Players not thinking - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 TStrube Dec 11, 2014 13:15:39	So I've been running a campaign for about a few weeks now. And in that time I have killed six PCs. I'm not one of those killer DMs, I dont enjoy killing PCs unless it makes for good storytelling. Here is a list of all the parties that existed and the PCs that have died from in that party: Party 1: A monk, a ranger, and a fighter This was the first session. Simple quest, clean out the newly purchased castle of a wealthy merchant. They all made it through almost all of the castle until in one room the monk decided to run in and try and singlehandedly kill three stirges when he was already a little injured. They sucked him dry before his party members could even enter the room. TLDR: Monk ran ahead and died Party 2: A bard, a ranger, and a fighter Same ranger and fighter from last party, they are going to clear out an ancient tomb for a bishop who will then raise the monk from the dead. Inside the tomb they were doing quite well until they came to the BBEG. While two members walked in to confront her the third wandered off to a side room. He managed to get killed off by a shadow before he could run back to his party members. This resulted in a TPK while they decided to run from the BBEG but not through chambers they had already cleared, but instead through the unexplroed but "shorter" path to the exit. Our body count is now to 4. TLDR: Bard split the party and died, Ranger and fighter tried to run away in an unexplored direction Party 3: A cleric, a fighter, and a rogue The party has finally decided to get a dedicated healer. They're now going back to the castle that party 1 was first exploring to finish the job. Mind you these are level 3 characters who are going in to clean out a dungeon/castle originally designed for level 1-2 characters. The minute they step in to the basement of the castle a doppelganger who has changed himself to look EXACTLY like the rogue appears and tries to "befriend" them. They roll Insight and because one person got a total of 17 they assumed in a metagame sense that when I said he doesn't seem like hes lying that he wasn't. Which he of course wasn't; they asked what he was doing down there and he told them he was lost and just wanted to get them out. Fast forward an hour or so into gameplay he manages to convince the rogue to go off alone with him for some treasure he has hidden away. He of course is then killed by the doppelganger, I pull him to the side and explain and tell him he'll be the doppelganger for the rest of the session and his mission is to seperate the party members and kill them individually. The cleric caught on to something being up and was trying to make it clear to the fighter that something was wrong. THe figher didn't realize, and not the character but the actual player. The cleric did a great job of roleplaying and not metagaming to the extreme when he realized it was a doppelganger. The fighter didn't realize it was a doppelganger till he asked why the "rogue" wasn't doing normal rogue stuff when the cleric attacked the doppelganger. The only survivor ended up being the cleric/ TLDR: Rogue wandered off alone to be killed by a doppelganger, fighter was oblivious and ended also being killed by doppelganger. My question is am I being a bad DM or are my players just not thinking? We used to run 4e and in almost a year of 4e gameplay had only one player character death. At the end of last session one of my players told me I have a really bad habit of killing PCs and its making the game not fun for him. I didn't want to point out that these fights should be easy if they were thinking and working together but I didn't want to start an argument. In case anyone is wondering: XP Value wise I haven't thrown anything harder than a "Moderate" Encounter at them yet they're dropping like flies. Player 1 was the Monk, Bard, Fighter Player 2 was the Fighter, Fighter, Cleric Player 3 was the Ranger, Ranger, Rogue I have made sure to place healing potions (more than there really should be) in the dungeons to help keep them up I have made sure to use very descriptive language to get them to understand how dangerous some monsters/situations are. I often times implore them to stop and take a short rest. I do everything but tell them the CR of the monsters in the next upcoming fight. I'm getting burned out from having to think of new ways to make them stop dying while also make it so the game is not just a cakewalk.
#2 AaronOfBarbaria Dec 11, 2014 13:51:17	Have you been adhering to the "XP per adventuring day" advice? As-is, I can't quite tell if this is the players overestimating their characters' ability to handle danger, or there being an issue with the players thinking that they are meant to do a whole "clear" in a single day but being up against more than they are expected to be able to survive in one day. It would also be helpful to know the mix of easier encounters you've thrown in with the moderate ones, or really just all the encounters they faced from their last time being at full resources up until someone died, so that whether you are expecting too much of the characters can be assessed.
#3 iserith Dec 11, 2014 14:05:10	TStrube wrote:
#4 Shiroiken Dec 11, 2014 14:18:56	Session 1: Monk player was stupid. He deserved to die. Session 2: Bard (who I assume was the same player as S1 Monk) split the party and deserved to die. The other two suffered for his foolishness, but also didn't think to run through the explored region, so they kinda deserve it too. Session 3: Rogue feel for an old trick. It happens (has been for decades), and the player did the right thing by taking over as the doppleganer. He showed good RP skill. Didn't fully understand what the Fighter's meta-game was, but I'm never sad when a meta-gamer suffers for meta-gaming. A few things: Encounter Guidelines are really not that useful. They can help prevent bad enounter design by newer DMs, but you really want to build a bit based off the party's composition. With no dedicated healer, I would have started with more Easy encounters. 4E players have a harder time adapting to 5E. I noticed this during the playtest, because in 4E it was assumed you should win just about every fight. I had a player amazed during the playtest, because she wasn't sure they were going to win a particularly hard combat (they also used poor decisions to make it harder). I hope after 6 deaths in 4 weeks that 5E is much more a thinking player's game.
(Reply to #4) jessequentin	Session 3... I guess the doppleganger was thrown in to keep things interesting... But when they meet, the doppleganger looks EXACTLY like the rogue? And nobody got the hint that something's not quite right? You could have gave them a little more on the Insight check - like the doppleganger seems to be telling the truth but something seems off in general about him. Though I don't know how well the 17 roll compared to his deception. Overall, you could have fudged more here or there, but it sounds like you did what you could to keep them alive. Maybe next session, put up large signs saying "DON'T SPLIT THE PARTY" and "STRANGER DANGER". And sprinkle in a large helping of "Are you sure?" after every decision.
#6 iserith Dec 11, 2014 15:29:53	TStrube wrote:
#7 Rhenny Dec 11, 2014 16:13:44	Well, certainly the 3rd session with the doppelgänger was different than the other two. It reminds me of the Betrayel at House on Haunted Hill board game ( I think that's what it's called, where one of the players eventually becomes an ally to the foe and has to kill the others). That could be a fun style game, but more for a one shot. Are the players having fun? That's the main thing. I've been lucky. In my game, when a player died, he was ok with it. And in other games I've played in, death has been kind of fun for the players who got their pcs killed. Oh, in one game I ran, the rogue futzed with some magic runs and was teleported to another area. Instead of immediately trying to get back he had to explore. It was exciting. He encountered a medusa and a flesh gollum. I gave his pc an inspiration point because he was playing in character and he made the game more exciting. He failed his first save vs medusa gaze, but the inspiration saved him. Then after getting pummeled by the gollum, one hit from becoming pulped, he disengaged and figured out how to use the runes to teleport back to the group.
(Reply to #7) AaronOfBarbaria	Rhenny wrote:
(Reply to #8) Rhenny	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#10 Coredump00 Dec 11, 2014 16:39:49	I don't think it mattered, but.... The EXP guidlines are based on 4 PCs, for only 3 PCs, itis 1 level different. Also, small parties are naturally more sporadic than larger parties, its much easier for them to all have a bad round than a larger party.
#11 paulstrait Dec 12, 2014 15:38:11	Are your players unhappy with the lethality of the campaign? About ten years ago I ran an especially lethal campaign, and my players still fondly reminisce about that deathtrap of a campaign. I've had complaints that subsequent campaigns were not sufficiently lethal, but I've never had anyone complain about lethality. In their hearts, I think players like it when any momemnt could be the end. Gives them perspective. At least that is true of my experience. Of course, I ran another campaign that lasted 5 years or so and only was kind of lethal during the first year or two, after which the characters were sufficiently powerful to avoid/overcome death as they pleased. There were some upsides to that, as having the same characters in a campaign spanning many years really builds a rich story. Variety is a good thing.
(Reply to #11) Rhenny	paulstrait wrote:
#13 Llenlleawg Dec 12, 2014 6:46:06	It's quite possible that the players have had a combination of bad playing (e.g. splitting up) and bad luck (both in dice rolls and, in example #2, taking a chance on the short way out and having that turn out to be the bad choice; it might of course have been a reasonable risk). You, in the end, can't control either of those. I want to speak to what you can control, or at least, what you can confirm to be true or not. TStrube wrote:
#14 iserith Dec 12, 2014 6:50:12	Llenlleawg wrote:
#15 Kentus Dec 12, 2014 7:18:44	TStrube wrote:
#16 Dreamstryder Dec 14, 2014 16:24:46	You're not a bad DM. It appears your players are assuming they'll survive no matter what choices they make, subconsciously or not. 4e is built to be more forgiving, and they may be used to that paradigm without realizing others are possible. Any player will have to adjust one's expectations and feelings of entitlement when the game changes difficulty. It's important to point out the issue of expectations and whence the challenge comes in your game, because it is easily taken for granted. If there are other games they play that are similarly "challenging but fun" (ie Dark Souls or Etrian Odyssey, in video game terms), it will be easier to point out the paradigm differences.
#17 Lashan Dec 15, 2014 11:26:54	I say throw in an NPC. For one, three in an adventuring party can be on the small side. Having someone else to help out should just keep the party alive in that sense. Also, you can have this person give some feedback to the situation and let them know how stupid they are being. You could've had the NPC hold the monk back before he rushed into the room and say, "That's too dangerous, close the door!". The NPC can also give advice such as, "maybe we should camp here for a bit. We are a bit beat up".
#18 Sorxores Dec 15, 2014 11:54:23	TStrube wrote:
#19 iserith Dec 15, 2014 12:02:49	I see no value whatsoever in the blanket statement of "Do not split the party." What a tired notion. How about "Sometimes it's okay to split the party and sometimes it can make things more dangerous..." instead?
(Reply to #19) AaronOfBarbaria	iserith wrote:
#21 BuddhaKai Dec 15, 2014 15:02:09	TStrube wrote:
#22 Youngy Dec 15, 2014 21:09:04	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#23 Imaculata Dec 16, 2014 0:12:43	I second that, it's a lot of fun, and has a lot of different scenarios.
#24 BRJN Dec 16, 2014 16:33:16	When I first looked over the 5e rules, I realized characters are much lighter on HP than in 4e. Besides the tactical discussion above, the fact that everybody is FRAGILE does not seem to have sunk in to your players yet. I would keep creating one-shot dungeons until your PCs figure out how to get everybody out alive. Only then would I start a connected campaign - and I would ask the players if they want to create / re-create a particular character for long-term play. I also would create an NPC to fill out whatever 'job slot' the PCs don't have, and use him as a backup. Discuss whether the other players want to do something other than dungeon crawls - courtier work (give the Bard a chance to shine), urban adventures (Rogue), frontier exploration (Ranger). This particular group just may not have their head(s) in a place that allows castle clearing without getting in extremis.
#25 Gnarl Dec 17, 2014 10:04:15	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #25) AaronOfBarbaria	Gnarl wrote:
#27 Gnarl Dec 17, 2014 13:59:00	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #27) AaronOfBarbaria	Gnarl wrote:
#29 Rhenny Dec 17, 2014 14:43:18	Sometimes splitting the party is more fun. Sometimes, the quiet ranger and rogue can scout or begin the attack with surprise because they have stealthed into position. Sometimes a DM builds the world and places monsters organically rather than strictly to "challenge the party."
#30 Noon Dec 18, 2014 1:08:54	I don't imagine all forces in the world increase in size or decrease in size when there are more or less plays (ala diablo 'Diablo's minions grow stronger!') So that means there are smaller forces around. A split party wants to engage those groups - and being smaller, probably can do so more easily than a larger group can. Also, they might want to keep their plans simple when split up.
#31 Chaosmancer Dec 19, 2014 20:48:18	Most of the advice on here is good, but I want to add something I didn't see mentioned. Unless most of your players agree they want signifigant changes to your style or to the encounters, don't ease up too much. The reason is fairly simplistic. Most advice here points out that these deaths seem like bad decisions and poor luck and those can be turned around. Doing so means that your players have a chance to feel awesome. "We survived and beat them! Finally!" Most people hate video game examples but it fits well here. I've often had a moment after overcoming a particularly grueling section. To finally feel like I figured it out, and conquered instead of reducing the difficulty artificially. If the players agree that you should tone down a bit, do so, but if they don't keep the pressure up because once they overcome they will feel awesome.
#32 BRJN Dec 20, 2014 10:59:54	Noon wrote:
#33 Emerikol Dec 22, 2014 4:38:59	You can blame 4e for some of your players lack of judgment. In the Gygaxian style of play you are punished for stupidity and a lack of caution. In 4e it really was almost impossible to die unless your DM exceeded the encounter guidelines. Maybe some out of game discussions would help. Explain that 5e is a lot more dangerous especially at low levels. For me that is a lot more fun a game. If your players though would prefer to just look heroic without much mental effort then adjust the encounters to be easier and play the monsters fairly dumb. I started in 1e were life was very deadly. My players grew up fighting to survive especially early on. So 4e drove us crazy it was so boring. It is all about perspective and expectations. Figure out the style of game you all want and adjust.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

