Running a battle "until it feels good".

[NOhara24]

We had a player make a "test run" as a DM in our current group. Minor NPC encounter, and a battle based around 2 PC's history. They're wanted, in a sense.

The encounter starts out easy enough, plain and clear that this humanoid confronting the party is no ordinary person. Over the course of the battle, it becomes apparent that we're doing huge amounts of damage in a really short period of time.

The Cleric does 108 damage on her first turn. (DMM shenanigans)
Crusader gets a crit on an attack of opportunity, for 50 damage.
Over the course of the battle, we learn that we did 384 damage.

Everyone is excited, myself included. That is, until I learned that the temp DM wasn't expecting the party to be so powerful (although he plays in it...) and threw HP out the window.

He quite literally had his NPC stop taking damage, and just decided to end the battle based on when he felt like he had beat up the PCs enough.

Thoughts? Opinions? I know what mine are, but has anyone else done this when running a game?!

[Nigel the Hobo]

Running a battle for role play purposes instead of optimization comparisons? Sounds good to me.

[Shadowknight12]

I think the issue here is that the DM isn't playing under the same rules as the players (I know, Rule Zero and all that, but Rule Zero trumps everything). I understand the sentiment and I wouldn't do that myself. I believe that everyone at the table should play under the same rules. Not saying that people who don't do this are playing wrong or anything (there's no such thing as 'playing the game wrong'), so no need to get up on arms about the dissenting opinion.

[Chaos rising]

I generally try to avoid this, as it is unfair to the players. If a party is stronger than I expected, I'll just use stronger enemies in the next part of my campaign plan instead of retconning an enemies HP because I want to make the fight harder. The only time I might do this is if the party is about to defeat an enemy easily due to extremely lucky circumstances, like repeatedly getting critical hits and natural twenties.

[BRC]

I do this sometimes, but only with Boss Fights that serve a dramatic purpose, and I never just say "I will have the boss survive for X more rounds, then drop dead". Usually I'll give the Boss additional Hitpoints, and even then it's usually only enough to last them an additional round or so before the PC's bring them down.

That said, I can think of a perfectly legitimate reason for a DM coming to a new party to do this: Testing the PC's strength. Put them up against an enemy with reasonable defenses, and keep careful track of how often they hit, how much damage they do each round, what means they prefer to use to deal their damage, ect.
Have the fight go on for four rounds or so, then have the baddie die. Now you know what you're up against when planning future encounters.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Running a battle for role play purposes instead of optimization comparisons? Sounds good to me.

That sounds really condescending to people who like to optimize, you make it sound as if all optimizers care about is having big numbers. Fun Fact we also play the game for the Role playing aspect, we just like to mess with the ruleset

I do this sometimes, but only with Boss Fights that serve a dramatic purpose, and I never just say "I will have the boss survive for X more rounds, then drop dead". Usually I'll give the Boss additional Hitpoints, and even then it's usually only enough to last them an additional round or so before the PC's bring them down.

That said, I can think of a perfectly legitimate reason for a DM coming to a new party to do this: Testing the PC's strength. Put them up against an enemy with reasonable defenses, and keep careful track of how often they hit, how much damage they do each round, what means they prefer to use to deal their damage, ect.
Have the fight go on for four rounds or so, then have the baddie die. Now you know what you're up against when planning future encounters.

I understand on boss battles as they are supposed to be epic and meaningful in their own way; but the way the OP described the situation made it sound as if the DM in question just didn't care about the rule-set.

And I have to disagree with the second part of your post, he should have talked with the party about the power level he was expecting and the power level the party were building in. If they (accidentally or otherwise) are more powerful than what he expected, he should have talked with them and found a resolution before the game starts. IMO nothing is more frustrating than having invested time and effort into something for it to fail due fiat "just because I wasn't prepared".

[Sidmen]

I often find myself doubling, or even quadrupling my NPC's health in order to prevent unsatisfying kills. Nothing is worse than an epic 3-session leadup to a major battle, and one-shotting the guy with a crossbow on the first round of combat. But at the same time, I am willing to halve HP if fights start to drag on forever.

This is little different than what your one-shot ST did, and its a perfectly valid tool to use (especially when he underestimated your power). It probably shouldn't be used often - and you should have never been allowed to break the illusion of triumph, but it can enhance the fun of the fight - so why wouldn't you do it?

[Sucrose]

Running a battle for role play purposes instead of optimization comparisons? Sounds good to me.

