How should a DM react to players making an encounter harder on themselves?

[Talakeal]

The last few years of DMing I have had a recurring problem. I set up a bunch of more or less "balanced" encounters, and then the players try and outthink the encounter, and then their plan back fires.

Usually this involves the players trying to "skip" a fight with stealth or teleportation, and then assuming the enemies they skipped would cease to exist. Another example would be the players forcing an enemy to retreat deeper into the dungeon, usually using terrain manipulating magic to create a situation where the enemy couldn't attack back, and then being surprised when the retreating enemy either sounded an alarm or got help, thus turning several balanced encounters into a single overwhelmingly large encounter.

The result is often a TPK and or a retreat, which ends with bad feelings all around and more than one player temper tantrum.

What should I do as a DM? Should I simply have the monsters wink out of existence once they are off the map?

[Herabec]

Eh, the way I handle it isn't entirely realistic, but it prevents the TPK.

In the case of the retreating enemy, I simply have them retreat a room further into the dungeon to join the force there and warn them of the party. Therefor, by the time the party gets there, the enemies have had a chance to buff, know their general tactics and have an extra (probably healed) ally.

Therefor, the party's recklessness has cost them a more difficult encounter, but not an overwhelming one. Realistically, he should've sounded an alarm.. But I consider it an acceptable break from reality to ensure the game doesn't just end.

[LawfulNifty]

I try to not be a jerk when I DM, but I think there's such a thing as being TOO nice when DMing. It's not your job to hold the players' hands--that way lies madness (also railroading). Player choices need to have meaningful consequences, good or bad. If your players' choices lead to a TPK, then they lead to a TPK.

That being said, it sounds like your players have a preference for solving encounters without straight-up combat. I would try, when it makes sense in-story, to make sure there is a way to defeat an encounter without combat. A fortress the players are infiltrating (for example) might have defense mechanisms that can be turned against the enemies. Say the players teleport past the first group of guards. Maybe there's a portcullis they can close and lock behind them, so that if the second group of guards sees them and raises the alarm, the first group won't be able to come in and help them.

It's also okay to have enemies make tactically unsound decisions. After all, players do that all the time. "Hear that? Sounds like someone got through the gate! We'd better split up and find the intruders." I just wouldn't do stuff like that all the time. If the players figure out you're pulling punches then every victory after that feels hollow. Which is why, again, sometimes you just have to let them TPK themselves.

[Kyberwulf]

I think your not the problem. Your players are. If they aren't willing to logically assume there actions might have consequences. Then it's their fault. It would be a different story if this happened once. But, over years of you dming and this always seems to happen? Sounds like they are the ones that need to get some new tactics.
Even if you plan things differently, they will still try find ways to skip encounters or rush ahead.
The problem isn't you. It's player entitlement.

[Warlawk]

I think your not the problem. Your players are. If they aren't willing to logically assume there actions might have consequences. Then it's their fault. It would be a different story if this happened once. But, over years of you dming and this always seems to happen? Sounds like they are the ones that need to get some new tactics.
Even if you plan things differently, they will still try find ways to skip encounters or rush ahead.
The problem isn't you. It's player entitlement.

I would actually tend to agree with this. I can tell you right now, if the things in the OP didn't happen, our group would be awful suspicious and wonder what was going on. That kind of thing is expected of any intelligent enemy or pack predator.

[tasw]

The last few years of DMing I have had a recurring problem. I set up a bunch of more or less "balanced" encounters, and then the players try and outthink the encounter, and then their plan back fires.

Usually this involves the players trying to "skip" a fight with stealth or teleportation, and then assuming the enemies they skipped would cease to exist. Another example would be the players forcing an enemy to retreat deeper into the dungeon, usually using terrain manipulating magic to create a situation where the enemy couldn't attack back, and then being surprised when the retreating enemy either sounded an alarm or got help, thus turning several balanced encounters into a single overwhelmingly large encounter.