TStrube

Dec 11, 2014 13:15:39

So I've been running a campaign for about a few weeks now. And in that time I have killed six PCs. I'm not one of those killer DMs, I dont enjoy killing PCs unless it makes for good storytelling. Here is a list of all the parties that existed and the PCs that have died from in that party:

Party 1: A monk, a ranger, and a fighter

This was the first session. Simple quest, clean out the newly purchased castle of a wealthy merchant. They all made it through almost all of the castle until in one room the monk decided to run in and try and singlehandedly kill three stirges when he was already a little injured. They sucked him dry before his party members could even enter the room.

TLDR: Monk ran ahead and died

Party 2: A bard, a ranger, and a fighter

Same ranger and fighter from last party, they are going to clear out an ancient tomb for a bishop who will then raise the monk from the dead. Inside the tomb they were doing quite well until they came to the BBEG. While two members walked in to confront her the third wandered off to a side room. He managed to get killed off by a shadow before he could run back to his party members. This resulted in a TPK while they decided to run from the BBEG but not through chambers they had already cleared, but instead through the unexplroed but "shorter" path to the exit. Our body count is now to 4.

TLDR: Bard split the party and died, Ranger and fighter tried to run away in an unexplored direction

Party 3: A cleric, a fighter, and a rogue

The party has finally decided to get a dedicated healer. They're now going back to the castle that party 1 was first exploring to finish the job. Mind you these are level 3 characters who are going in to clean out a dungeon/castle originally designed for level 1-2 characters. The minute they step in to the basement of the castle a doppelganger who has changed himself to look EXACTLY like the rogue appears and tries to "befriend" them. They roll Insight and because one person got a total of 17 they assumed in a metagame sense that when I said he doesn't seem like hes lying that he wasn't. Which he of course wasn't; they asked what he was doing down there and he told them he was lost and just wanted to get them out. Fast forward an hour or so into gameplay he manages to convince the rogue to go off alone with him for some treasure he has hidden away. He of course is then killed by the doppelganger, I pull him to the side and explain and tell him he'll be the doppelganger for the rest of the session and his mission is to seperate the party members and kill them individually. The cleric caught on to something being up and was trying to make it clear to the fighter that something was wrong. THe figher didn't realize, and not the character but the actual player. The cleric did a great job of roleplaying and not metagaming to the extreme when he realized it was a doppelganger. The fighter didn't realize it was a doppelganger till he asked why the "rogue" wasn't doing normal rogue stuff when the cleric attacked the doppelganger. The only survivor ended up being the cleric/

