Advice for Death House/ new DM etiquette/ moral quandries

[Ukala]

Hi everyone,

I could use some advice about how hard a choice I can ask my players to make- basically, can I actually encourage them to kill one of their own party, or put them in a situation where something terrible will happen no matter what they do.

Our group's regular DM needs a break this month, so I'm going to step in and run Death House as a one-shot. Our DM is going to play as an NPC from last session, and I've got a good explanation for how they got there and why the NPC is now with them.

Because the party is five level 4 adventurers, I want to crank things up a bit in the house, especially the final chamber where they're asked to make a blood sacrifice. It seems like Death House as written is a pretty easy moral choice- killing a party member is bad, killing a monster is good, killing a pet rat or running away isn't ideal, but it's better than nothing.

I really want to make them struggle a bit, so instead of the shambling mound, I'm making the final monster be the missing third Durst child, Rose and Thorn's older brother, who Strahd locked in this dungeon for centuries for the sins of his parents. I'll give him either the stats of an NPC Mage (CR 6) or a Drow Mage (CR 7). The twist is that he believes that the blood sacrifice will free him from this prison in which he's being unjustly kept. So this gives the adventurers a much harder choice- fight an innocent (but very powerful and dangerous) child, run away and leave him to his fate, or kill a party member. Since the NPC from last session our DM is playing was an assassin that tried and failed to kill us, they may be happy to sacrifice him, but they're all actually very nice people, so I think that would be tough for them.

Is suggesting that a party kill one of its own too much to ask? My DM has mentioned to me that he wishes there was more internal conflict between our warlock and cleric, whose patron (Dendar) and deity (Kelemvor) are pretty strongly ideologically opposed, and I'm hoping this will shake our entire party out of our current alignment, which feels like everyone is true neutral. Also, is a CR 6 or CR 7 opponent appropriate for a party of of 5 4th-level adventurers? This is my very first time DMing, so I don't want the encounter to be too unbalanced. Kobold Fight Club ranks a Drow Mage as a "deadly" encounter for that group, but I've also heard that D&D's CR system is underpowered.

Thanks very much!

[Unoriginal]

If it's an one-shot, why not create characters just for the occasion?

That way there will be no hurt feeling over dead character.

[Mellack]

In my opinion, promoting PvP is not a good idea. The game works better when players work together as a group.

[Ukala]

If it's an one-shot, why not create characters just for the occasion?

That way there will be no hurt feeling over dead character.

It's pretty short notice, and my DM and I agreed that we don't want to ask our friends to spend the time to do it. We're all coworkers, too, so we all know when everyone is really busy, and right now most of our players are in a time crunch, and wouldn't be able to get a new character together. Also, they'd still have the same moral issues over killing a party member- even more so, because with new characters, everyone would be on equal footing, rather than there being one PC that isn't a true member of the party.

[stoutstien]

If your players enjoy playing in the grey area of morality don't try to force them to change just for the sake of change. Any situation is meaningless if you don't have long term consequences. I've found getting the player involved in something they actually care about will quickly solidify character concepts

[Man_Over_Game]

Creating PvP for a first time DM isn't exactly something I'd recommend. Few people are happy about a character dying. It means they can temporarily no longer participate, and the effort they had up to that point is now lost. Lastly, if it's something that HAS to happen, they will feel that their choices don't matter.

You're suggesting 3 options:

Kill the boss AND the innocent.
Kill themselves.
Get lucky.

And relying on luck isn't generally how players should want to "win" DnD.

EVERYTHING about the game needs to be the player's fault in order for it to be fun. They won? It's their fault. Someone died? It's their fault.
If you put enough information for them to recognize a "blood price" needs to be paid in this place, and they didn't prepare for it, that's their fault. If they did prepare for it and keep their assassin buddy ready for disposal, that's also their fault.

But putting them in a locked chamber, throwing away the key, and saying "die for it" isn't really something that they could have prevented, prepared for, or do much about. You can still do that, but just remember that DnD is a game, and people like knowing who to blame for their failures in games.

And if they can't blame themselves, they'll blame the game or you.

This is why, as a DM, I give out far too much information. They'll miss the first 2 clues I threw at them, but they'll catch on by the third. Lacking information doesn't make a fun game, making poor decisions despite having information does.

My players sometimes come across clues as obvious as a sign with a skull on it, splattered with real blood and guts from some kind of nearby explosion. If they ignore my warnings, then the gloves are off and I have permission to ruin their lives. It's a fine balance.