The result is often a TPK and or a retreat, which ends with bad feelings all around and more than one player temper tantrum.

What should I do as a DM? Should I simply have the monsters wink out of existence once they are off the map?

Direct them to several online IQ tests. The one with the aggregate highest score gets to be party leader. After that you wont have to deal with temper tantrums based on failing to take simple logic into account unless your group is all exceptionally stupid.

Make those who score below average play fighters. They probably min maxed their characters to have the intelligence of a poodle, might as well make life match fiction.

[Kol Korran]

I partly agree with the above posters- If the enemies are intelligent, you need to play them so. Though I fail to understand the problem with sneaking or teleporting past an enemy towards your goal.

My approach is to not plan encounters, but situations, and the players came to expect that. They often NEED to come up with clever plans and such in order to try and fight not quite straightforward situations. However I do try to at least partially award my players if they come up with something cool, even if it is not the smartest thing in the world. This can come with the bad consequences of their actions, but may bring out a feeling of small success at least, and the effort not totally wasted.

One more important note though- If the characters actions have obvious ramifications to the characters in the world (though perhaps not to the gaming players), I point it out to them. "Um, yeah, it can run away, but can also probably alert the 20 others in the compound, who will probably get their defenses up, you know?" and so on. Just the obvious stuff, the less obvious I... let them find out on themselves.

[Talakeal]

Though I fail to understand the problem with sneaking or teleporting past an enemy towards your goal.

Normally it involves trapping themselves inside an enemy stronghold without any room to perform hit and run tactics and cutting off their own retreat.

Also, one can justify the evil overlord "letting his minions handle it", out of a sense of self preservation, simple laziness, etc. It is much harder to justify a BBEG with a castle full of guards not calling for help once the enemy party teleports into his personal treasury / bedroom intent on killing him.

[Vitruviansquid]

As a GM, I generally try not to let the players do anything stupid without telling them they're about to do something stupid, and I try not to allow the players' plans to work out counter to their expectations if they succeed. In other words, if they come up with a plan, I try not to go, "ah-ha! Look at how dumb you are! Of course that **** wouldn't work, you moron! Now suffer the consequences HAHAHAHAHA!" Of course, this doesn't always mean the players' plans will go off without a hitch, just that I don't try to twist their plans like a monkey paw.

Let me give an example.

If I ran a dungeon for my players, and they try to do something... sub-optimal, like sneak past a group of enemies guarding the door, I would tell them straight up, "sure, you could sneak past them... but you'd better make sure you're stealthy in the rest of the dungeon or you could do something to cause them to come back and check on things. Are you sure you want to try sneaking?"

Or, alternately, if I realized how little sense the players' plan made after they've done it, it's always possible to add a twist in the players' favor later. For instance, if the players start fighting a group of enemies inside the dungeon, and it'd just break my vision of the game too much to have the guards outside not come in and check on things, I could have them send one guy to make sure everything's alright at first, so the party can kill him before he reports back. Or, perhaps, the players have an opportunity to ambush the enemies inside the dungeon before the guards come in because they expect the guards to raise the alarm if adventurers show up. There are a lot of ways to show the players that they didn't think things through without just beating them over the head with your gavel.

note: I do make an exception about not countering player expectations for when I have a pre-planned deception, like if an NPC is a double agent.

[Totally Guy]

Tell them the possible consequences and ask.

[Trinoya]

Always tell your players this.

"I will not put you into an unbeatable situation. I will not, however, stop you from placing yourselves into one."

I've had players charge a fixed fortifications (entire forts) by themselves after the fort was placed on high alert and looking for people to attack and wonder why they got shot by sixteen arrows, four crossbow bolts, and two catapults...

I've had players wonder why, when they blow up the big magically explody thing that it exploded and I had the audacity to make them take damage.

I've had players wonder why when they make a vague response to a near wish like entity such as, "save X by any means" that the means don't always add up with the way they would do it (completely ignoring the fact they have no comprehension of how the entity in question could have done it).

