I would argue that the DM's job is to provide problems that the party composition as it is can solve.

I can create all manner of problems. But if I create a problem that the party does not have the requisite tools or capabilities to solve, then I'm just being a blue meanie for my own enjoyment.

And what happens when the party composition as it is can solve the problem but they do not think of a solution to the problem? Are you still just being a blue meanie for your own enjoyment? 

But well done being able to argue so well for the blatantly obvious. 

Quote from Rathkryn >>

And what happens when the party composition as it is can solve the problem but they do not think of a solution to the problem? Are you still just being a blue meanie for your own enjoyment? 

But well done being able to argue so well for the blatantly obvious. 

 Just so you know, when you use sarcasm and insults, it doesn't exactly communicate the point you're trying to make. Rather, it makes everyone think you're the kind of meanie to which AED was referring.

Quote from Rathkryn >>

Quote from SerLoxy >>

 

I disagree quite a bit. It's not necessarily the player's job either. It depends on whether you are playing a board game or a roleplaying game. Dnd can be both. 

 

In D&D, regardless of if you are playing it as a board game, roleplaying game or both, the DM's job is not to provide solutions to the players' problems. It's the DM's job to provide problems for the players to solve. If they can't come up with a solution, in my never humble opinion, then it's an example of not all stories have a happy ending. 

Granted, with totally new players you should probably give prompts. They're in a pit and can't figure out how to get out? Recommend that they go through their inventories and see if there's anything they might have to help with the situation. Maybe Brad has a grappling hook. Maybe Jane has a rope that will reach the top. Maybe Todd asks "What do these Boots of Spider Climbing" do?

 
You are stating a personal view/opinion as a fact. DnD is not a fixed format, although a bit more specific than some systems. 
I think the only wrong way to play DnD is to think that there is only one way to play (or DM) DnD. 

In my opinion, it's definitely the DM's job to provide solutions to players. No questions about that. How complete the solutions are, depends on the DM and the situation. 
Sometimes you want to provide more obvious solutions, if you want to streamline a situation. Sometimes you want to create a problem that can be solved mechanically with the party's abilities. Sometimes you want a problem that requires creative problem solving from the actual players (like puzzles). 

So this is not black and white at all. All of these example have varying degrees of solutions provided by the DM. The solution can be found within the puzzle or it can be a tool hidden in the dungeon. 

Sometimes a problem can be solved with just out of the box thinking, and these are great, but the campaign should rely on them IMO. I think the DM should keep in mind that "completely open-ended" does not always mean the most creativity. A totally open-ended situation can actually be very limiting, because you don't often have perfect visual information from the scene. You can't look around and let the scene inspire you. 

You depend on the DMs verbal output. And this output's priorities are designed by the DM. The player, in an actual problem solving situation, might prioritize all the different things. So they have to ask the DM for further details. But it's not always easy to know what questions to ask. 

At the end of the day,  I think DMs always provide solutions. Just varies how obvious the solutions are. 

And in this case they suggested that players are to spend their levels to get the needed tools. Like I said, that is one way to play the game. It's not wrong to instead focus on making a fun a memorable character rather than using your precious bard spell to provide healing for the party, if it doesn't sit well with the character. 

So this is where the board game / RPG questions comes into play. The DM can decide to enforce either or something in between. 

I think this kind of a standpoint that players need to optimize party compositions is a very DnD thing. I don't see this in most systems. But to me DnD is very much like a video game without the video. 

Quote from Rathkryn >>

And what happens when the party composition as it is can solve the problem but they do not think of a solution to the problem? Are you still just being a blue meanie for your own enjoyment? 

But well done being able to argue so well for the blatantly obvious. 

 
Then the DM did not take into account the party composition properly.

so yes, to the second question.

and thank you. I have found that arguing the obvious is usually a good way to cut through all the chaff. Professionally, even.

Quote from Rathkryn >>

And what happens when the party composition as it is can solve the problem but they do not think of a solution to the problem? Are you still just being a blue meanie for your own enjoyment? 

But well done being able to argue so well for the blatantly obvious. 

 Due to your mockery of AED's use of bolding and italicizing, allow me to introduce to you something:

Emphasis.

You see, emphasis is when an author uses things such as making things bold or underlining things to drive a point across. 

"Under NO circumstances is it the DM's job to provide solutions for players and their PC"s."

Yeah! It's not like this is a game or something! I mean..  who creates puzzles and designs encounters that require players to consider creative strategies to overcome them? That is just not the job of the DM at all!

"What do you think D&D is? A day at the zoo, where the animals can't touch the visitors?"