Running a game with no consideration for the numbers does not facilitate roleplay any better than running the mechanical aspect simply by the mechanical aspect. In fact, given that all combats, regardless of how hard the characters actually try or attack end in an amount of time commensurate with their narrative importance, I would say that it actively hinders roleplay, by preventing immersion through the blatant telegraphing of narrative conceits. In other words, it makes it obvious that you are in a story, and so prevents you from getting immersed within the story.

I agree with the OP that trying to negate player effort is just about never really a good thing. Note it next time, and have the boss-type actually have the HPs or defenses to withstand their attacks, even if their classes wouldn't normally permit it. Homebrewing is fine. Throwing out the stats that you have prepared within the fight itself is railroading the fight, forcing narrative control back into your own hands.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

That's pretty bad. Essentially, he completely negated any player input from that point on. It sounds like, regardless of how much damage you were doing after that point, it really wasn't making a difference.

It's one thing to fudge the rules. It's an entirely different thing to fudge the rules to make things miserable for the players.

There's a few things he could have done, and all of them boil down to "roll with the punches". For instance, the DM could've said that more minions show up to help their pal, or that the enemy gets taken down faster than planned, and the plot moves from there, or perhaps some event happens to throw a monkey wrench into the fight. That's all better than just saying "The NPC doesn't have HP, and he's gonna stay alive until he beats you guys up enough." So...why keep fighting?

It really just sounds like the DM was unhappy that he "lost".

And that shouldn't be the case, because the DM really wins when the players are having a good time, and sometimes that means wiping the floor with a boss. Especially a minor NPC.

[BRC]

And I have to disagree with the second part of your post, he should have talked with the party about the power level he was expecting and the power level the party were building in. If they (accidentally or otherwise) are more powerful than what he expected, he should have talked with them and found a resolution before the game starts. IMO nothing is more frustrating than having invested time and effort into something for it to fail due fiat "just because I wasn't prepared".

I don't see this as the DM deciding he can't handle the party, and so making the enemy invincible at a whim.

I see it as a single, deliberate, planned decision by the DM using a random encounter with no real impact on the story as a whole, a deliberate tool the DM can use to gauge how the PC's function in an actual battle so they can better plan other encounters. Something the DM does once, early on, so they can get an idea of what type of party they are dealing with. In this case, the "Don't let the monster die" thing is more of a failsafe, to make sure each player gets a couple rounds of action that the DM can study.

Heck, the DM could even do this as a non-canon fight with the Player's knowledge. Everybody makes their character, and the DM says "Hey, lets see how much damage you guys can deal to a monster in Five rounds". Maybe the players get some bonus in-game depending on how well they do, and the DM gets to see how the PC's fight.

I agree that DM's Fiating player plans into not working because of a "Lack of Prepardness" is a bad idea. If a DM MUST fiat something away (as in, downright, no justification besides "I'm not prepared for that, don't do it"), they should do so apologically, and before the players invest time and effort into making it work.

of course, if there is a legitimate reason why whatever the player is trying to do won't work, that's another story entirely.


That said, making encounters more difficult when you underestimate the party is fair game in my book, provided it's done in a way that makes sense in the story (Like, say, reinforcements arriving for the enemy), and the DM is doing it to give the encounter the challenge they intended it to have, not to punish the players for doing well. They may manifest the same way, but those are two very, very different mindsets. If my Rampaging Horde of Orcs looks like it might go down in two rounds, I may send in a second wave of Orcs, Simply because epic battles are supposed to take more than twelve seconds.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I will very rarely do this kind of thing, but mostly with big boss fights. And even then, mostly for solo villains, and only if the party burns through the maxed-out HP in a round or two. Off the top of my head, I think I've done it once for the climax of a semester-long campaign, and...erm... that may be it, actually. My players started getting REALLY desperate before the end I didn't say what I was doing until later. They were all pretty impressed that they managed to kill the villain two times over, but agreed that it had been a good, epic fight.

[Kol Korran]

i did that when i was younger, but never again. it makes the players feel as if their actions don't matter, and there is nothing worse for a player. there is no real reason for the player to play- he might as well read a book.

i had my players nearly die due to miss planning (near TPK), and my players killed villains way ahead of "their time". at one fight one spelled neutrelized a boss, in another 2 players were down at the 2nd round.

but the players feel that the threats are real, and so are their characters (as much as possible with roleplay games).

