As a first-time DM running a game for mostly first-time players, I REALLY want them to have a good time, enjoy the game, and come back for more. I have been really careful about the damage they take, preferring to have the monsters go against the higher HP/AC characters (cleric, monk and ranger) as opposed to the more - shall we say 'fragile' characters (2 wizards and rogue) if I can help it. The obvious problem here is that if it becomes obvious that I'm keeping them alive, then the stakes are gone and they'll feel like I won't let them die.
Here's an example from a recent session: The rogue (all characters level 2 at this point) was leading the party at one point, failed a check, and fell into a trap. He only took a couple HP damage, I think 3. Then he tried to climb a rock wall, and fell from 20 feet or so, and took more damage. The result was that when they got into the next combat encounter, he only had a couple HP left. I then felt obligated to take it easy on him so that he could last long enough to take a healing potion, or for the cleric to heal him or something.
To be clear, I have the monsters attack in what I feel is a logical way. If it's a monster with only melee attacks, it prefers to target a PC that is withing range. Also, that means if the only target in range is the low-HP rogue, it's kind of tough luck for him, and hopefully I roll poorly on the attack.
How do you guys handle these kinds of situations and find the balance of letting everyone have a good time, but also keep the sense of danger and accountability?
I guess a related question would be, if you have a bunch of monsters rolling to attack, how do you spread out the targets? Do you just attack as many PCs as possible, or do you concentrate attacks in any way?
As you know as I've posted on several of your posts, I too am first time DM running the same type of group (new players). Play as if you don't know the characters statistics (who is weak and not) but not mindless. You can "see" this guy is wearing armor and that guys in a robe. Remember your NPC's don't know your PC's like you do, and your NPC's don't know what they were talking about how to handle the next fight, or who is weak and has low HP.
But also, attack logically. If someone ran in to the group of baddies alone, then it's the bad guys turn, the bad guys are going to attack him. They aren't going to ignore him, or walk away from him provoking attacks of opportunity to spread the damage around.
If someone is constantly charging in, and despite being injured insists on being in the front of the group, he deserves what he gets. Also keep in mind that dropping to 0 HP does not equal death. Also if a PC drops to 0 HP and there are other PC's still alive and attacking, the NPC's aren't likely to continue whacking the unconscious guy (causing more death saving throw fails or whatever) because there are bigger threats at the moment (the other PC's). I have had 4 PC's drop to 0 HP going through the first few "dungeons". However, they weren't really ever threatened to be a dead PC because either another PC would come over and give a potion or cast a heal as soon as someone dropped to 0. At worst, without an enemy attacking a PC, after a PC drops to 0 HP there are 3 full rounds before he would die. And that is statistically unlikely as the PC would have to roll a 1-9 on a d20 3 consecutive times. If they are dropping to 0 often, your encounters might need to be adjusted (check the XP/CR table in the DMG and don't forget the multipliers for more enemies); or you might want to give out more healing potions if you don't have healers (or even with healers just at low level with few spell slots).
I think dropping the players to 0 HP is great, because it teaches them to be cautions and not just go in swinging at every encounter, to think and strategize first.
In controlling my NPC's attacking the PC's so far I have basically gone with either attacking the closest hostile unit, or the unit who has initiated a hostile action. For example, we have a bard who, of course, loves to talk rather than fight. He can try persuading the baddies not to fight, meanwhile the barbarian might have listened to the bard so won't charge in swinging, but won't sweet talk the NPC's either (he throws tons of blatant insults at everyone). The enemies are going to get angry and attack him instead of the bard, as he seems to pose the threat to them.
If there are 2 PC's equidistant away from the NPC, the NPC will go after anyone who attacked him (if anyone) so far, or the PC who would be closest to the NPC's allies, as to protect himself as much as possible.
@Mehetmet At this point I feel like we just need to go out for some beers and compare notes lol. New Hampshire isn't THAT far away from Buffalo.
I do have one PC who forgets that this isn't Black Ops, and he won't heal if he just ducks behind a rock for 10 seconds. He gets what he gets, for sure.