Of course not! Who would do such a thing and publish it on the DMs Guild as a supplement to Waterdeep: Dragon Heist as an adventure called, 'It's a Zoo in There?' That's not D&D!

"If the players know that ultimately, if their game play is not good enough to get them out of a tough situation, that the DM will bail them out, then it is no longer D&D. It just isn't."

Right? Who would want to come back week after week and play the same character? Obviously, we all want a game where the challenges are so completely impossible to overcome that our characters die in Round 1 of the first combat! I mean... duh!

Good game play. Balanced encounters. Who wants that?

"But your last statement says it better than I can. You think D&D is a video game. It was designed before there were video games as we know them today. Pong does not count."

The text based PC adventure game Adventure doesn't count either. We're not going to confuse this conversation with things like facts or history. Geez! 

You know, I was accused of thinking D&D is a Video game recently.

It made me look around for where I put in the quarters. Then I realized they mean something like a game you play on a computer or an X-station. Something like that. You know it is when you are older and dealing with youngsters -- they don't understand subtlety or nuance or the concept of emphasis...

Let me get my cane, and I'll show you...

Quote from JustaFarmer >>

Quote from SerLoxy >>

Quote from Rathkryn >>

Quote from SerLoxy >>

 

I disagree quite a bit. It's not necessarily the player's job either. It depends on whether you are playing a board game or a roleplaying game. Dnd can be both. 

 

In D&D, regardless of if you are playing it as a board game, roleplaying game or both, the DM's job is not to provide solutions to the players' problems. It's the DM's job to provide problems for the players to solve. If they can't come up with a solution, in my never humble opinion, then it's an example of not all stories have a happy ending. 

Granted, with totally new players you should probably give prompts. They're in a pit and can't figure out how to get out? Recommend that they go through their inventories and see if there's anything they might have to help with the situation. Maybe Brad has a grappling hook. Maybe Jane has a rope that will reach the top. Maybe Todd asks "What do these Boots of Spider Climbing" do?

 
You are stating a personal view/opinion as a fact. DnD is not a fixed format, although a bit more specific than some systems. 
I think the only wrong way to play DnD is to think that there is only one way to play (or DM) DnD. 

In my opinion, it's definitely the DM's job to provide solutions to players. No questions about that. How complete the solutions are, depends on the DM and the situation. 
Sometimes you want to provide more obvious solutions, if you want to streamline a situation. Sometimes you want to create a problem that can be solved mechanically with the party's abilities. Sometimes you want a problem that requires creative problem solving from the actual players (like puzzles). 

So this is not black and white at all. All of these example have varying degrees of solutions provided by the DM. The solution can be found within the puzzle or it can be a tool hidden in the dungeon. 

Sometimes a problem can be solved with just out of the box thinking, and these are great, but the campaign should rely on them IMO. I think the DM should keep in mind that "completely open-ended" does not always mean the most creativity. A totally open-ended situation can actually be very limiting, because you don't often have perfect visual information from the scene. You can't look around and let the scene inspire you. 

You depend on the DMs verbal output. And this output's priorities are designed by the DM. The player, in an actual problem solving situation, might prioritize all the different things. So they have to ask the DM for further details. But it's not always easy to know what questions to ask. 

At the end of the day,  I think DMs always provide solutions. Just varies how obvious the solutions are. 

And in this case they suggested that players are to spend their levels to get the needed tools. Like I said, that is one way to play the game. It's not wrong to instead focus on making a fun a memorable character rather than using your precious bard spell to provide healing for the party, if it doesn't sit well with the character. 

So this is where the board game / RPG questions comes into play. The DM can decide to enforce either or something in between. 

I think this kind of a standpoint that players need to optimize party compositions is a very DnD thing. I don't see this in most systems. But to me DnD is very much like a video game without the video. 

 

 

 Under NO circumstances is it the DM's job to provide solutions for players and their PC"s. What do you think D&D is? A day at the zoo, where the animals can't touch the visitors? If the players know that ultimately, if their game play is not good enough to get them out of a tough situation, that the DM will bail them out, then it is no longer D&D. It just isn't. But your last statement says it better than I can. You think D&D is a video game. It was designed before there were video games as we know them today. Pong does not count.

Please tone it down a notch. Let's keep it civilized. That kind of a tone is completely uncalled for. 

"What do you think D&D is? A day at the zoo, where the animals can't touch the visitors? If the players know that ultimately, if their game play is not good enough to get them out of a tough situation, that the DM will bail them out, then it is no longer D&D." 

First of all, this seems unnecessarily provocative, and with that stand, it's probably a waste of time to even reply. But I'll try. 