I've had players randomally attack a guard and wonder why the other guards attacked them.

And I've had players openly and willingly attack other members of the party in a manner that could cause death... only to be shocked when I let the rest of the party kill them.

In short... players can be extremely short sighted and have tunnel vision. You should always try to plan around that idea, and the idea that they may not always see the solution you've set fourth... and you should certainly let them have try their ideas...

You should not, however, cuddle them through those ideas. Let them fail or succeed on their merits, and on the dice. If it will greatly disrupt your story a simple, "are you sure" will always suffice as the only warning.

And sometimes, just sometimes, they will shock you with how much better a solution they created then the one you thought.

Other times they will drop a bomb on a city tower without really thinking through the fact that sad action might make the city mad at them...

[Anteros]

I think your not the problem. Your players are. If they aren't willing to logically assume there actions might have consequences. Then it's their fault. It would be a different story if this happened once. But, over years of you dming and this always seems to happen? Sounds like they are the ones that need to get some new tactics.
Even if you plan things differently, they will still try find ways to skip encounters or rush ahead.
The problem isn't you. It's player entitlement.

I disagree entirely. The job of the DM is not to maintain "realism" at all costs. The job of the DM is to ensure that everyone at the table is having fun. If your players enjoy bypassing challenges then let them do so. Some people enjoy difficult and realistic challenges, but equally some don't. It's your job as a DM to balance these things. What's the point in maintaining realism if it comes at the expense of everyone's enjoyment?

I'm not saying you shouldn't ever punish recklessness or abject stupidity...but if you have a group that you know enjoys sneaking past encounters...start building ways for them to do so into the encounter.

[Sith_Happens]

I disagree entirely.

Though I wouldn't go that far, I might have been inclined to suggest a "meet them halfway" solution, were it not for who posted this thread. Talakeal's (former) players are, in fact, entitled manchildren. Every last one of them.

[Vitruviansquid]

"I will not put you into an unbeatable situation. I will not, however, stop you from placing yourselves into one."

My experience has been that different players will consider the same thing to be "suicidally reckless," "heroic and awesome," and "a tactically sound plan, all things considered." But what's actually tactically sound, or what's "real" isn't always going to win at the table, what's always going to win at the table is what the DM approves of.

[Ultimate_Coffee]

I disagree entirely. The job of the DM is not to maintain "realism" at all costs. The job of the DM is to ensure that everyone at the table is having fun. If your players enjoy bypassing challenges then let them do so. Some people enjoy difficult and realistic challenges, but equally some don't. It's your job as a DM to balance these things. What's the point in maintaining realism if it comes at the expense of everyone's enjoyment?

I'm not saying you shouldn't ever punish recklessness or abject stupidity...but if you have a group that you know enjoys sneaking past encounters...start building ways for them to do so into the encounter.

I have to agree with Anteros here. As a DM, you should be having fun, but I feel that the DMs primary responsiblity is to ensure that the players are having fun. Based on the OPs example, it doesn't sould like anybody is having fun in these situations.
To me, it sounds like your players are somewhat opposed to the traditional min/max uber power kill everything player style. Even if they are bad at it, they seem like they prefer to try and use stategy rather than brute force. That is good! Reward your players for coming up with clever solutions to problems, and maybe give them more puzzles instead of fortified fortresses.
If this DMing style doesn't work for you, them maybe you and your players aren't compatible. That is not a failing on anybodies part... just something that can happen. Perhaps someone else should try DMing in your group...

[BWR]

Is this this same group of people who disintegrated earlier or a new group?

Cleving thinking is a good thing. If they manage to bypass a big unnecessary encounter, good for them. They should have some sort of reward for tht. But it sounds like they go to a lot of trouble to bypass something but ignore that the fact that these encounters are not blind, deaf, dumb and dumb. If they really expect to walk past a door and not have its occupants come after them when there is a new battle down the hall, there is something wrong.

You might, as others have suggested, try pointing out that just because the PCs circumvent some people it doesn't mean that they cease to exist or be a threat.