Ha, yeah I don't have a player quite that bad. I have a barbarian who thrives on pissing everyone not in the group off, but he knows what he's getting himself into (and it's often in a rage so he takes 1/2 damage generally). Funny enough, he hasn't been dropped to 0 yet, (been dropped to 1 early, when he was level 1 and got hit before raging). Our monk has dropped 3 times, which is hilarious because he plays super careful (he has been victim to NPC crits) and our rogue once, after charging into a group of 4 in anger by herself.
I am actually playing VTT on roll20 with people I don't know personally. That being said, I like using maps/tokens (which would be similar to minis) on that and just about every combat. I think a huge plus for roll20's interface is the use of what they call "dynamic lighting" which can optionally enforce "line of sight". So when one character moves around a corner, the other players literally cannot see what that player sees anymore (unlike a map on a table, you could not show one without showing the rest). That way, when the others move around a corner, they don't already know the exact location of an NPC, which gives another level of difficulty in that they don't always optimally move to the correct position. Another thing it gives us is the ability to see "health bars" (I kind of prohibit them sharing the actual numbers of their HP totals/currents, but they can describe how they are feeling). The health bars allow the PC's to have a rough idea of how another PC is doing (I don't show health bars for enemies, but do for allies).
If I were playing on an actual tabletop, I would use minis (or at least checker pieces or poker chips) on a grid map. Unfortunately for me, only me and 2 other people I know have shown interest in playing and are able to commit at least once a month to play (my brother and my wife).
I pay zero attention at all to what a character's AC is and how many hp they have when choosing what a monster is going to do and who they are going to do it to, except when factors of those game traits are clearly apparent to the monster (i.e. it can see heavy armor, or that a character is already pretty badly beaten (which at my table means is missing more than half of their hit points)).
Monsters attack who it makes sense for them to attack given their personality, circumstances, and goals. That means one encounter might have all the enemies focusing on a single character, possibly even the one that is actually the weakest, but another encounter might have the enemies (even if they are the same sort of enemies) spreading their attacks evenly among the entire party. That variety helps the players be sure that I am not arbitrarily singling any character out for personal reasons (a thing their DM before me did constantly), and that I am not intentionally decreasing the difficulty of the game to the point of them feeling like failure or defeat is impossible.
As for the specific situation you describe of feeling like you wanted to give the wounded character some time to drink a healing potion or get healing from someone... don't feel obligated to give any more time than you already did. He got hurt by a trap, could have got some healing after that (even if it felt unnecessary, the opportunity still counts). He then fell, which was his own fault unless you set the DC unreasonably high or failed to communicate how difficult the climb seemed to be according to the character, got hurt some more, and could have from the sounds of it asked for some healing or drank a potion right then - since there is no reason to limit the usage of potions or other healing to only once initiative order has been determined.
Last, but not least, there is remembering that "have a good time" and "have a sense of danger and accountability" are not actually in opposition of each other in any way - doing one does not inherently diminish the other, and actually in the case of a table-top RPG the latter can enhance the former (even if a big risk results in failure, rather than the hoped for pay-off).
Excellent points, and I think your last one nailed it. I’ll give them a heads-up that once we finish this initial portion of the campaign, the training wheels are coming off.
Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow the dice may go cold!
Here's an example from a recent session: The rogue (all characters level 2 at this point) was leading the party at one point, failed a check, and fell into a trap. He only took a couple HP damage, I think 3. Then he tried to climb a rock wall, and fell from 20 feet or so, and took more damage. The result was that when they got into the next combat encounter, he only had a couple HP left. I then felt obligated to take it easy on him so that he could last long enough to take a healing potion, or for the cleric to heal him or something.
If a PC falls into a hole and has 2 HP left and doesn't drink a potion or get healed before moving on, then I wouldn't take it easy on the player at all. They had an opportunity to heal and ignored it. Also the Cleric can still heal him after he drops to 0 and technically because the rules don't have negative damage, the cleric is better off waiting for you to drop to 0 before healing you. (In other words a smart cleric metagaming with the knowledge that negative hp doesn't exist should wait until you drop to 0 because the excess damage is ignored, rather than healing you first chance he gets because the Hp most likely will just get swallowed up in the excess damage anyway. The threat of perma death doesn't really change this until the cleric has the power to heal for more hp than the person is likely to get hit for in the next round).