1. I said none of that. I said the DM needs to offer players solutions. I never said the DM needs to pamper them until they succeed. They are offered solutions, sometimes more obvious and something more subtle. The players don't necessarily have to use or even find the given solutions, but solutions need to exist. 

2. Also, come on. A bit of a slippery slope there, isn't it? There exists a middle-ground here. Or more specifically an entire spectrum of possibilities exists here. It's not binary where you either completely pamper the party or never provide any assistance. One day the players might all just have a terrible creative block and you need to boost them a bit to keep up the momentun. No harm done. Next session you might throw them a nasty curve ball where they need all of their mental capacity survive. 

3. What on earth is that phrasing: "What do you think D&D is? A day at the zoo, where the animals can't touch the visitors?" Last time I heard that kind of a phrase refer to a fun hobby was in some YouTube parody about old school soccer dads, who yell at the coach. 

DnD (or any tabletop RP) is literally whatever I want it to be, and that is the beauty of the concept. I've played DnD with a 5 year old first timer. It was very streamline and I really pampered to him. He had many chances to fail - and he did. But I did present him with very obvious solutions that he could just say yes to. He was absolutely thrilled. And sometimes we play horror games with a group of seasoned players and it's freakin brutal. Sometimes somewhere in between. 

4. "You think D&D is a video game. It was designed before there were video games as we know them today." Not sure if you missed the entire point of this on purpose or because of my poor communication. But I didn't say DnD is a video game. I said it's like a video game in comparison to many other systems. This opinion is strongly enforced by the DnD Beyond interface combined with something like AboveVTT.

I forgot to specify 5th edition there, so my bad. Of course your comment on which came first missed the subject either way, so doesn't really matter. I made the comparison, because things like optimization, although it exists on possibly every platform, is on another level in DnD - much like in Video RPGs. I don't encounter such heavy theory crafting and careful calculation in other systems. But I did see it in World of Warcraft. 

And this is not a wrong way to play, just one of many ways. 


But seriously. Not black and white. Not a fixed format. Not up to you to tell anyone how the game is supposed to be played. 

Quote from Rathkryn >>

Quote from SerLoxy >>

 

I disagree quite a bit. It's not necessarily the player's job either. It depends on whether you are playing a board game or a roleplaying game. Dnd can be both. 

 

In D&D, regardless of if you are playing it as a board game, roleplaying game or both, the DM's job is not to provide solutions to the players' problems. It's the DM's job to provide problems for the players to solve. If they can't come up with a solution, in my never humble opinion, then it's an example of not all stories have a happy ending. 

Granted, with totally new players you should probably give prompts. They're in a pit and can't figure out how to get out? Recommend that they go through their inventories and see if there's anything they might have to help with the situation. Maybe Brad has a grappling hook. Maybe Jane has a rope that will reach the top. Maybe Todd asks "What do these Boots of Spider Climbing" do?

 
Or with more experienced players, describe the pit in a way that subtly suggests possibilities. This is also providing solutions, but less obviously. Maybe with passive investigation or a suitable check if it fits the situation.

Like describing that the walls are slick, soft and muddy. The wall is unclimbable, but parts of the wall seem to be solid (like rocks). The rocks are too far apart to be used for climbing. Other important things can be described as well, of course, so that this isn't too obvious. 

You provide them with a subtle suggestion, as in you provide them with a partial solution that they can try to complete. 

So the players decide to investigate the wall further. They ask if the rocks come off with force. They don't. They start digging around the rocks with whatever, spell or tool or weapon. After digging for a while, they realize that it's solid rock and the rocks sticking out of the mud are just the tips. They keep digging even further and find out that the muddy surface actually doesn't go very deep. If they remove enough of the dirt, the rock could become climbable. 

Add the necessary pressure elements and checks to make it more interesting. 

Here I provided the players with a solution, but did in no way pamper them. They might have never decided to further investigate the wall. Instead they could have done something else. But I did provide them with one possible solution that I planned beforehand. 

This has gotten surprisingly heated!

Regarding whether it is up to the DM to tune the encounters/puzzles/problems to things the players can solve - absolutely. D&D is not meant to be a Cruel World Simulator(tm), it is meant to be a heroic story-building engine. You might (and likely will) adapt it to your own style, but realism it was never meant to do.

Let's take something as basic as a Pit Trap. The party is going through a dungeon and they fall into a pit - pretty standard stuff.

As the DM, you have the say over:

• The DC to not fall in. MAke it 30 and they can't escape - not fun. Make it 15 so the high dex characters shine - fun! Make it 5 so everyone saves - not fun.
• How deep it is. Make it 300ft. deep so they die on landing - not fun. Make it 20ft deep so they take some damage but survive - fun. Make it 5ft. deep so they just climb out again - not fun.
• How hard it is to get out. Make it smooth and lined with oil of slipperiness - not fun. Make it climbable if you are skilled in athletics - fun. Give them a ladder - not fun.