[jedipotter]

What should I do as a DM? Should I simply have the monsters wink out of existence once they are off the map?

You could just change things. Make foes good spotters or make it so they can't teleport. Not every foe, but you can make at least half of the encounters hard or impossible to by pass. You can even toss in things like locked doors and alarm spells.

Greed works too...give the foes shinny loot. Few players will pass that up.


But if the players just do something bad...let them. Just have the world react normally. Most people can learn from mistakes, so it should only happen like a dozen times.

[valadil]

I'm torn. I really want to say that the players took a risk that didn't pay off and should deal with the consequences.

On the other hand I really like what the players are trying to do. They're thinking outside the box and attacking the problem from all angles instead of the one you expected. That's commendable. They're just not doing it very well.

Anyway, my advice is to give them scenarios where this kind of plan can work. Look at the big picture when planning. Each of the castle's five encounters is balanced, but do they stay balanced if X, Y, and Z take place?

If they don't, is there anything you can do to rejigger it so that you get a harder fight instead of just a TPK? If not, is there anything you can do to inform the players of this situation?

I actually think that second question is the more important of the two. Give the players a nudge to do some scouting. If they find out that there are three encampments of orcs within 100 yard of each other, they should realize that the orcs can get help. But until they know the layout of those encampments, it may not occur to them that this could happen.

I guess what I'm saying is that there's not much you can do once the PCs' plan goes all pear shaped. But since that's happening over and over maybe you can do something to improve their plans. My vote is more information up front so their plans won't be so fragile.

[jedipotter]

is there anything you can do to inform the players of this situation?

I'm not a fan of the DM telling the players such things directly. Like saying ''Um, guys if you attack the gnome, then the group of guards that are ten feet away just outside the door will hear and react" or "Um, guys it might be dangerous to touch the bone chest that is pulsing with necromantic energy."

Now I'm all for making the description a bit more noticeable, ''As you walk over to the bone the necromantic energy from it sickens you and makes you feel quite weak.''

[LawfulNifty]

Another thought: assuming the players are facing human(oid)s, their enemies have a self-preservation instinct that, at some point, could overpower their loyalty to the BBEG. I think it would actually make sense for some of the enemies they'd skipped to "disappear." Think about it--your PCs have managed to break into the supposedly-impenetrable fortress of the BBEG. Some of the random minions are going to figure that if they stick around they're just going to get killed, and decide that it's better to get out of there before the ceiling starts caving in.

Enemies should absolutely call for reinforcements if the battle isn't going their way, but maintaining realism doesn't mean you have to have every single guard that you had put in the place show up. In fact, if you have a villain you're willing to have look stupid, it would be a funny change of pace for the players if, just once, the BBEG calls for reinforcements and it turns out all the guards have up and left.

Also, a question: are the players having fun playing this way? Because it occurs to me that if they keep making tactically unsound decisions over and over, maybe it's because that makes the game more fun for them. I've seen players deliberately try to get themselves killed so they could make new characters--maybe your players just really like rolling up new PCs every session or so.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm going to chime in with those suggesting that you design your adventures with more and better opportunities for the kind of strategies your players seem to enjoy. And you don't always have to play your enemies smart-- to take an earlier example, sending one guard to check on a disturbance inside is a perfectly reasonable action. As Anteros said, the goal of the game is fun, not realism.

I'm not a fan of the DM telling the players such things directly. Like saying ''Um, guys if you attack the gnome, then the group of guards that are ten feet away just outside the door will hear and react" or "Um, guys it might be dangerous to touch the bone chest that is pulsing with necromantic energy."

Now I'm all for making the description a bit more noticeable, ''As you walk over to the bone the necromantic energy from it sickens you and makes you feel quite weak.''