My point here is 1) Mechanically speaking it is better for the cleric to heal after someone drops to 0. and 2) If the PCs don't heal before walking into a room, what happens happens, especially with the PC leading the party into the room.
To be clear, I have the monsters attack in what I feel is a logical way. If it's a monster with only melee attacks, it prefers to target a PC that is withing range. Also, that means if the only target in range is the low-HP rogue, it's kind of tough luck for him, and hopefully I roll poorly on the attack.
As long as the PCs have healing available it isn't the end of the world for the PC. I might be a little more worried if the PCs didn't bring any healing, but I'm also nice enough that I'd have provided healing if they didn't have a cleric. One of the big issues is if the cleric is MIA for a session and that would be tough.
How do you guys handle these kinds of situations and find the balance of letting everyone have a good time, but also keep the sense of danger and accountability?
I guess a related question would be, if you have a bunch of monsters rolling to attack, how do you spread out the targets? Do you just attack as many PCs as possible, or do you concentrate attacks in any way?
This would depend on the monster in question. At some point, a monster with a high intelligence is probably going to concentrate attacks. A Vampire for example is likely to after the cleric and druid first with vengeance and try to kill them as soon as possible knowing both have the means to kill him forever. A dragon might concentrate on the wizard/sorcerer knowing that spells of a certain level can spell doom for him.
If only one PC is in range, then they all probably attack that PC, unless it makes sense for them to let a couple attack the PC while the rest go toward his friends. Stupid creatures or creatures who are purely monsterous might just attack the closest PC and not worry about anyone else, while the more intelligent foes may spread out to occupy the entire group.
My recommendation is to just make the encounters seem real and change up the tactics to reflect the type of opponents they are going against.
Personally I feel like it is best to let PCs share HPs. Otherwise you could get in the situation where the Cleric has to decide who to heal by vague, I'm really hurt comments. While more realistic, it does open up the possibility of the Cleric blowing his final heal on the PC who has 30 hp vs the pc left with 1 hp. It may even be debatable as to which is more realistic. A PC with 1 hp left would be way more noticeably hurt than the PC with 30 hp, and the Cleric should know that, though the party descriptions may not match that knowledge.
Okay, as an experienced DM, I suggest going easy on a new player until they understand the combat system and role playing aspect, usually this takes about two sessions before they really get it. However, DO NOT change the tactics of enemies, hide your rolls from the party, and maybe fudge them a bit in their favor if they fall below 1/4 of their max HP. Don't tell the party DCs for effects, and maybe let him make one or two he is close on. If you kill a player in the first session, they likely won't come back with a fresh character.
If they are just new to your table, and know the game, don't go easy on them at all, they are testing the waters, and probably want to see how everything's going to roll.
...hide your rolls from the party, and maybe fudge them a bit in their favor if they fall below 1/4 of their max HP. Don't tell the party DCs for effects, and maybe let him make one or two he is close on. If you kill a player in the first session, they likely won't come back with a fresh character.
It's important to realize that this advice does work, but is not universally going to work.
There are people who will have less fun if they suspect or are sure that the DM is intentionally softening the game, and those that would rather their first session include a dead character so they know what to expect of playing the game - even though they'd also prefer having managed (legitimately) to not die - than to feel like the difficulty of the game suddenly spikes right after they've finally had the time to grow an attachment to their character.
The trick, I find, is to just talk out with potential players before they commit to playing what they can expect of the game and be actually accurate (whether that means you don't fudge any numbers so they should expect randomly determined outcomes, or that means that you tell them when and why you would hypothetically fudge some numbers) - because once you've set their expectations to match what you are actually delivering, the only reason a potential player has for not coming back for more is because of a difference of preference (i.e. they don't like your style, or they don't like the game being played).
Personally I feel like it is best to let PCs share HPs. Otherwise you could get in the situation where the Cleric has to decide who to heal by vague, I'm really hurt comments. While more realistic, it does open up the possibility of the Cleric blowing his final heal on the PC who has 30 hp vs the pc left with 1 hp. It may even be debatable as to which is more realistic. A PC with 1 hp left would be way more noticeably hurt than the PC with 30 hp, and the Cleric should know that, though the party descriptions may not match that knowledge.