Now you sprinkle in party composition, and adjust to make it stay fun:

• Party of rogues and barbarians, and high-dex characters: DC15 is likely that they all succeed, which we established is not fun. Up the DC a hair - basically, whoever rolls lowest (unless they all roll very high) falls in, and has to get out.
• Party of Wizards, Artificer, and Monks, with Slow Fall and monk shenanigans - make the pit deeper, so that they have to use their abilities, making it fun!
• Party of characters wih climb speeds or fly - put a lid over the pit after they fall in - make it a challenge to get out, rather than "Ok, I climb out".

Now, the assumption here is that Healing is somehow a right of the party, that they should have healing even if none of them have healing. This way of thinking is along the same lines as if you said "I'll give them a group of Guards to command as they don't have any melee", or "I'll give them a wizard as they have no magic". It's plugging the holes they made, which reduces the impacts of their decisions. Giving the party challenges which suit their capabilities is one thing, but giving them bonuses to make up for their choices is another.

For example, if the party is low-level and all fighters/barbarians, and they meet a ghost. If it goes to combat, they can't hurt it - so the Ghost might just try to scare them and laugh at the encounter. If there were a spellcaster who could hurt them, then they would take the fight seriously. If they took the first fight seriously, it's a TPK. so the DM needs to adjust the world to suit.

Put simply, the players saying "We're almost dead but we're going to the next fight anyway" is them deciding to forgo the free healing of a rest, and it is their mistake to make. The next encounter might be goblins who see them as easy pickings for slaves, and capture them by knocking them out instead - almost dead adventurers attacking them will be a comparatively easy win for them!

Quote from ThorukDuckSlayer >>

This has gotten surprisingly heated!

Regarding whether it is up to the DM to tune the encounters/puzzles/problems to things the players can solve - absolutely. D&D is not meant to be a Cruel World Simulator(tm), it is meant to be a heroic story-building engine. You might (and likely will) adapt it to your own style, but realism it was never meant to do.

Let's take something as basic as a Pit Trap. The party is going through a dungeon and they fall into a pit - pretty standard stuff.

As the DM, you have the say over:

• The DC to not fall in. MAke it 30 and they can't escape - not fun. Make it 15 so the high dex characters shine - fun! Make it 5 so everyone saves - not fun.
• How deep it is. Make it 300ft. deep so they die on landing - not fun. Make it 20ft deep so they take some damage but survive - fun. Make it 5ft. deep so they just climb out again - not fun.
• How hard it is to get out. Make it smooth and lined with oil of slipperiness - not fun. Make it climbable if you are skilled in athletics - fun. Give them a ladder - not fun.

Now you sprinkle in party composition, and adjust to make it stay fun:

• Party of rogues and barbarians, and high-dex characters: DC15 is likely that they all succeed, which we established is not fun. Up the DC a hair - basically, whoever rolls lowest (unless they all roll very high) falls in, and has to get out.
• Party of Wizards, Artificer, and Monks, with Slow Fall and monk shenanigans - make the pit deeper, so that they have to use their abilities, making it fun!
• Party of characters wih climb speeds or fly - put a lid over the pit after they fall in - make it a challenge to get out, rather than "Ok, I climb out".

Now, the assumption here is that Healing is somehow a right of the party, that they should have healing even if none of them have healing. This way of thinking is along the same lines as if you said "I'll give them a group of Guards to command as they don't have any melee", or "I'll give them a wizard as they have no magic". It's plugging the holes they made, which reduces the impacts of their decisions. Giving the party challenges which suit their capabilities is one thing, but giving them bonuses to make up for their choices is another.

For example, if the party is low-level and all fighters/barbarians, and they meet a ghost. If it goes to combat, they can't hurt it - so the Ghost might just try to scare them and laugh at the encounter. If there were a spellcaster who could hurt them, then they would take the fight seriously. If they took the first fight seriously, it's a TPK. so the DM needs to adjust the world to suit.

 

Put simply, the players saying "We're almost dead but we're going to the next fight anyway" is them deciding to forgo the free healing of a rest, and it is their mistake to make. The next encounter might be goblins who see them as easy pickings for slaves, and capture them by knocking them out instead - almost dead adventurers attacking them will be a comparatively easy win for them!

 To summarize what I hear you saying, the players have agency and can make choices that increase their chances of survival. However, the DM also has to present options that are reasonable for their level and party composition.