[Ukala]

If your players enjoy playing in the grey area of morality don't try to force them to change just for the sake of change. Any situation is meaningless if you don't have long term consequences. I've found getting the player involved in something they actually care about will quickly solidify character concepts

Good point. Up to now, we haven't really had many moral choices to make, so it's less that our general neutrality is an active choice, and more that it's just the default until something comes up- and I'm considering "making something come up." Since I'm not the real DM for this campaign, I don't want to push too hard and step on our DM's toes and get in the way of his storytelling, so I think I'll back off a bit. Having them choose between helping this relatively innocent child or not is probably enough, without actually encouraging them to sacrifice the NPC. If they want to do that, they'll get there on their own.

[wilhelmdubdub]

If you wanted to see if they would do it without any hard feelings of having one "get voted off the island," you could run a DMPC and see what happens.

[stoutstien]

Creating PvP for a first time DM isn't exactly something I'd recommend. Few people are happy about a character dying. It means they can temporarily no longer participate, and the effort they had up to that point is now lost. Lastly, if it's something that HAS to happen, they will feel that their choices don't matter.

You're suggesting 3 options:

Kill the boss AND the innocent.
Kill themselves.
Get lucky.

And relying on luck isn't generally how players should want to "win" DnD.

EVERYTHING about the game needs to be the player's fault in order for it to be fun. They won? It's their fault. Someone died? It's their fault.
If you put enough information for them to recognize a "blood price" needs to be paid in this place, and they didn't prepare for it, that's their fault. If they did prepare for it and keep their assassin buddy ready for disposal, that's also their fault.

But putting them in a locked chamber, throwing away the key, and saying "die for it" isn't really something that they could have prevented, prepared for, or do much about. You can still do that, but just remember that DnD is a game, and people like knowing who to blame for their failures in games.

And if they can't blame themselves, they'll blame the game or you.

This is why, as a DM, I give out far too much information. They'll miss the first 2 clues I threw at them, but they'll catch on by the third. Lacking information doesn't make a fun game, making poor decisions despite having information does.

My players sometimes come across clues as obvious as a sign with a skull on it, splattered with real blood and guts from some kind of nearby explosion. If they ignore my warnings, then the gloves are off and I have permission to ruin their lives. It's a fine balance.

Well said, give the players the tools and information to make a meaningful difference/ decision.

[Ukala]

Creating PvP for a first time DM isn't exactly something I'd recommend. Few people are happy about a character dying. It means they can temporarily no longer participate, and the effort they had up to that point is now lost. Lastly, if it's something that HAS to happen, they will feel that their choices don't matter.

You're suggesting 3 options:

Kill the boss AND the innocent.
Kill themselves.
Get lucky.

And relying on luck isn't generally how players should want to "win" DnD.

EVERYTHING about the game needs to be the player's fault in order for it to be fun. They won? It's their fault. Someone died? It's their fault.
If you put enough information for them to recognize a "blood price" needs to be paid in this place, and they didn't prepare for it, that's their fault. If they did prepare for it and keep their assassin buddy ready for disposal, that's also their fault.

But putting them in a locked chamber, throwing away the key, and saying "die for it" isn't really something that they could have prevented, prepared for, or do much about. You can still do that, but just remember that DnD is a game, and people like knowing who to blame for their failures in games.

And if they can't blame themselves, they'll blame the game or you.

This is why, as a DM, I give out far too much information. They'll miss the first 2 clues I threw at them, but they'll catch on by the third. Lacking information doesn't make a fun game, making poor decisions despite having information does.

Really good advice about letting the players take responsibility for their own success and failure. I don't think I remember any indication in the Death House text that the PCs would need to make a sacrifice. I should probably drop a few more clues along the way, to prepare them for the choice that they're going to have to make- along with more hints that there's a third child they haven't met yet.

I definitely don't want them to blame me, since next month, I'll be sitting next to them again playing my own PC in our normal campaign, and I don't want there to be any rifts in our party- at least none that I'm putting there. Our DM is definitely setting up scenarios in which we might pick sides within our own party.

[Ukala]

Creating PvP for a first time DM isn't exactly something I'd recommend. Few people are happy about a character dying. It means they can temporarily no longer participate, and the effort they had up to that point is now lost. Lastly, if it's something that HAS to happen, they will feel that their choices don't matter.

You're suggesting 3 options:

Kill the boss AND the innocent.
Kill themselves.
Get lucky.

And relying on luck isn't generally how players should want to "win" DnD.

EVERYTHING about the game needs to be the player's fault in order for it to be fun. They won? It's their fault. Someone died? It's their fault.
If you put enough information for them to recognize a "blood price" needs to be paid in this place, and they didn't prepare for it, that's their fault. If they did prepare for it and keep their assassin buddy ready for disposal, that's also their fault.

