-revive them back in town.....it kind of IS a save point.
My most memorable TPK was that one time our group thought we were badasses and decided to Return to the Tomb of Horrors. We had played the characters up to like 11th level starting from 3rd level. We got curb stomped hard, and even though the DM tried to retcon it all as a horrible dream, it killed most of our interest in those characters. We knew they were dead and nobody was ever going to find those bodies...or their souls...The thing is I can't even remember what characters most of the players were playing...I only remember the players and how rediculously paranoid that place made us...and the emotional trauma that module causes, lol. It is actually a pretty fond memory.
You should feel empowered to decide on whichever path you think will allow your players will have the most fun...even if they think you're a meanie DM that always tries to kill them.
The key phrase is 'legally play'.
According to the AL rules, you can't run an adventure or section adventure again...and expect to get more experience and/or treasure for it. However, if you and your players want to re-run an encounter, just to see how it would go, or because it was a cool fight, or because (insert reason here), and everyone is cool with the fact that they're not getting XP or treasure for it...then rock on. The rewards should be secondary to enjoying the game, and if your group is going to get enjoyment out of it, then it's worth doing.
But, if it's just a guilt thing, or the party missed the opportunity to get that magic item...live and learn. It happens to all of us at some point. I nearly did the same thing last week...because of our store's hours, we almost always have to split Expedition modules over 2 sessions.
Avross wrote:
Details (with spoilers)...
The party made it to Rorreth's room in Dues for the Dead. The store was about to close, with the kobold sentry yip-yipping to warn the guys in the back room, while the four zombies up front moved up to engage. They blew through the zombies, but we had to call it a night before the PCs actually made it into the back room. I figured we could wrap that up quickly at the start of next session, and did some prep work ahead of the game.
Two of the players were absent this week, but two new players showed up. In the interest of getting the newcomers in on the action quickly, I described them as having met Doomguide Yovir awhile after the original party entered, and that they were welcome to join the investigation. They took the shortcut down through the banquet hall, and arrived just in time to hear the sounds of fighting. Meanwhile, I described the missing players' characters as seeing more zombies down the hall, so they rushed off to fight them and 'hold the line' so the party wouldn't get swarmed (this combat was purely dramatic and had no effect on the outcome, it was just a contrivance for why their characters wouldn't be involved in the fight with Rorreth and pals).
The original party was Bard4/Fighter2/Rogue4/Wizard1/Sorc2 (APL 2.6 round up to 3, Strong). The new party became Fighter1/Fighter2/Cleric1/Wizard1/Sorc2 (APL 1.4, round down to 1, Weak).
As I said before, I prepared ahead of time for a Strong encounter, and included the three extra kobolds as suggested when the fighting began. However, the party was now 'weak,' and the encounter should have replaced the Knight with two zombies, and omitted the extra kobolds. This is a pretty massive difference in what the new party could reasonably expect to handle, and the difficulty of the encounter was entirely a matter of me being absentminded.
Nevvur wrote:
I still dont understand how you botched it?
A game starts with 7 players. If 2 die during the game you still have 7 characters, its just 2 of them arnt in a position to help the party anymore. The APL and difficulty level is decided before you start the scenario. So if it starts on strong, then is strong throughout the scenario. If you start a new version of the scenario, then again you calculate the power level of the threat at the start of the game. You dont modify it because a dude left or his character died. In this case there is no difference about people leaving mid way through the game, an encounter in OR their characters dying.
What I wouldnt of done is allow 2 characters to join in the table. A) they miss out on the main gist of the story B) they might be horribly underpowered for the level of difficulty and C) Im not entirely sure thats legal to do anyway in Society play.
This isnt encounters where you can just have characters come in and out every session. We are talking abouy a self contained scenario here
Kalani wrote:
Maybe two of the players had to bail out in the middle of the adventure especially if an emergency pops up.
But, I do find the inflexibility in having "decided before you start the scenario" the diffiiculty of an adventure saddening. If a DM can't adjust for a permanent loss of two players with the relative powerloss to the party that will, more often than not (especially with a tier one adventure), lead to a wipe of the party due to a perception of a rule, then we, as a community as a whole, are doomed to present new players with a substandard product that will more likely turn them away from the game.
Nevvur wrote:
abanathie wrote:
While it's unfortunate this happened the way it did, I don't think there should be any provisions for a "do-over" in AL play, unfortunately.
Coredump00 wrote:
I'd think it is okay to reverse the deaths, but as other people have said above, they are unable to play through the scenario again in any official manner.
Generally, DM errors have to be corrected in a timely manner. You can't retroactively correct the error if the characters have since been played through several sessions. Since it's been less than a week, you can most likely make corrections to their log sheets as they probably haven't played anything else yet. That being said, I would not award them any gold or XP for the last encounter, even if they would have normally earned it, simply to shield their log sheets from future potential criticism.