To add my own opinion to this, the last part is what the OP is and should be doing. I think too, if the players decide they want to find an NPC who can be the healer, that's an option that could fulfill their obligations if they still find things challenging.

It doesn't have to be either/or. It can be both/and.

Quote from DoveArrow >>

Quote from ThorukDuckSlayer >>

This has gotten surprisingly heated!

Regarding whether it is up to the DM to tune the encounters/puzzles/problems to things the players can solve - absolutely. D&D is not meant to be a Cruel World Simulator(tm), it is meant to be a heroic story-building engine. You might (and likely will) adapt it to your own style, but realism it was never meant to do.

Let's take something as basic as a Pit Trap. The party is going through a dungeon and they fall into a pit - pretty standard stuff.

As the DM, you have the say over:

• The DC to not fall in. MAke it 30 and they can't escape - not fun. Make it 15 so the high dex characters shine - fun! Make it 5 so everyone saves - not fun.
• How deep it is. Make it 300ft. deep so they die on landing - not fun. Make it 20ft deep so they take some damage but survive - fun. Make it 5ft. deep so they just climb out again - not fun.
• How hard it is to get out. Make it smooth and lined with oil of slipperiness - not fun. Make it climbable if you are skilled in athletics - fun. Give them a ladder - not fun.

Now you sprinkle in party composition, and adjust to make it stay fun:

• Party of rogues and barbarians, and high-dex characters: DC15 is likely that they all succeed, which we established is not fun. Up the DC a hair - basically, whoever rolls lowest (unless they all roll very high) falls in, and has to get out.
• Party of Wizards, Artificer, and Monks, with Slow Fall and monk shenanigans - make the pit deeper, so that they have to use their abilities, making it fun!
• Party of characters wih climb speeds or fly - put a lid over the pit after they fall in - make it a challenge to get out, rather than "Ok, I climb out".

Now, the assumption here is that Healing is somehow a right of the party, that they should have healing even if none of them have healing. This way of thinking is along the same lines as if you said "I'll give them a group of Guards to command as they don't have any melee", or "I'll give them a wizard as they have no magic". It's plugging the holes they made, which reduces the impacts of their decisions. Giving the party challenges which suit their capabilities is one thing, but giving them bonuses to make up for their choices is another.

For example, if the party is low-level and all fighters/barbarians, and they meet a ghost. If it goes to combat, they can't hurt it - so the Ghost might just try to scare them and laugh at the encounter. If there were a spellcaster who could hurt them, then they would take the fight seriously. If they took the first fight seriously, it's a TPK. so the DM needs to adjust the world to suit.

 

Put simply, the players saying "We're almost dead but we're going to the next fight anyway" is them deciding to forgo the free healing of a rest, and it is their mistake to make. The next encounter might be goblins who see them as easy pickings for slaves, and capture them by knocking them out instead - almost dead adventurers attacking them will be a comparatively easy win for them!

 To summarize what I hear you saying, the players have agency and can make choices that increase their chances of survival. However, the DM also has to present options that are reasonable for their level and party composition.

To add my own opinion to this, the last part is what the OP is and should be doing. I think too, if the players decide they want to find an NPC who can be the healer, that's an option that could fulfill their obligations if they still find things challenging.

It doesn't have to be either/or. It can be both/and.

 
I like this summary. 

The next bit about an NPC like that could be a bit problematic for some, although a good suggestion. Personally I do not like to play a long term NPC "party member". You know, bias and all. I'd probably make it a healbot of some sort, maybe literally if it fits the setting. :D An NPC with only a couple of features and no actual "mind" of its own. Maybe some small passive buff and a LoH type of ranged healing pool. Then on its turn, players can use it to heal. It has its own HP though, so it can be killed/destroyed. 

I made a companion mod that has been playtested for about half a year now with great results. One key difference to the sidekick rule is that these are kind of like advanced AIs, so only partially sentient/sapient.

They are controlled by players and based on player classes. A telepathic link with a PC but enough sentience to act independently if the players go down. But they don't make long term plans and they have no opinions outside of their direct proficiencies. Simply to avoid having to RP two characters.

It's a bit unrelated to this, but the point is that I created the mod to remove that DM agency from sidekicks. Same goes here. :) Of course I sometimes have NPCs that work with the party, but they usually have their own goals and motives and are not "permanent" party members. But if I needed something like this, I'd prefer to give players control of the "sidekick" for this reason. And in that case, make it very easy to control to avoid exhaustingly slow combat rounds. 