I agree, I've always played that players can talk about their HP situation. I didn't even know that some tables didn't allow it until very recently. To be fair, I've also been away from the game from a long time.
Okay, as an experienced DM, I suggest going easy on a new player until they understand the combat system and role playing aspect, usually this takes about two sessions before they really get it. However, DO NOT change the tactics of enemies, hide your rolls from the party, and maybe fudge them a bit in their favor if they fall below 1/4 of their max HP. Don't tell the party DCs for effects, and maybe let him make one or two he is close on. If you kill a player in the first session, they likely won't come back with a fresh character.
If they are just new to your table, and know the game, don't go easy on them at all, they are testing the waters, and probably want to see how everything's going to roll.
Yeah, these are brand-new players, not just new to my table. That's why I've been concerned, I don't think they always take all their options into account, because they often don't know what options are at their disposal. I've actually found it hard to suggest their options, because they all think I'm dropping hints. If they are in disagreement about what to do with info from an NPC, and I suggest an insight check, they think I'm hinting the NPC is lying or misleading somehow. If I point out that the wizard is about to use his last spell slot on a goblin that has already taken damage from like 4 other attacks, they automatically assume I'm about to throw a boss monster at them. I've made the point several times that I'm just trying to help them learn the game, and they're all "suuuuuuure you are..." lol.
The rogue in question, I feel obligated to point out, is played by my 10 year-old nephew. He gets a little absent-minded sometimes, and I've got a bit of a soft spot for him. The combat encounter that he went into with only a couple HP was almost immediately after he took the fall damage. His 12 year-old brother is one of the two wizards in the group, and if this game was streamed, they would be the stars. They make the most random decisions, it can be pretty hilarious. Well, the other party members aren't always amused, but I sure as heck am.
...hide your rolls from the party, and maybe fudge them a bit in their favor if they fall below 1/4 of their max HP. Don't tell the party DCs for effects, and maybe let him make one or two he is close on. If you kill a player in the first session, they likely won't come back with a fresh character.
It's important to realize that this advice does work, but is not universally going to work.
There are people who will have less fun if they suspect or are sure that the DM is intentionally softening the game, and those that would rather their first session include a dead character so they know what to expect of playing the game - even though they'd also prefer having managed (legitimately) to not die - than to feel like the difficulty of the game suddenly spikes right after they've finally had the time to grow an attachment to their character.
The trick, I find, is to just talk out with potential players before they commit to playing what they can expect of the game and be actually accurate (whether that means you don't fudge any numbers so they should expect randomly determined outcomes, or that means that you tell them when and why you would hypothetically fudge some numbers) - because once you've set their expectations to match what you are actually delivering, the only reason a potential player has for not coming back for more is because of a difference of preference (i.e. they don't like your style, or they don't like the game being played).
Regarding roll fudging, I don't do it often. There was one encounter where the whole party was rolling like crap, and meanwhile I was on fire. I roll behind the screen, and in this one encounter I critted three times. I fudged those to be a regular hit, but I kept the damage pretty high. Everyone is still at such a low level that one max-damage hit from what would be considered a pretty weak enemy normally would reduce them to 0 HP.
I would fudge dice to hide your mistakes it not your players. Also, if I want players to know that a group of monsters is too tough for them I may have them fight 1 or 2 of them to see their strength (eg have them fight 4 ghouls before I describe the room of 50 twenty minutes later) so that they are less likely to put me in a position to go easy on them.
I also believe that there needs to be a sense of danger.
You need to have the impending sense of doom. If you keep letting them think that everything is beatable and that somehow you will save them once again the game will become boring. Or the one time you introduce something that they should run from they don’t, you are stuck in a very bad spot.
I had character perish in battle and some have just had bad luck (falling off a bridge to their death etc..) and I have killed many a character some have been just plain old dice rolls and some were because the players did something silly and someone paid the price.