[Totally Guy]

i did that when i was younger, but never again. it makes the players feel as if their actions don't matter, and there is nothing worse for a player. there is no real reason for the player to play- he might as well read a book.

My feelings are the same. That's the kind of thing that's just not sustainable. If the players were to see that happening in my group then someone else would GM some other game instead.

[Knaight]

My feelings are the same. That's the kind of thing that's just not sustainable. If the players were to see that happening in my group then someone else would GM some other game instead.

I agree as well. This sort of stunt is very much taking the "my game" attitude. I hate the "my game" attitude, its toxic to the vast majority of groups, and "our game" is simply more sustainable. However, there are people who like "my game" even when it belongs to someone else, and for them this would be fine. Dressing "my game" up as "our game" however is just asking for problems.

[ILM]

I can understand the sentiment but would probably try to deal with it upstream (this being a test run, of course, the DM didn't have the option). If my players are optimizing, I'm confident I can optimize more. If they deal tons of damage, I'll start tacking on Contingencies, miss chances, battlefield control, synergies and so on - up the difficulty in ways other than just increasing the levels or giving free hp to my NPCs. I have a level 2 barbarian in my campaign going for massive chargepouncepowerattack damage, and I've already plotted out how to keep him from single-handedly breaking all my encounters for the next 10 levels. All within the rules, and without singling him out in obvious and frustrating ways. He gets to play what he wants and obliterate stuff in one swing, I get to challenge my party in hopefully balanced and fun ways.

If it looked like their level of optimization was really getting out of hand (which, by the way, would be my mistake), I'd sit down and have a talk with them, possibly with a view to rebuilding their characters at lower tiers.

[Killer Angel]

I generally try to avoid this, as it is unfair to the players.

That's pretty bad. Essentially, he completely negated any player input from that point on.

i did that when i was younger, but never again. it makes the players feel as if their actions don't matter, and there is nothing worse for a player. there is no real reason for the player to play- he might as well read a book.

My feelings are the same. That's the kind of thing that's just not sustainable. If the players were to see that happening in my group then someone else would GM some other game instead.

Normally, I could agree with you, BUT:

We had a player make a "test run" as a DM in our current group. Minor NPC encounter, and a battle based around 2 PC's history.

This "test run", is meant as a mini-campaign of some months, or a simple adventure going for 2 sessions?
If the latter, i don't see the problem: it's not a "real" campaign, but, as said, a test. It's just the PCs, showing how much damage can deliver in a short amount of time, and for how many rounds they can sustain this "rate of fire".

My suggestion to the OP is to speak with the DM, and ask for explanations.

[turkishproverb]

Running a battle for role play purposes instead of optimization comparisons? Sounds good to me.

Yes, you're absolutely right. Players should have no effect on the story.

The GM was being a jerk, especially for not thinking to discuss this kinda thing beforehand.


Me? I'd have allowed it even if he were the BBEG. then another guy would have filled the power vacuum. One much more optimized.

[Killer Angel]

The GM was being a jerk, especially for not thinking to discuss this kinda thing beforehand.

It was a test, and the first session. Calling him a jerk, without giving the benefit of doubt, seems a little ungenerous from you.

[Totally Guy]

Yeah... I'd call it a failed test.

We did something similar with a new GM. In the 3rd session he pulled this trick and and we stopped playing and agreed on who'd go next. No hard feelings or anything.

[Killer Angel]

Yeah... I'd call it a failed test.

Ah, no doubt it failed, but at least this could give a logic reason behind it.
It better a reasonable DM that simply failed a test, than a DM stuck with its own idea of fun.

[erikun]

I'd be inclined to give the DM some leeway, especially as it is his first time DMing and this was specifically a "test run" for the game. I would recommend pointing out that seeing this all the time in the game would get very annoying and make the players feel insignificant at the table, but for here it seems like it was to gauge the damage potential of the party.

I also find it very interesting that the players were perfectly fine with this random NPC having 384 HP and only became disappointed when they discovered the opponent resisted damage due to DM fiat rather than resisting damage due to a +10 CON/+0 LA DM fiat template. Just pointing that out.

[PersonMan]

I also find it very interesting that the players were perfectly fine with this random NPC having 384 HP and only became disappointed when they discovered the opponent resisted damage due to DM fiat rather than resisting damage due to a +10 CON/+0 LA DM fiat template. Just pointing that out.

I think their thought process went something like:

"Hey, cool! This is a great fight and we're doing really well!"
"Wow, man, this guy is tough!"
"Wait...he wasn't tough or anything? You just cheated? Meh."