Other than that, I think it's a good suggestion. :) 

Quote from JustaFarmer >>

 Under NO circumstances is it the DM's job to provide solutions for players and their PC"s. What do you think D&D is? A day at the zoo, where the animals can't touch the visitors? If the players know that ultimately, if their game play is not good enough to get them out of a tough situation, that the DM will bail them out, then it is no longer D&D. It just isn't. But your last statement says it better than I can. You think D&D is a video game. It was designed before there were video games as we know them today. Pong does not count.

You are forgetting the One Commandment of DnD, "There is no wrong way to play DnD as long as everyone is having fun"

Also, the OP didn't ask for opinions on whether they SHOULD make things easier - they said that they want to modify things to avoid a TPK, and asked for ideas on how to accomplish it.  So you aren't even really attempting to help the topic at hand here

Quote from DrJawaPhD >>

Quote from JustaFarmer >>

 Under NO circumstances is it the DM's job to provide solutions for players and their PC"s. What do you think D&D is? A day at the zoo, where the animals can't touch the visitors? If the players know that ultimately, if their game play is not good enough to get them out of a tough situation, that the DM will bail them out, then it is no longer D&D. It just isn't. But your last statement says it better than I can. You think D&D is a video game. It was designed before there were video games as we know them today. Pong does not count.

You are forgetting the One Commandment of DnD, "There is no wrong way to play DnD as long as everyone is having fun"

Also, the OP didn't ask for opinions on whether they SHOULD make things easier - they said that they want to modify things to avoid a TPK, and asked for ideas on how to accomplish it.  So you aren't even really attempting to help the topic at hand here

 
I'd go one step further here too. D&D is disasterously bad in supporting the development of new DMs compared to the way other game systems handle their GM information. Nowhere in the Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG) does it ever actually discuss party composition. Which, let's be honest here is something that will be of interest and use to new DMs...otherwise this entire thread might not have happened. The fact that the writers of the DMG (5e) never considered how party composition might need to change the way you balance or create an encounter...even in the form of an offhand comment...pretty much highlights how little thought went into the 5e DMG. 

If anything I think there's a lot that experienced GMs and DMs could add to a DMG in terms of helping newer DMs learn to create games for their tables. In fact we kind of have to given that WotC never really bothered to.

Quote from JustaFarmer >>

Quote from DrJawaPhD >>

Quote from JustaFarmer >>

 Under NO circumstances is it the DM's job to provide solutions for players and their PC"s. What do you think D&D is? A day at the zoo, where the animals can't touch the visitors? If the players know that ultimately, if their game play is not good enough to get them out of a tough situation, that the DM will bail them out, then it is no longer D&D. It just isn't. But your last statement says it better than I can. You think D&D is a video game. It was designed before there were video games as we know them today. Pong does not count.

You are forgetting the One Commandment of DnD, "There is no wrong way to play DnD as long as everyone is having fun"

Also, the OP didn't ask for opinions on whether they SHOULD make things easier - they said that they want to modify things to avoid a TPK, and asked for ideas on how to accomplish it.  So you aren't even really attempting to help the topic at hand here

 Actually, the only commandment of D&D (it is not DnD) is for any and all DM's to actually read the DMG before trying to DM. Just like players should read the sections of the PHB relevant to their chars. If DM's and players followed that commandment, any number of threads would cease to exist.

Quote from JustaFarmer >>

Quote from DrJawaPhD >>

Quote from JustaFarmer >>

 Under NO circumstances is it the DM's job to provide solutions for players and their PC"s. What do you think D&D is? A day at the zoo, where the animals can't touch the visitors? If the players know that ultimately, if their game play is not good enough to get them out of a tough situation, that the DM will bail them out, then it is no longer D&D. It just isn't. But your last statement says it better than I can. You think D&D is a video game. It was designed before there were video games as we know them today. Pong does not count.

You are forgetting the One Commandment of DnD, "There is no wrong way to play DnD as long as everyone is having fun"

Also, the OP didn't ask for opinions on whether they SHOULD make things easier - they said that they want to modify things to avoid a TPK, and asked for ideas on how to accomplish it.  So you aren't even really attempting to help the topic at hand here

 Actually, the only commandment of D&D (it is not DnD) is for any and all DM's to actually read the DMG before trying to DM. Just like players should read the sections of the PHB relevant to their chars. If DM's and players followed that commandment, any number of threads would cease to exist.

I'm getting really strong troll vibes from this post. 

Lol. This thread took a lot of weird turns. Anyway, I thought I'd just contribute my input too :)

1) If the OP is still reading. There are lots of ways to help a party get through things.

- if the players are new then giving them some pointers will help. A bard can heal, a divine soul sorcerer might be able to heal with certain spell selections. A thief rogue with the healer feat is an amazing backup healer since they can heal as a bonus action using their medicine kit.