Just the other night on of my groups decided to split the party a bit. I still played the encounter the same way and three characters were making Death Saving Rolls while the other two were fighting for their lives. Thankfully no one died but it was extremely close. Lesson 1 – never split the party.
By pulling punches you have given you players the equivalent of a cheat code in a game. Don’t cheat your players out of the excitement and suspense. Don’t go out of your way to slay them just play the encounters the way they should be played. Beginning players will learn the dangers fast once a character is killed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
JT "You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
I also believe that there needs to be a sense of danger.
You need to have the impending sense of doom. If you keep letting them think that everything is beatable and that somehow you will save them once again the game will become boring. Or the one time you introduce something that they should run from they don’t, you are stuck in a very bad spot.
I had character perish in battle and some have just had bad luck (falling off a bridge to their death etc..) and I have killed many a character some have been just plain old dice rolls and some were because the players did something silly and someone paid the price.
Just the other night on of my groups decided to split the party a bit. I still played the encounter the same way and three characters were making Death Saving Rolls while the other two were fighting for their lives. Thankfully no one died but it was extremely close. Lesson 1 – never split the party.
By pulling punches you have given you players the equivalent of a cheat code in a game. Don’t cheat your players out of the excitement and suspense. Don’t go out of your way to slay them just play the encounters the way they should be played. Beginning players will learn the dangers fast once a character is killed.
I definitely hear that. I guess my main reason for going soft was because this is the very first time these guys have played, and not all of them were initially sold on it. I think they get it now, and everyone is having a great time, which is a relief. I was really invested in them enjoying themselves. I probably went a little overboard with that, because in all honesty it might not have been a big deal if they had to roll up a new PC, since they were all just starting, the new character wouldn't have been far behind everyone else.
---
One thing I've seen mentioned a few times on this thread is that the monsters attack a target that makes sense given their characteristics, goals, etc. That makes sense to me for the big villains, and also for some of the medium, mini-boss types, but for example, last night the party went into a cave with 7 goblins. I hadn't really thought much about them other than what's on their stat block. In that case, do you guys do anything in particular? I just had the front-rank goblins attack the front-rank PCs, and the goblins that were further back (it was a big cave) pulled out their short bows and went for the back-rank PCs. Would you guys put more thought into it than that for a band of goblins that had no special part in the story?
...for example, last night the party went into a cave with 7 goblins. I hadn't really thought much about them other than what's on their stat block. In that case, do you guys do anything in particular? I just had the front-rank goblins attack the front-rank PCs, and the goblins that were further back (it was a big cave) pulled out their short bows and went for the back-rank PCs. Would you guys put more thought into it than that for a band of goblins that had no special part in the story?
The way I think of things is this; if it isn't an important part of what is going on, it's a waste of time. And I don't want to waste any time.
By that, I mean that I do not spend time playing out anything but the "special part in the story" things - so there is no such thing as 7 goblins in a cave and I don't know why they are there or what they want out of an encounter with the party.
My suggestion would be: let the story guide you in the encounter (even the random encounters). Yes, maybe generally I tend to spread the monsters' attacks at the characters in the front rank, but, say orcs hate particularly elves and dwarves so they would attack them first. Tritons and Sahuagins are mortal enemies too, and they would attack each other on site.
So let the monster do its thing...very funny situations will come out.
...for example, last night the party went into a cave with 7 goblins. I hadn't really thought much about them other than what's on their stat block. In that case, do you guys do anything in particular? I just had the front-rank goblins attack the front-rank PCs, and the goblins that were further back (it was a big cave) pulled out their short bows and went for the back-rank PCs. Would you guys put more thought into it than that for a band of goblins that had no special part in the story?
The way I think of things is this; if it isn't an important part of what is going on, it's a waste of time. And I don't want to waste any time.
By that, I mean that I do not spend time playing out anything but the "special part in the story" things - so there is no such thing as 7 goblins in a cave and I don't know why they are there or what they want out of an encounter with the party.
Very True! I'm the same way. There is always a reason why something is there other than the odd wandering Owlbear that comes crashing through camp looking for a hafling to eat. Having senseless creatures for no reason will either take away from the story or confuse the players. Either/or, they are there for a reason and will act accordingly. Monster have goals. Consider the goals of the monster even if it just for food in the case of an Owlbear or other creature.