I would say that it's OK for DMs to blatantly remind players of things they ought to know. There's a lot that goes on in a game, and it can be hard to keep it all straight-- to say nothing of the fact that two people can interpret descriptions in very different ways. "You know there are a bunch of guards just on the other side of the door, right?" is kind of metagaming, but it's something that the character ought to remember because he saw them just ten minutes ago. Meanwhile the players have been going for an hour since then, including a major fight, and "a half-dozen bypassed guards" are easy to forget about.

[valadil]

I'm not a fan of the DM telling the players such things directly. Like saying ''Um, guys if you attack the gnome, then the group of guards that are ten feet away just outside the door will hear and react" or "Um, guys it might be dangerous to touch the bone chest that is pulsing with necromantic energy."

Nah, I didn't mean something so heavy handed. I'm not a fan of that either. Just give the players the opportunity to scout things in advance. If the players are taking back a castle overrun with orcs, maybe a servant escaped and the PCs can get the layout from him. Or maybe Honest Nostradamus's Shop of Discount Scrying is having a 50% off sale, so the players can figure out what they're getting into. Or they can take the social route and bribe a guard somewhere to give them the schedule of guard routes.

There are a million ways to get these things in advance. That's the sort of information I was refering to.

[Jay R]

I had one group fighting giant scorpions in a hallway. One PC, who couldn't reach the enemy, started trying to open another door. If he had succeeded in unlocking it, they'd have been trapped between the scorpions and a blue dragon - at 2nd level. I invented a lock on the door, and fortunately, other players explained to him what the problem was.

When possible I try to give them a little understanding of the situation in time to allow them to re-think.

PC: We attack the guard.
DM: It crosses you mind that you are in sight of three other guards, who could call for help from dozens more. Do you still want to do this?

PC: We sneak away from the bounty hunters.
DM: It occurs to you that you are leaving tracks, which competent bounty hunters can follow. Is this what you want to do?

PC: We run away from the ogres through the door and close it.
DM: You're in a 30 x 30 room with three chests.
PC: We carefully examine the chests.
DM: You hear the door opening, and ogre war cries.

[Angel Bob]

That being said, it sounds like your players have a preference for solving encounters without straight-up combat. I would try, when it makes sense in-story, to make sure there is a way to defeat an encounter without combat. A fortress the players are infiltrating (for example) might have defense mechanisms that can be turned against the enemies. Say the players teleport past the first group of guards. Maybe there's a portcullis they can close and lock behind them, so that if the second group of guards sees them and raises the alarm, the first group won't be able to come in and help them.

It's also okay to have enemies make tactically unsound decisions. After all, players do that all the time. "Hear that? Sounds like someone got through the gate! We'd better split up and find the intruders." I just wouldn't do stuff like that all the time. If the players figure out you're pulling punches then every victory after that feels hollow. Which is why, again, sometimes you just have to let them TPK themselves.

This. So much this. That's my style of DMing as well, and it works wonders.

[Talakeal]

Is this same group of people who disintegrated earlier or a new group?

Same group. I am more or less done with these people, but I was telling a gaming story to my brother the other day and he told me I was being a "killer DM" by not having monsters disappear once they were off the map as the game is about PCs winning, not PCs being challenged or simulating reality.

Also, a question: are the players having fun playing this way? Because it occurs to me that if they keep making tactically unsound decisions over and over, maybe it's because that makes the game more fun for them. I've seen players deliberately try to get themselves killed so they could make new characters--maybe your players just really like rolling up new PCs every session or so.

No. Absolutely not. These players throw very nasty real life temper tantrums when they lose, sometimes going so far as to smash objects or hit people, and usually involving threats, insults, screaming, crying, and weeklong pouting sessions.



So the specific story I was telling me brother is that I was running a flooded dungeon with waist deep water. The enemies were similar to Aboleths, very intelligent fish creatures. The PCs decided that rather than wade in they would create a path of down the center of the cavern using control water.

If the enemies tried approaching the PCs with their pathetic land speed the PCs could just walk backwards shooting them, and so they stayed in the water and followed the PCs*. The PCs just kept going deeper and deeper into the dungeon with more and aboleths following them.