- even ignoring those options, you can give the party some form of ancillary healing. A supply of healing potions, some healing mushrooms or other food, a magic item like a staff of healing.

- NPCs can be a great choice too. With a party like this you might be better with a fighter or barbarian NPC rather than a cleric. Some NPC that is willing to run forward and sacrifice themselves for the good of the party (to some extent at least). The bard will usually have sufficient healing if everything isn't constantly beating on classes with a really low AC.

- adjust the encounters and rest/encounter timing as required. Two sorcerers and a bard can represent a lot of both damage and crowd control if they use up spell slots. So you may find the party using up resources to succeed at encounters and then needing to rest. You can just go with that rhythm in the campaign - accept the need for extra rests and let the party blast away at each combat encounter.

- have a good reason for why the opponents want prisoners rather than dead adventurers. Due to the microcosm nature of DotMM, there is a very good possibility that opponents would prefer slaves/prisoners instead of wasting perfectly good adventurers - which gives a plot line reason to avoid a TPK if things don't work out as expected.

So there are lots of ways for the OP to address their concerns.

2) D&D is a game that is played differently at each table. The same DM might run the game the same or differently every time they choose to run something. Each group of players will each contribute their own perspectives. Basically, if you are playing D&D and enjoying D&D then you aren't doing it wrong.

There were also quite a few blanket statements made that are all either incorrect or are statements that are too general to substantiate.

- "the majority of players don't want the risk of death in a game" (paraphrased). This may be true for one DM and the small fraction of players to which they have been exposed but there is no way I'd attempt to make such a general statement. My personal experience is the opposite, the majority of players/DMs I know consider the possibility (not the likelihood) of character death as a integral element of D&D as written. The set of rules on character death and death saving throws substantiate that view that character death is a fundamental game element whether a specific DM chooses to use it or not.

- "death is an essential element of D&D" (paraphrased) ... no it isn't. Characters don't have to die to have a fun game. Personally, I found that some players will go to ridiculous lengths to do dumb things if they know that the DM won't let their character die but as long as players don't abuse it and the DM/players are having fun there is no problem with coming up with a heroic storyline in which the characters won't die. Many people want to play adventures similar to those in books they have read and typically, the hero or heroine of those stories, doesn't die.

3) Last comment, in my opinion, anyone who wants to DM needs to read the players handbook. 5e was designed around the one book for both DMs and players. The PHB describes the fundamental game elements and pillars of exploration, social interactions and combat.

One poster suggested that a new DM must read the DMG and that seems either short sighted or troll bait. The DMG contains bonus/extra/optional rules and some guidance on creating your own creatures or a basic dungeon, along with lists of magic items, but it is far from essential. A new DM would ideally play a few games with an experienced DM to get an idea of how the game flows, what encounters are like, what mapping and such look like, along with reading the PHB - that should give a new DM 90% of what they need to run a game. Even when I learned the game in AD&D days, the DMG was mostly a source of magic item reference and of limited use beyond that.

P.S. If I was offering a suggestion to a new DM it would be to buy the PHB, Monster Manual, and one of the introductory modules to give them at least some idea of ONE way of putting an adventure together.

Quote from David42 >>

Lol. This thread took a lot of weird turns. Anyway, I thought I'd just contribute my input too :)

1) If the OP is still reading. There are lots of ways to help a party get through things.

- if the players are new then giving them some pointers will help. A bard can heal, a divine soul sorcerer might be able to heal with certain spell selections. A thief rogue with the healer feat is an amazing backup healer since they can heal as a bonus action using their medicine kit.

- even ignoring those options, you can give the party some form of ancillary healing. A supply of healing potions, some healing mushrooms or other food, a magic item like a staff of healing.

- NPCs can be a great choice too. With a party like this you might be better with a fighter or barbarian NPC rather than a cleric. Some NPC that is willing to run forward and sacrifice themselves for the good of the party (to some extent at least). The bard will usually have sufficient healing if everything isn't constantly beating on classes with a really low AC.

- adjust the encounters and rest/encounter timing as required. Two sorcerers and a bard can represent a lot of both damage and crowd control if they use up spell slots. So you may find the party using up resources to succeed at encounters and then needing to rest. You can just go with that rhythm in the campaign - accept the need for extra rests and let the party blast away at each combat encounter.

- have a good reason for why the opponents want prisoners rather than dead adventurers. Due to the microcosm nature of DotMM, there is a very good possibility that opponents would prefer slaves/prisoners instead of wasting perfectly good adventurers - which gives a plot line reason to avoid a TPK if things don't work out as expected.

So there are lots of ways for the OP to address their concerns.