TLDR: Rogue wandered off alone to be killed by a doppelganger, fighter was oblivious and ended also being killed by doppelganger.

My question is am I being a bad DM or are my players just not thinking? We used to run 4e and in almost a year of 4e gameplay had only one player character death. At the end of last session one of my players told me I have a really bad habit of killing PCs and its making the game not fun for him. I didn't want to point out that these fights should be easy if they were thinking and working together but I didn't want to start an argument.

In case anyone is wondering:

XP Value wise I haven't thrown anything harder than a "Moderate" Encounter at them yet they're dropping like flies.

Player 1 was the Monk, Bard, Fighter

Player 2 was the Fighter, Fighter, Cleric

Player 3 was the Ranger, Ranger, Rogue

I have made sure to place healing potions (more than there really should be) in the dungeons to help keep them up

I have made sure to use very descriptive language to get them to understand how dangerous some monsters/situations are. I often times implore them to stop and take a short rest. I do everything but tell them the CR of the monsters in the next upcoming fight. I'm getting burned out from having to think of new ways to make them stop dying while also make it so the game is not just a cakewalk.

AaronOfBarbaria

Dec 11, 2014 13:51:17

Have you been adhering to the "XP per adventuring day" advice?

As-is, I can't quite tell if this is the players overestimating their characters' ability to handle danger, or there being an issue with the players thinking that they are meant to do a whole "clear" in a single day but being up against more than they are expected to be able to survive in one day.

It would also be helpful to know the mix of easier encounters you've thrown in with the moderate ones, or really just all the encounters they faced from their last time being at full resources up until someone died, so that whether you are expecting too much of the characters can be assessed.

iserith

Dec 11, 2014 14:05:10

TStrube wrote:

Shiroiken

Dec 11, 2014 14:18:56

Session 1: Monk player was stupid. He deserved to die.

Session 2: Bard (who I assume was the same player as S1 Monk) split the party and deserved to die. The other two suffered for his foolishness, but also didn't think to run through the explored region, so they kinda deserve it too.

Session 3: Rogue feel for an old trick. It happens (has been for decades), and the player did the right thing by taking over as the doppleganer. He showed good RP skill. Didn't fully understand what the Fighter's meta-game was, but I'm never sad when a meta-gamer suffers for meta-gaming.

A few things:

Encounter Guidelines are really not that useful. They can help prevent bad enounter design by newer DMs, but you really want to build a bit based off the party's composition. With no dedicated healer, I would have started with more Easy encounters.

4E players have a harder time adapting to 5E. I noticed this during the playtest, because in 4E it was assumed you should win just about every fight. I had a player amazed during the playtest, because she wasn't sure they were going to win a particularly hard combat (they also used poor decisions to make it harder). I hope after 6 deaths in 4 weeks that 5E is much more a thinking player's game.

(Reply to #4)

jessequentin

Session 3... I guess the doppleganger was thrown in to keep things interesting... But when they meet, the doppleganger looks EXACTLY like the rogue? And nobody got the hint that something's not quite right?

You could have gave them a little more on the Insight check - like the doppleganger seems to be telling the truth but something seems off in general about him. Though I don't know how well the 17 roll compared to his deception.

Overall, you could have fudged more here or there, but it sounds like you did what you could to keep them alive.