But putting them in a locked chamber, throwing away the key, and saying "die for it" isn't really something that they could have prevented, prepared for, or do much about. You can still do that, but just remember that DnD is a game, and people like knowing who to blame for their failures in games.

And if they can't blame themselves, they'll blame the game or you.

This is why, as a DM, I give out far too much information. They'll miss the first 2 clues I threw at them, but they'll catch on by the third. Lacking information doesn't make a fun game, making poor decisions despite having information does.

My players sometimes come across clues as obvious as a sign with a skull on it, splattered with real blood and guts from some kind of nearby explosion. If they ignore my warnings, then the gloves are off and I have permission to ruin their lives. It's a fine balance.

Other question- is a CR 6 or 7 Mage too much for this party? Like I said, I don't have a good sense of whether the CR system is balanced the way it's intended to be.

[stoutstien]

Other question- is a CR 6 or 7 Mage too much for this party? Like I said, I don't have a good sense of whether the CR system is balanced the way it's intended to be.

Way to many factors to answer this past maybe. Set up a pseudo party and do a blow by blow and see what happens.

[Man_Over_Game]

Other question- is a CR 6 or 7 Mage too much for this party? Like I said, I don't have a good sense of whether the CR system is balanced the way it's intended to be.

It's a bit of a hard gauge, especially with mages who generally end a fight immediately, or end up dying without doing much. I'd recommend lowering some of the damage that he does, giving him some kind of summon ability, and Force Wall himself in while his minions/traps deal with the players. Generally, the answer isn't to "make up a bigger boss", but to find some way to inflate more actions into the combat.

This might mean adding more minions (as I recommended) or giving the boss Legendary Actions (which allow them to act more often in combat, but without acting on a burst effect). The concern with Legendary Actions and casters is that casters are inherently more powerful than melee when given more actions, so I'd recommend some kind of minion or trap.

With the default stats, a CR 6 or 7 should be fine. Making the CR 6 creature with Legendary Actions (limited to cantrips) should work just fine if you don't like the minion idea, as long as you jack up the health. Adding things like a temporary hitpoint generator (some kind of trap), resistances (some kind of ritual) or minions will increase effective health so he doesn't go down like a sack of potatoes.

If going for the single boss route, I'd give him a load of defensive abilities he can use for his Legendary Actions (Absorb Elements, Shield, Blade Ward, etc), and allow him to cast big damaging spells during his turn.

[Sahe]

Other question- is a CR 6 or 7 Mage too much for this party? Like I said, I don't have a good sense of whether the CR system is balanced the way it's intended to be.

In my personal experience, no probably not. Due to the action Economy the Mage may get 1 or 2 rounds of casting spells, maybe less, if he's alone. In my game I have a Monk who is basically Batman and at level 2 was making short work of CR2 Monsters all on her own. Granted thanks to good rolls, she does have a 20 in Dex.

Encounter Difficulty comes down to a couple of things and CR is only one of them and by far not a perfect measurement, more like a rough guideline.

Number of monsters is very important because that determines the number of actions each side gets. Due to Bounded Accuracy 5 CR 1 Monsters are probably a tougher and deadlier challenge than a single CR 5 creature. Obviously this can vary from creature to creature.

Lastly the most important factor is still luck. It doesn't matter that you're only fighting 5 Stirges at Level 4 when you roll bad and they roll good, you're gonna lose a lot of resources. On the other hand that badass Dragon may fail it's saving throw against Stunning Strike or Hold Monster or any other kind of effect a bunch and be useless and be slaughtered anticlimactically.

[GooeyChewie]

In a normal play through of the Death House, the Shambling Mound is a deadly encounter and the players should run. Standing their ground means taking a very real risk of a total party kill. The role of the Shambling Mound isn’t really a boss for the party to fight; it’s the creeping death which keeps the players moving towards the house that wants to kill them. However you decide to adjust the encounter for their level, make it clear that whatever appears can kill the PCs with ease, but also that they can outrun it.

I recommend a horde of Shambling Mounds. :-)

[Laserlight]

When we ran through Death House, I don't think any of us even considered "offer a sacrifice" as a choice. Your typical Good cleric or paladin probably won't go along with it. Also, why should the players trust someone who says "Hey, we're not attacking you now, but we'd like you to reduce your fighting ability 20% at no cost to us, okay?"

[Keravath]

1) Drow mage (CR7)
Some might survive, might be a TPK ... depends on initiative, action economy, what classes are involved and where the encounter takes place.
Drow mage has poor AC, limited hit points and no bonus to constitution for concentration checks.
Drow mage is a 10th level casts with 2 5th level spell slots as well as greater invisibility and lightning bolt.