Finally in the fifth room they ran into one who was a mage who dispelled the control water effect. Suddenly the PCs are in the water fighting an aboleth mage and four schools of normal aboleths all at once. The result was a near TPK and retreat, and a lot of very angry players.


*The PCs were using a homebrew metamagic feat that allows an area spell to move with the caster.

[kyoryu]

So, in general, I'd say two things, assuming a healthy gaming group:

1) Make sure that the opponents are doing logical things *for them*, with the information that *they have*. They don't have perfect knowledge. They don't know what the PCs are going to do next. They don't know if more "bad guys" are coming. They have limited information and limited time. Ask yourself what they actually know, and what decisions they'd make based on that. They also might well be more concerned with their own lives than defeating the PCs, so at points a full retreat may be in order. It takes a lot of fanaticism to lay your life down for a lost cause.

2) When something like you've described *does* happen, explain what happened to the group after the fact, so that they understand how the consequences were tied to their actions and can have an understanding of how you run things so that they can factor that into their decisions later.

Same group. I am more or less done with these people, but I was telling a gaming story to my brother the other day and he told me I was being a "killer DM" by not having monsters disappear once they were off the map as the game is about PCs winning, not PCs being challenged or simulating reality.

"Assuming a healthy group".

No. Absolutely not. These players throw very nasty real life temper tantrums when they lose, sometimes going so far as to smash objects or hit people, and usually involving threats, insults, screaming, crying, and weeklong pouting sessions.

"Assuming a healthy group". Seriously, when you start dealing with *actual violence* at your table, you need to set some serious boundaries of what behavior will be tolerated. The crying and screaming and pouting is bad enough, but threatening is unacceptable, and *actual violence* doubly so.

If the enemies tried approaching the PCs with their pathetic land speed the PCs could just walk backwards shooting them, and so they stayed in the water and followed the PCs*. The PCs just kept going deeper and deeper into the dungeon with more and aboleths following them.

So long as they were made aware of this fact.

Finally in the fifth room they ran into one who was a mage who dispelled the control water effect. Suddenly the PCs are in the water fighting an aboleth mage and four schools of normal aboleths all at once. The result was a near TPK and retreat, and a lot of very angry players.

Why? Do they think they should be immune to Dispel Magic? It doesn't sound like they even lost any characters, they just *didn't win*.

I don't think "winning every encounter" is a game style that I'm interested in. And I'm a bit skeptical of players that have that expectation and whether I want to game with them.

[Jay R]

... he told me I was being a "killer DM" by not having monsters disappear once they were off the map as the game is about PCs winning, not PCs being challenged or simulating reality.

Some people believe this. Both kinds of games exist, but They can't mix. I should not be the DM for the kind of players your brother is describing.

Maybe you shouldn't, either.

[Vitruviansquid]

Finally in the fifth room they ran into one who was a mage who dispelled the control water effect. Suddenly the PCs are in the water fighting an aboleth mage and four schools of normal aboleths all at once. The result was a near TPK and retreat, and a lot of very angry players.

It might make perfect sense to you to have this happen, but here's what I would've been thinking when you have this happen, if I was playing at your table. Disclaimer: I don't claim to be a mature or even good person, please don't take what I would likely think as a model for what *you* should think in this situation.

"How is this even legit?! You never ever see the door guards come in after you sneak past them in the movies I watch. The hero alw

"I bet the DM just thought of this water controlling mage to put in the last room to 'beat us' at this game because he probably thought we were bypassing the rest of the dungeon too easily."

"This is ridiculous, of course the DM's going to win if he wants to compete with the players. The DM can just put infinite rooms with infinitely harder bad guys in the dungeon."

"Can't we feel smart about doing anything in this game without the DM trying to shut us down?"

"All our plans get knocked down, but the enemies never seem to do anything stupid in this world, it's like the DM's playing this game just to sneer at us and prove how much smarter he is."