Maybe next session, put up large signs saying "DON'T SPLIT THE PARTY" and "STRANGER DANGER". And sprinkle in a large helping of "Are you sure?" after every decision.

iserith

Dec 11, 2014 15:29:53

TStrube wrote:

Rhenny

Dec 11, 2014 16:13:44

Well, certainly the 3rd session with the doppelgänger was different than the other two. It reminds me of the Betrayel at House on Haunted Hill board game ( I think that's what it's called, where one of the players eventually becomes an ally to the foe and has to kill the others). That could be a fun style game, but more for a one shot.

Are the players having fun? That's the main thing. I've been lucky. In my game, when a player died, he was ok with it. And in other games I've played in, death has been kind of fun for the players who got their pcs killed.

Oh, in one game I ran, the rogue futzed with some magic runs and was teleported to another area. Instead of immediately trying to get back he had to explore. It was exciting. He encountered a medusa and a flesh gollum. I gave his pc an inspiration point because he was playing in character and he made the game more exciting. He failed his first save vs medusa gaze, but the inspiration saved him. Then after getting pummeled by the gollum, one hit from becoming pulped, he disengaged and figured out how to use the runes to teleport back to the group.

(Reply to #7)

AaronOfBarbaria

Rhenny wrote:

(Reply to #8)

Rhenny

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#10

Coredump00

Dec 11, 2014 16:39:49

I don't think it mattered, but.... The EXP guidlines are based on 4 PCs, for only 3 PCs, itis 1 level different. Also, small parties are naturally more sporadic than larger parties, its much easier for them to all have a bad round than a larger party.

#11

paulstrait

Dec 12, 2014 15:38:11

Are your players unhappy with the lethality of the campaign? About ten years ago I ran an especially lethal campaign, and my players still fondly reminisce about that deathtrap of a campaign. I've had complaints that subsequent campaigns were not sufficiently lethal, but I've never had anyone complain about lethality. In their hearts, I think players like it when any momemnt could be the end. Gives them perspective. At least that is true of my experience. Of course, I ran another campaign that lasted 5 years or so and only was kind of lethal during the first year or two, after which the characters were sufficiently powerful to avoid/overcome death as they pleased. There were some upsides to that, as having the same characters in a campaign spanning many years really builds a rich story. Variety is a good thing.

(Reply to #11)

Rhenny

paulstrait wrote:

#13

Llenlleawg

Dec 12, 2014 6:46:06

It's quite possible that the players have had a combination of bad playing (e.g. splitting up) and bad luck (both in dice rolls and, in example #2, taking a chance on the short way out and having that turn out to be the bad choice; it might of course have been a reasonable risk). You, in the end, can't control either of those. I want to speak to what you can control, or at least, what you can confirm to be true or not.

TStrube wrote:

#14

iserith

Dec 12, 2014 6:50:12

Llenlleawg wrote:

#15

Kentus

Dec 12, 2014 7:18:44

TStrube wrote:

#16

Dreamstryder

Dec 14, 2014 16:24:46

You're not a bad DM. It appears your players are assuming they'll survive no matter what choices they make, subconsciously or not. 4e is built to be more forgiving, and they may be used to that paradigm without realizing others are possible. Any player will have to adjust one's expectations and feelings of entitlement when the game changes difficulty. It's important to point out the issue of expectations and whence the challenge comes in your game, because it is easily taken for granted. If there are other games they play that are similarly "challenging but fun" (ie Dark Souls or Etrian Odyssey, in video game terms), it will be easier to point out the paradigm differences.

#17

Lashan

Dec 15, 2014 11:26:54

I say throw in an NPC. For one, three in an adventuring party can be on the small side. Having someone else to help out should just keep the party alive in that sense. Also, you can have this person give some feedback to the situation and let them know how stupid they are being. You could've had the NPC hold the monk back before he rushed into the room and say, "That's too dangerous, close the door!". The NPC can also give advice such as, "maybe we should camp here for a bit. We are a bit beat up".