[Killer Angel]

I also find it very interesting that the players were perfectly fine with this random NPC having 384 HP and only became disappointed when they discovered the opponent resisted damage due to DM fiat rather than resisting damage due to a +10 CON/+0 LA DM fiat template. Just pointing that out.

If my cleric wanders around with DMM shenanigans, I expect a high powered campaign with powerful NPC (well, not minor one in random encounter, but you get the point).
But a DM that applies fiat template and stick to it, it's different from a DM that changes things basing on its personal feeling at the moment: that can be forgiven for a test out of context, but shouldn't be the basis for a regular campaign.

[Yora]

I do this all the time.
The only mistake the DM made was to let the players realize it.

[erikun]

But a DM that applies fiat template and stick to it, it's different from a DM that changes things basing on its personal feeling at the moment: that can be forgiven for a test out of context, but shouldn't be the basis for a regular campaign.

True; a fiat +200 HP is probably better than a fiat immunity-until-I-say-otherwise.

However, I'm pointing out that the party didn't have a problem with the results, or even with the DM fiat itself. They just had a problem with the particular flavor used in this case. Also, what Yora said.

[elpollo]

I do this all the time.
The only mistake the DM made was to let the players realize it.

You clearly realise that this isn't what your players want, or they'd know. Isn't assuming that you know how to let them have fun better than they do extraordinarily patronising?

It's not acceptable in my eyes. DMing higher level D&D characters requires that you know what the characters can do, and plan for the worst as well as the best. Handwaving HP is just a way of not actually having to take the PCs' abiltiies into account, and at that point why even bother playing D&D (that might seem a little extreme, but if you don't care what the total of the player's handful of d6s is then why get them to roll it?)?

[Thyrian]

There's an information gap here- was it a 'test run' in the sense of a one-shot session for him to try DM-ing? Or was it a 'test run' in that it's his first time DM'ing for the next saga of the campaign?

Did the DM obtain useful data he wouldn't have other wised gained from the extended encounter?

Did the DM 're-adjust' the enemies health or simply stop recording damage taken?

Were your hits still serving a purpose to reach a new goal line or was the goal line simply determinant on round time?

My initial GM session health adjustment during battle was needed after I'd made a mistake of pairing a strong ability with large hp, where only one was needed to ensure a difficult fight. Even then that was a set 'ok their HP is now 30 instead of 60', which while I let the group know later, I felt no need to break session to inform the group 'I've messed up dudes so I'm changing stats during combat'.

Since then I've never needed to re-adjust healths mid-battle. I may give a villain a few levels in having health (level 5 Barbarian/5 levels in don't die first turn) but never mid battle. Small fights if the party kills them exceptionally quickly so be it, major fights if I feel the need to 'change' stats mid fight- I have failed my job as a DM and not given the world the attention and care my players have shown for it.

[Kol Korran]

The GM was being a jerk, especially for not thinking to discuss this kinda thing beforehand.

though i disagree with his methods, i do like his approach- he wanted to give the players a memorable experience.

we all make mistakes as DMs, as players, there are only two things that are not ok in my book:
- doing whatever you did knowing that this makes things no fun for others (which is what i call being a jerk)
- not willing to learn and improve (which i call being a lazy bumpkin)

[Morph Bark]

Ah, no doubt it failed, but at least this could give a logic reason behind it.
It better a reasonable DM that simply failed a test, than a DM stuck with its own idea of fun.

It was his first time DMing. Any DM likely has a few stories of how they did something that they later realized wasn't the best thing to do in that situation. That's how you learn: you make a mistake and then figure out how to improve on that.

I do this all the time.
The only mistake the DM made was to let the players realize it.

Yes, this is actually how it goes for a lot of DMs. Certainly not all though, and most of the time a DM (like me) simply sticks to the rules, but fiat just happens. If it didn't, DnD would look a whole lot different and DMing would be a whole lot harder.


EDIT: Also this:

though i disagree with his methods, i do like his approach- he wanted to give the players a memorable experience.

[Knaight]

It was his first time DMing. Any DM likely has a few stories of how they did something that they later realized wasn't the best thing to do in that situation. That's how you learn: you make a mistake and then figure out how to improve on that.

Exactly. However, regardless of how much DMing experience he had, it was a pretty big screw up. Those happen, and moving past them is a good thing to do, but they remain screw ups. Not "running a battle for role play purposes instead of optimization comparisons" as was stated earlier in the thread.