"Why do we have to play an encounter that's supposed to be five times more difficult to beat? Can't we just call this a TPK and get it over with? It's like the DM's dragging this out just to torture us."

At this point, my thoughts probably diverge dramatically from your former players, as I would think,

"maybe next time we play, after this TPK, we can say, 'oh boy, Frank has this awesome idea for a campaign that we all wanna try out, Talakeal, do you want to play with us?' and kinda hope Talakeal's campaign kinda fades into obscurity"

whereas your old players would think,

"HULK SMASH."

[Talakeal]

"How is this even legit?! You never ever see the door guards come in after you sneak past them in the movies I watch."

There was no sneaking involved. I flat out said that the enemies didn't leave the water (which would have been suicide) and instead hang back in the water and follow just out of arrow range.

"I bet the DM just thought of this water controlling mage to put in the last room to 'beat us' at this game because he probably thought we were bypassing the rest of the dungeon too easily."

It wasn't a water controlling mage. It was just a standard mage with dispel magic. And it would be silly to not expect to fight at least one magic user in a high level dungeon.

Also, this is one of the big problems with my group. I refuse to cheat, either for or against my players. If I was willing to cheat, it would likely be in their favor, and I would be a hell of a lot more likely to remove an enemy that screws up their plan than to add one. Of course, my players, being a paranoid lot, always seem to believe the opposite.

"This is ridiculous, of course the DM's going to win if he wants to compete with the players. The DM can just put infinite rooms with infinitely harder bad guys in the dungeon."

Yep. As I said, every individual dungeon room had an even CR, and there was nothing to stop the PCs just fighting through them one at a time. It was only when they started bypassing mobs that it got to be a problem.

"Can't we feel smart about doing anything in this game without the DM trying to shut us down?"

This goes back to my OP. Should I just sit back and say "**** it" and turn my brain off when running adventures even if there is an obvious solution that doesn't involve any meta gaming or cheating?

"All our plans get knocked down, but the enemies never seem to do anything stupid in this world, it's like the DM's playing this game just to sneer at us and prove how much smarter he is."

I wouldn't say the enemies never seem to do anything stupid, I make mistakes all the time. When I do, however, I get flack from the players for that as one of them always accuses me of "playing favorites" by not killing one of the other PCs when I have the chance.

And from my perspective it always seems like the opposite. The players always come up with a really flawed plan, and even if I warn them about the flaws (which I almost always do) they go ahead with it. Its like they are trying to prove they can outsmart me rather than just going along with the game normally.

"Why do we have to play an encounter that's supposed to be five times more difficult to beat? Can't we just call this a TPK and get it over with? It's like the DM's dragging this out just to torture us."

I actually told them straight up "guys, please retreat and try this again. If you survive this fight you won't be in any condition to finish the dungeon afterwards. You need to fall back and regroup and give the enemies some time to stand down and go off alert status." They didn't listen until 4/6 of the party was already dead and they had used up almost their entire stash of consumable items.

"maybe next time we play, after this TPK, we can say, 'oh boy, Frank has this awesome idea for a campaign that we all wanna try out, Talakeal, do you want to play with us?' and kinda hope Talakeal's campaign kinda fades into obscurity"
."

Actually, that's a lot like what did happen. The one player who threw a tantrum explicitly said that he was quitting, and he hoped my game died as a result, and he was glad that I would be moving at the end of the summer so he didn't have to put up with me anymore.

Of course he apologized afterwards and said he regretted it, but that didn't stop him from throwing similar temper tantrums the next two settings. During each of these tantrums he gave a similar, if somewhat more profanity laden, rant with added regrets about apologizing for the previous rant as well as violence towards people and objects.

As for someone else DMing, no one around here will put up with it except me. The games don't play out any better, and other DMs don't have as much tolerance for BS (or the experience to know how to handle it) than I do and their campaigns die a quick flaming death.




Another example of what I was talking about that occurred in the last dungeon I ran. I had a series of rooms shaped like this:

[ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ]

Each of the four rooms had a door connecting to the two adjacent rooms. Each room had a group of intelligent monsters within.