#18

Sorxores

Dec 15, 2014 11:54:23

TStrube wrote:

#19

iserith

Dec 15, 2014 12:02:49

I see no value whatsoever in the blanket statement of "Do not split the party." What a tired notion. How about "Sometimes it's okay to split the party and sometimes it can make things more dangerous..." instead?

(Reply to #19)

AaronOfBarbaria

iserith wrote:

#21

BuddhaKai

Dec 15, 2014 15:02:09

TStrube wrote:

#22

Youngy

Dec 15, 2014 21:09:04

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#23

Imaculata

Dec 16, 2014 0:12:43

I second that, it's a lot of fun, and has a lot of different scenarios.

#24

BRJN

Dec 16, 2014 16:33:16

When I first looked over the 5e rules, I realized characters are much lighter on HP than in 4e. Besides the tactical discussion above, the fact that everybody is FRAGILE does not seem to have sunk in to your players yet.

I would keep creating one-shot dungeons until your PCs figure out how to get everybody out alive. Only then would I start a connected campaign - and I would ask the players if they want to create / re-create a particular character for long-term play. I also would create an NPC to fill out whatever 'job slot' the PCs don't have, and use him as a backup.

Discuss whether the other players want to do something other than dungeon crawls - courtier work (give the Bard a chance to shine), urban adventures (Rogue), frontier exploration (Ranger). This particular group just may not have their head(s) in a place that allows castle clearing without getting in extremis.

#25

Gnarl

Dec 17, 2014 10:04:15

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

(Reply to #25)

AaronOfBarbaria

Gnarl wrote:

#27

Gnarl

Dec 17, 2014 13:59:00

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

(Reply to #27)

AaronOfBarbaria

Gnarl wrote:

#29

Rhenny

Dec 17, 2014 14:43:18

Sometimes splitting the party is more fun. Sometimes, the quiet ranger and rogue can scout or begin the attack with surprise because they have stealthed into position. Sometimes a DM builds the world and places monsters organically rather than strictly to "challenge the party."

#30

Noon

Dec 18, 2014 1:08:54

I don't imagine all forces in the world increase in size or decrease in size when there are more or less plays (ala diablo 'Diablo's minions grow stronger!')

So that means there are smaller forces around. A split party wants to engage those groups - and being smaller, probably can do so more easily than a larger group can. Also, they might want to keep their plans simple when split up.

#31

Chaosmancer

Dec 19, 2014 20:48:18

Most of the advice on here is good, but I want to add something I didn't see mentioned.

Unless most of your players agree they want signifigant changes to your style or to the encounters, don't ease up too much. The reason is fairly simplistic. Most advice here points out that these deaths seem like bad decisions and poor luck and those can be turned around. Doing so means that your players have a chance to feel awesome. "We survived and beat them! Finally!"

Most people hate video game examples but it fits well here. I've often had a moment after overcoming a particularly grueling section. To finally feel like I figured it out, and conquered instead of reducing the difficulty artificially.

If the players agree that you should tone down a bit, do so, but if they don't keep the pressure up because once they overcome they will feel awesome.

#32

BRJN

Dec 20, 2014 10:59:54

Noon wrote:

#33

Emerikol

Dec 22, 2014 4:38:59

You can blame 4e for some of your players lack of judgment. In the Gygaxian style of play you are punished for stupidity and a lack of caution. In 4e it really was almost impossible to die unless your DM exceeded the encounter guidelines.

Maybe some out of game discussions would help. Explain that 5e is a lot more dangerous especially at low levels. For me that is a lot more fun a game. If your players though would prefer to just look heroic without much mental effort then adjust the encounters to be easier and play the monsters fairly dumb.

I started in 1e were life was very deadly. My players grew up fighting to survive especially early on. So 4e drove us crazy it was so boring. It is all about perspective and expectations. Figure out the style of game you all want and adjust.