2) D&D is a game that is played differently at each table. The same DM might run the game the same or differently every time they choose to run something. Each group of players will each contribute their own perspectives. Basically, if you are playing D&D and enjoying D&D then you aren't doing it wrong.

There were also quite a few blanket statements made that are all either incorrect or are statements that are too general to substantiate.

- "the majority of players don't want the risk of death in a game" (paraphrased). This may be true for one DM and the small fraction of players to which they have been exposed but there is no way I'd attempt to make such a general statement. My personal experience is the opposite, the majority of players/DMs I know consider the possibility (not the likelihood) of character death as a integral element of D&D as written. The set of rules on character death and death saving throws substantiate that view that character death is a fundamental game element whether a specific DM chooses to use it or not.

- "death is an essential element of D&D" (paraphrased) ... no it isn't. Characters don't have to die to have a fun game. Personally, I found that some players will go to ridiculous lengths to do dumb things if they know that the DM won't let their character die but as long as players don't abuse it and the DM/players are having fun there is no problem with coming up with a heroic storyline in which the characters won't die. Many people want to play adventures similar to those in books they have read and typically, the hero or heroine of those stories, doesn't die.

3) Last comment, in my opinion, anyone who wants to DM needs to read the players handbook. 5e was designed around the one book for both DMs and players. The PHB describes the fundamental game elements and pillars of exploration, social interactions and combat.

One poster suggested that a new DM must read the DMG and that seems either short sighted or troll bait. The DMG contains bonus/extra/optional rules and some guidance on creating your own creatures or a basic dungeon, along with lists of magic items, but it is far from essential. A new DM would ideally play a few games with an experienced DM to get an idea of how the game flows, what encounters are like, what mapping and such look like, along with reading the PHB - that should give a new DM 90% of what they need to run a game. Even when I learned the game in AD&D days, the DMG was mostly a source of magic item reference and of limited use beyond that.

P.S. If I was offering a suggestion to a new DM it would be to buy the PHB, Monster Manual, and one of the introductory modules to give them at least some idea of ONE way of putting an adventure together.

- "death is an essential element of D&D" (paraphrased) ... no it isn't. Characters don't have to die to have a fun game. Personally, I found that some players will go to ridiculous lengths to do dumb things if they know that the DM won't let their character die but as long as players don't abuse it and the DM/players are having fun there is no problem with coming up with a heroic storyline in which the characters won't die. Many people want to play adventures similar to those in books they have read and typically, the hero or heroine of those stories, doesn't die.

^
That was a great way to put it. I really felt that final sentence. I know that I, and many others, do and feel that, but I never thought about it from that death perspective. Cheers mate, that was good. 

It's actually possible for a skilled DM to make the players fear character death, without actually experiencing it. 
In a movie/book/story, your favorite character is often in mortal danger. Sometimes the story is badly written and you realize that they are not in actual danger, but sometimes the feeling is very much real.

If the DM can make the player feel that real sense of mortal fear and then survive against all "odds", then that will probably create everlasting memories. The PC's actual death might not be nearly as powerful in storytelling/memories. 

The trick is just that - the feeling of mortal danger. A skilled and subtle DM can literally bail them out by choice eventually, and they never even realize that the DM bailed them out. They just feel incredibly lucky and cherish the moment/story forever. 

A more personal note: 

Of course some players enjoy character death. Nothing wrong with that. It's just not universal.

I personally grow very attached to my characters and sometimes play way too carefully. I kind of set very high expectations for them and spend a lot of time building them. But personally I've tried to move away from this a bit. I've tried to make my characters more disposable lately, and if they grow on me, they do. But I play a more risky game with a sort of subtle "death wish". This is a bit of a 180 turn, but I felt it necessary to overcome my over-attachment. :)

There is no need for a healer in 5e. Those saying otherwise are stuck using assumptions from earlier editions. The short and long rest mechanic provides all the healing the party needs. Once the bard reaches 5th level, Leomund's Tiny Hut as a ritual gives the group the ability to rest whenever they want. That is the solution the party can provide to avoid TPKs.

The DM has to respect that solution and not conjure ridiculous tactics to counter Tiny Hut. Problem solved.

Quote from Telcarr_Avorr >>

There is no need for a healer in 5e. Those saying otherwise are stuck using assumptions from earlier editions. The short and long rest mechanic provides all the healing the party needs. Once the bard reaches 5th level, Leomund's Tiny Hut as a ritual gives the group the ability to rest whenever they want. That is the solution the party can provide to avoid TPKs.

The DM has to respect that solution and not conjure ridiculous tactics to counter Tiny Hut. Problem solved.

 as long as everyone is aware that LTH has no floor.