If there will not be any reward (xp, gp, downtime, renown, etc.) for replaying an encounter or—even a whole adventure—then it's completely outside the purview of the Adventurers League and you can do whatever you like and consider fun. Just remember, the replay doesn't go on the characters' logsheets and they don't earn anything for the do-over. Just have fun and see what "might have" happened.
Thanks for the input guys.
I'm just going to call it a loss and keep moving along. I'd love to make it up to the players, but the best way to do that (within AL guidelines) is to be a better DM. Live and learn.
Nevvur wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Avross wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
abanathie wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
It's always easier to win arguments when you get to make up what the other guy believes. 
About the "waiting" thing...
Player 1-2: Were not present when the adventure began, but were present when the party wiped.
Player 3-5: Were present when the adventure began, and when the party wiped.
Player 6-7: Were present when the adventure began, but were absent when the party wiped.
Player 2-7: My Thursday night Expeditions table is their only public event (Players 6-7 did Ep.1-3 HotDQ, but no longer participate in that event)
Player 1 will most likely not return, as he is involved in other events. If he does return, returning to the botched encounter could get tricky. Since players 2-7 are only involved with this one group, I don't see the harm in re-doing the encounter for them. Nothing would have transpired in the waiting period. It would essentially be like picking up where we left off the week before the wipe, with the possible inclusion of Player 2. Nothing unusual would appear in their session logs.
It was pointed out earlier there's nothing in the AL guide that explicitly covers this situation. I'm going to wait til Thursday to see who shows up this week, and make a decision then about how to proceed. If Player 1 and/or other new players show up, I'll just call it a bust. If it's only the original party and they want to redo it, we'll probably do that. As has been said in many other threads, the AL police aren't going to come by and kick the door down.
Coredump00 wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
The characters that left and did not get to finish the adventure only get XP/Gold relating to what they had been a part of up until that point (and only the portion they would have recieved normally X/# of players), they do not gain downtime or renown. The players that died during the adventure get nothing as they used faction charity. Expeditions really aren't supposed to be split up and I do not like that you allowed new characters to join in during the middle of one. (session separated or not)
I'd like there to be some clarification on whether or not Expeditions can be segmented like that as it creates a lot of sticky situations.
I also think that the time limit to correct an action is limited to immediately after it occurred, not after the play session is over and most certainly not after you've already played another module. You asked this question on the AL boards pertaining to the AL OP campaign and that part is not negotiable if you want to play by the book.
If you want to replay that fight later for funsies I don't see a problem with that, but absolutely no change should be allowed to affect the player's log or character sheets.
Might seem harsh, but there's a line in the sand and no one gets to cross it. (or else everyone does >.>)
Ravix wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Pauper wrote:
You seem to be trying to twist what I said, so I'll simply reiterate -- if a correction can be made easily and quickly, there's no reason not to make one. But 'fixing mistakes' isn't something that should be expected or presumed, because the assumption is that what happens at the table, however it happens, happens.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Couple of details to add to this little mess...
3 of the 5 players involved in the wipe have no experience with D&D and RPGs outside this event. The other 2 have never run through this module, which is why I chose it. Point being, none of them are even aware that I used the wrong 'difficulty setting.' If we simply move on and I say nothing, they'll be none the wiser. One thing I like about this option (other than avoiding additional complications) is that it sets a precedent: this DM isn't going to pull punches, we have to fight smart, and the consequences are going to be real when we hit tier 2 and there's no more faction charity.
Whether it's permissible to run these modules as split-sessions, and to add PCs to a session in progress is more complicated. My FLGS runs a tight ship. We get 7-10PM. Three hours might be enough for a table of experienced players to finish most modules, but I have yet to run a session where it wasn't someone's first or second time role playing ever. I'm thrilled to introduce new players to the game, but they slow the session down. We either play 7-10 PM and deal with split sessions, or we conform to a no-split-session rule (if it exists) and don't play at all. I feel confident in saying the FLGS and WotC prefer to get people involved in AL more than adhering to the rules. I know I do, even as someone who otherwise strives to follow them.
Nevvur wrote:
Live and learn
The DM could just inform the players that he needs to 'audit' the character logs and erase the specific adventure entries....hey look we need to run this adventure here! That other game? It was a scary dream.
While I was previously under the belief DMs could audit log sheets, Robert Adducci corrected me of this misunderstanding. We are not authorized to make/alter entries on a players character sheet or log sheet.
We are authorized to deny access to items, stats, levels, XP, etc in which a discrepancy exists and the player is unable to provide documentation.