I play the monsters based on their INT and instincts. An Owlbear will go after what ever is closest. I group of bandits might be smarted and do their best to take out a identified caster type early. A leader may try to escape etc. Or even those goblins. If they are on the losing side of a battle they would make a run for it. They are masters of disengaging and making a run for it. They might appear later and harass they players with their bows knowing they cannot survive hand to hand. Ogres are big and dumb and might surrender or fight to the death depending on the Ogre. All these are lessons that players will learn. They will start planning more.
Other humanoids may not attack the players directly but might ambush them and run. Super intelligent creatures such and evil mages, Special Undead and Dragons will fight smart.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
JT "You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
New PCs don't have to start with less xp. It is possible to start them at the same xp, the same level, or one level behind.
Also at some point it is just a horrible play experience to continue starting PCs who die back at level one. It almost ensures they are going to die a hundred more times.
As a first-time DM running a game for mostly first-time players, I REALLY want them to have a good time, enjoy the game, and come back for more. I have been really careful about the damage they take, preferring to have the monsters go against the higher HP/AC characters (cleric, monk and ranger) as opposed to the more - shall we say 'fragile' characters (2 wizards and rogue) if I can help it. The obvious problem here is that if it becomes obvious that I'm keeping them alive, then the stakes are gone and they'll feel like I won't let them die.
Here's an example from a recent session: The rogue (all characters level 2 at this point) was leading the party at one point, failed a check, and fell into a trap. He only took a couple HP damage, I think 3. Then he tried to climb a rock wall, and fell from 20 feet or so, and took more damage. The result was that when they got into the next combat encounter, he only had a couple HP left. I then felt obligated to take it easy on him so that he could last long enough to take a healing potion, or for the cleric to heal him or something.
To be clear, I have the monsters attack in what I feel is a logical way. If it's a monster with only melee attacks, it prefers to target a PC that is withing range. Also, that means if the only target in range is the low-HP rogue, it's kind of tough luck for him, and hopefully I roll poorly on the attack.
How do you guys handle these kinds of situations and find the balance of letting everyone have a good time, but also keep the sense of danger and accountability?
I guess a related question would be, if you have a bunch of monsters rolling to attack, how do you spread out the targets? Do you just attack as many PCs as possible, or do you concentrate attacks in any way?
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
As you know as I've posted on several of your posts, I too am first time DM running the same type of group (new players). Play as if you don't know the characters statistics (who is weak and not) but not mindless. You can "see" this guy is wearing armor and that guys in a robe. Remember your NPC's don't know your PC's like you do, and your NPC's don't know what they were talking about how to handle the next fight, or who is weak and has low HP.
But also, attack logically. If someone ran in to the group of baddies alone, then it's the bad guys turn, the bad guys are going to attack him. They aren't going to ignore him, or walk away from him provoking attacks of opportunity to spread the damage around.
If someone is constantly charging in, and despite being injured insists on being in the front of the group, he deserves what he gets. Also keep in mind that dropping to 0 HP does not equal death. Also if a PC drops to 0 HP and there are other PC's still alive and attacking, the NPC's aren't likely to continue whacking the unconscious guy (causing more death saving throw fails or whatever) because there are bigger threats at the moment (the other PC's). I have had 4 PC's drop to 0 HP going through the first few "dungeons". However, they weren't really ever threatened to be a dead PC because either another PC would come over and give a potion or cast a heal as soon as someone dropped to 0. At worst, without an enemy attacking a PC, after a PC drops to 0 HP there are 3 full rounds before he would die. And that is statistically unlikely as the PC would have to roll a 1-9 on a d20 3 consecutive times. If they are dropping to 0 often, your encounters might need to be adjusted (check the XP/CR table in the DMG and don't forget the multipliers for more enemies); or you might want to give out more healing potions if you don't have healers (or even with healers just at low level with few spell slots).
I think dropping the players to 0 HP is great, because it teaches them to be cautions and not just go in swinging at every encounter, to think and strategize first.