The PCs cleared the NW room, then went into the NE room, saw it was full of monsters (and a door on the south wall) and cast a wall spell to cut the room in half so the monsters couldn't reach them. There was NOTHING stopping the monsters from using the south door, but for some reason the PCs thought the monsters would instead stay bottled up forever and starve to death.

The PCs then went into the SW room, and where amazed to see that the monsters from NE room simply went around using the same path, and had alerted the enemies in the SW and SE rooms as they moved through.

[kyoryu]

There was no sneaking involved. I flat out said that the enemies didn't leave the water (which would have been suicide) and instead hang back in the water and follow just out of arrow range.

I would have also called out the numbers of them on occasion, if you didn't. Even explicitly calling out "you know, these guys are looking pretty ticked off, and it seems likely that they'll rush you if this spell fails or they get the chance" wouldn't have been a bad idea.

It's often better to give out *too much* information rather than just assume the players catch what you're saying, and the characters would certainly be aware of the growing horde of aboleths glaring at them.

Yep. As I said, every individual dungeon room had an even CR, and there was nothing to stop the PCs just fighting through them one at a time. It was only when they started bypassing mobs that it got to be a problem.

Nothing wrong with bypassing fights. It's good strategy. Hell, I'd argue it's not even "bypassing", it's just deciding how you're going to work through the dungeon.

I wouldn't say the enemies never seem to do anything stupid, I make mistakes all the time. When I do, however, I get flack from the players for that as one of them always accuses me of "playing favorites" by not killing one of the other PCs when I have the chance.

That's kinda dysfunctional.

And from my perspective it always seems like the opposite. The players always come up with a really flawed plan, and even if I warn them about the flaws (which I almost always do) they go ahead with it. Its like they are trying to prove they can outsmart me rather than just going along with the game normally.

Make sure that you don't design your dungeons in such a way that if people do what you expect, it'll be easy, and if not, it'll be tough. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and your players aren't mind readers. There's got to be room for them to go their own ways, and make mistakes, and do things not in *just the way* you plan.

Try going through the dungeon, room by room, and ask yourself "what would I do in this scenario, if I knew only what I had seen so far, and didn't know what was beyond the next door?"

I don't know how you design dungeons, so don't take this as an accusation or anything. It's just the only thing that's been somewhat suggested by your description that I see as a potential area of improvement.

I actually told them straight up "guys, please retreat and try this again. If you survive this fight you won't be in any condition to finish the dungeon afterwards. You need to fall back and regroup and give the enemies some time to stand down and go off alert status." They didn't listen until 4/6 of the party was already dead and they had used up almost their entire stash of consumable items.

They probably don't like being told what to do. They want to make the decisions. Sometimes giving the same information out in a more neutral way (as facts, rather than advice) can be useful. "Okay, based on what you've seen and heard, it seems likely that the enemies will be on alert and prepared for attack, and will be preparing defensive positions. Previous experience would suggest that they'll probably stand down after a while."

The PCs then went into the SW room, and where amazed to see that the monsters from NE room simply went around using the same path, and had alerted the enemies in the SW and SE rooms as they moved through.

Clearly they didn't think the rooms would be connected, and they had no real reason to think they would, if you think about it. It's obvious if you know the whole layout as you've described to us, but it isn't necessarily obvious that the rooms would be connected *that* closely.

It's still not a reason to get upset, just kind of go "yeah, okay, that didn't work well." But if this was on top of a bunch of other things that basically ensured that they could never "bypass" an encounter, then I could see where people might start to get a bit upset.

One thing that may be of help to you, to at least understand your players, is to ask yourself (or even them!) why they did the things they did. Again, try to put yourself in their shoes and forget what you know of the dungeon layout, and how you expected them to progress through the dungeon. I mean, for that matter, *don't* expect them to progress in a particular way. Even deliberately, when designing dungeons, think of what they might do besides what you expect.