If everyone is lined up enough then the drow can probably hit at least 2 ... maybe 4 with a 10d6 lightning bolt for an average 35 damage before save. Level 4 fighter with 14 con has a typical 36 hit points. Wizard with 14 con has 26. So a little bad luck or decent placement and most of the party will be gone in one turn. On the other hand, if the party can kill the drow in one turn (he has average 45 hit points) they might survive.

The drow can also summon up a demon to help him among other options.

The problem with mage encounters is that they can be very dicey depending on what is cast and whether the saves are made.

Although the CR6 mage might seem a bit weaker ... they have fireball rather than lightning bolt which is MUCH easier to drop on the whole party no matter what their formation. The CR6 mage also has cone of cold ... 8d8 damage ... average 36 ... which is also much easier to drop on the entire party. Either the 10d6 fireball or the 8d8 cone of cold have a decent chance of taking out 2-4 party members (though if everyone is lucky and saves ... and then everyone is lucky and hits ... the mage could go down in one round). The mage has an average of 40 hit points ... d8+3 =7.5 is the average damage at levels 1-4 (unless folks have feats or are a monk to allow extra attacks). So if everyone hits ... the mage still may get two turns of combat.

If the mage is surprised ... they will likely die before they can do anything. If the mage gets initiative the party stands a good chance of dying (and them then asking you ... "You put us up against a 9th or 10th level SPELLCASTER at 4th level!!!" :) ).

Basically, a single mage encounter is something of a "save or suck" encounter and as a result it isn't that much fun win or lose without some creative work from the DM.

2) Forcing a group to sacrifice a party member isn't really fun for anyone. Many will just say no and fight it out even if it is a losing cause ... and then they turn around and quite rightly blame the DM for setting up the situation in the first place.

No win situations DO happen sometimes ... BUT THEY ARE NOT FUN. If you have ever run into one in the real world, you don't enjoy it, you don't usually consider it a learning experience, it usually just sucks and you work your way through it. I'm not sure why DMs would want to put one into a role playing game especially without suitably foreshadowing the events to come so that the players are prepared for whatever choices are required. It can be fun for both the players and DM to explore outside the comfort zone of the players and characters in regards to moral decisions but not in a railroaded choose a party member to die or fight it out sort of way :)

[GooeyChewie]

When we ran through Death House, I don't think any of us even considered "offer a sacrifice" as a choice.

That’ll be true of most groups. I did have one group which had the Druid shapeshift and “killed” the animal form. It probably shouldn’t technically count, but I gave points for creativity and let them have it.

[NRSASD]

Creating PvP for a first time DM isn't exactly something I'd recommend. Few people are happy about a character dying. It means they can temporarily no longer participate, and the effort they had up to that point is now lost. Lastly, if it's something that HAS to happen, they will feel that their choices don't matter.

You're suggesting 3 options:

Kill the boss AND the innocent.
Kill themselves.
Get lucky.

And relying on luck isn't generally how players should want to "win" DnD.

EVERYTHING about the game needs to be the player's fault in order for it to be fun. They won? It's their fault. Someone died? It's their fault.
If you put enough information for them to recognize a "blood price" needs to be paid in this place, and they didn't prepare for it, that's their fault. If they did prepare for it and keep their assassin buddy ready for disposal, that's also their fault.

But putting them in a locked chamber, throwing away the key, and saying "die for it" isn't really something that they could have prevented, prepared for, or do much about. You can still do that, but just remember that DnD is a game, and people like knowing who to blame for their failures in games.

And if they can't blame themselves, they'll blame the game or you.

This is why, as a DM, I give out far too much information. They'll miss the first 2 clues I threw at them, but they'll catch on by the third. Lacking information doesn't make a fun game, making poor decisions despite having information does.

My players sometimes come across clues as obvious as a sign with a skull on it, splattered with real blood and guts from some kind of nearby explosion. If they ignore my warnings, then the gloves are off and I have permission to ruin their lives. It's a fine balance.

As far as advice goes, nothing I was going to say hasn't been said already by Man Over Game, and more eloquently.

As others have mentioned, a single mage tends to be either crushingly easy or immediately fatal for the whole party, with very little in between. I'd give him a few minions that he'll send in first, because it

a. buys him a couple of rounds to do things while the PCs pulp his minions
and
b. prevents him from instantly fireballing/lightning bolting/general AoE-ing the party to death with a good initiative on the first round because his minions are in the blast zone.

If they haven't neutralized the caster before they've finished tackling his minions, the PCs deserve to get nuked. It's as true in D&D as it is in Shadowrun: Always geek the mage!

I am actually in the middle of running a heavily modified version of Death House for 7 players right now. Best of luck fellow DM!