In controlling my NPC's attacking the PC's so far I have basically gone with either attacking the closest hostile unit, or the unit who has initiated a hostile action. For example, we have a bard who, of course, loves to talk rather than fight. He can try persuading the baddies not to fight, meanwhile the barbarian might have listened to the bard so won't charge in swinging, but won't sweet talk the NPC's either (he throws tons of blatant insults at everyone). The enemies are going to get angry and attack him instead of the bard, as he seems to pose the threat to them.
If there are 2 PC's equidistant away from the NPC, the NPC will go after anyone who attacked him (if anyone) so far, or the PC who would be closest to the NPC's allies, as to protect himself as much as possible.
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
@Mehetmet At this point I feel like we just need to go out for some beers and compare notes lol. New Hampshire isn't THAT far away from Buffalo.
I do have one PC who forgets that this isn't Black Ops, and he won't heal if he just ducks behind a rock for 10 seconds. He gets what he gets, for sure.
Do you use minis in battle?
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
Ha, yeah I don't have a player quite that bad. I have a barbarian who thrives on pissing everyone not in the group off, but he knows what he's getting himself into (and it's often in a rage so he takes 1/2 damage generally). Funny enough, he hasn't been dropped to 0 yet, (been dropped to 1 early, when he was level 1 and got hit before raging). Our monk has dropped 3 times, which is hilarious because he plays super careful (he has been victim to NPC crits) and our rogue once, after charging into a group of 4 in anger by herself.
I am actually playing VTT on roll20 with people I don't know personally. That being said, I like using maps/tokens (which would be similar to minis) on that and just about every combat. I think a huge plus for roll20's interface is the use of what they call "dynamic lighting" which can optionally enforce "line of sight". So when one character moves around a corner, the other players literally cannot see what that player sees anymore (unlike a map on a table, you could not show one without showing the rest). That way, when the others move around a corner, they don't already know the exact location of an NPC, which gives another level of difficulty in that they don't always optimally move to the correct position. Another thing it gives us is the ability to see "health bars" (I kind of prohibit them sharing the actual numbers of their HP totals/currents, but they can describe how they are feeling). The health bars allow the PC's to have a rough idea of how another PC is doing (I don't show health bars for enemies, but do for allies).
If I were playing on an actual tabletop, I would use minis (or at least checker pieces or poker chips) on a grid map. Unfortunately for me, only me and 2 other people I know have shown interest in playing and are able to commit at least once a month to play (my brother and my wife).
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!
Here's how I do it:
I pay zero attention at all to what a character's AC is and how many hp they have when choosing what a monster is going to do and who they are going to do it to, except when factors of those game traits are clearly apparent to the monster (i.e. it can see heavy armor, or that a character is already pretty badly beaten (which at my table means is missing more than half of their hit points)).
Monsters attack who it makes sense for them to attack given their personality, circumstances, and goals. That means one encounter might have all the enemies focusing on a single character, possibly even the one that is actually the weakest, but another encounter might have the enemies (even if they are the same sort of enemies) spreading their attacks evenly among the entire party. That variety helps the players be sure that I am not arbitrarily singling any character out for personal reasons (a thing their DM before me did constantly), and that I am not intentionally decreasing the difficulty of the game to the point of them feeling like failure or defeat is impossible.
As for the specific situation you describe of feeling like you wanted to give the wounded character some time to drink a healing potion or get healing from someone... don't feel obligated to give any more time than you already did. He got hurt by a trap, could have got some healing after that (even if it felt unnecessary, the opportunity still counts). He then fell, which was his own fault unless you set the DC unreasonably high or failed to communicate how difficult the climb seemed to be according to the character, got hurt some more, and could have from the sounds of it asked for some healing or drank a potion right then - since there is no reason to limit the usage of potions or other healing to only once initiative order has been determined.
Last, but not least, there is remembering that "have a good time" and "have a sense of danger and accountability" are not actually in opposition of each other in any way - doing one does not inherently diminish the other, and actually in the case of a table-top RPG the latter can enhance the former (even if a big risk results in failure, rather than the hoped for pay-off).
Excellent points, and I think your last one nailed it. I’ll give them a heads-up that once we finish this initial portion of the campaign, the training wheels are coming off.
Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow the dice may go cold!
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
If a PC falls into a hole and has 2 HP left and doesn't drink a potion or get healed before moving on, then I wouldn't take it easy on the player at all. They had an opportunity to heal and ignored it. Also the Cleric can still heal him after he drops to 0 and technically because the rules don't have negative damage, the cleric is better off waiting for you to drop to 0 before healing you. (In other words a smart cleric metagaming with the knowledge that negative hp doesn't exist should wait until you drop to 0 because the excess damage is ignored, rather than healing you first chance he gets because the Hp most likely will just get swallowed up in the excess damage anyway. The threat of perma death doesn't really change this until the cleric has the power to heal for more hp than the person is likely to get hit for in the next round).
My point here is 1) Mechanically speaking it is better for the cleric to heal after someone drops to 0. and 2) If the PCs don't heal before walking into a room, what happens happens, especially with the PC leading the party into the room.
As long as the PCs have healing available it isn't the end of the world for the PC. I might be a little more worried if the PCs didn't bring any healing, but I'm also nice enough that I'd have provided healing if they didn't have a cleric. One of the big issues is if the cleric is MIA for a session and that would be tough.
Personally I feel like it is best to let PCs share HPs. Otherwise you could get in the situation where the Cleric has to decide who to heal by vague, I'm really hurt comments. While more realistic, it does open up the possibility of the Cleric blowing his final heal on the PC who has 30 hp vs the pc left with 1 hp. It may even be debatable as to which is more realistic. A PC with 1 hp left would be way more noticeably hurt than the PC with 30 hp, and the Cleric should know that, though the party descriptions may not match that knowledge.
Okay, as an experienced DM, I suggest going easy on a new player until they understand the combat system and role playing aspect, usually this takes about two sessions before they really get it. However, DO NOT change the tactics of enemies, hide your rolls from the party, and maybe fudge them a bit in their favor if they fall below 1/4 of their max HP. Don't tell the party DCs for effects, and maybe let him make one or two he is close on. If you kill a player in the first session, they likely won't come back with a fresh character.
If they are just new to your table, and know the game, don't go easy on them at all, they are testing the waters, and probably want to see how everything's going to roll.
it could be worse, you could be on fire.
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
I would fudge dice to hide your mistakes it not your players. Also, if I want players to know that a group of monsters is too tough for them I may have them fight 1 or 2 of them to see their strength (eg have them fight 4 ghouls before I describe the room of 50 twenty minutes later) so that they are less likely to put me in a position to go easy on them.
I also believe that there needs to be a sense of danger.
You need to have the impending sense of doom. If you keep letting them think that everything is beatable and that somehow you will save them once again the game will become boring. Or the one time you introduce something that they should run from they don’t, you are stuck in a very bad spot.
I had character perish in battle and some have just had bad luck (falling off a bridge to their death etc..) and I have killed many a character some have been just plain old dice rolls and some were because the players did something silly and someone paid the price.
Just the other night on of my groups decided to split the party a bit. I still played the encounter the same way and three characters were making Death Saving Rolls while the other two were fighting for their lives. Thankfully no one died but it was extremely close. Lesson 1 – never split the party.
By pulling punches you have given you players the equivalent of a cheat code in a game. Don’t cheat your players out of the excitement and suspense. Don’t go out of your way to slay them just play the encounters the way they should be played. Beginning players will learn the dangers fast once a character is killed.
JT " You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
Replaying to your first post...
My suggestion would be: let the story guide you in the encounter (even the random encounters). Yes, maybe generally I tend to spread the monsters' attacks at the characters in the front rank, but, say orcs hate particularly elves and dwarves so they would attack them first. Tritons and Sahuagins are mortal enemies too, and they would attack each other on site.
So let the monster do its thing...very funny situations will come out.
JT " You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
New PCs don't have to start with less xp. It is possible to start them at the same xp, the same level, or one level behind.
Also at some point it is just a horrible play experience to continue starting PCs who die back at level one. It almost ensures they are going to die a hundred more times.
I have two separate ideas for a PC who dies,I would not start a new PC at level 1
How do you get a one-armed goblin out of a tree?
Wave!