DMs: How Do You Clue Players In That...

[delericho]

(How do you clue players in that...) "You can't survive this monster"?

I don't. I give hints that a particular creature is fairly badass (for different values of badass, of course), by having it referred to be the locals, by showing signs of the devastation it causes, and by giving PCs opportunities to research their opponents, but not any indication of how the monster relates to them specifically. It's up to them to do the calculation of whether to risk it, or whether discretion is the better part of valour.

Players are notorious for getting into fights, and fighting until a bitter TPK.

That's true... but that's their call. It's not my place to make those decisions for them.

Most encounters with monsters are written to be overcome in a glory of blood and battle, so players naturally and quite reasonably assume that any monster they come across is killable.

I've generally been lucky in that I've played mostly with people used to fairly deadly (but not absurd) games in the past, so they know that such an assumption would be faulty. However, if I did find myself with a group mostly composed of "if we see it, we can kill it" players then I would handle the situation by stating clearly that my campaign doesn't work like that, once at the outset of the campaign.

If they don't take that warning on board, or choose not to believe me, then I'm afraid they get to learn the lesson the hard way.

 

[Jhaelen]

Apart from environmental clues and picking up rumours well before the actual encounter, you can have them notice the monster from afar, watching it hunt and easily kill something that would pose a very real danger to the party.

In 4e monster knowledge checks are also an easy way to drive the message home. Either they roll exceedingly well, so you can just tell them that they believe their opposition may be too tough to take on (yet), or you can tell them they have no idea what the heck they're facing...

 

[ExploderWizard]

If one PC is dropped fairly quickly without appearing to require much effort from the monster then retreat should be a sane option.

Also if multiple PCs are taking terrible amounts of damage and do not seem to be inflicting much damage of their own, running should be considered.

Since there are no morale rules for PCs, events that would trigger a morale check for monsters should be recognized by the players so that they can voluntarily "fail" a morale check before the whole party becomes lunch.

 

[jodyjohnson]

I'd do the heavy-hand approach and just narrate over-powering and way underpowered encounters.

But that's just what works in my group. They have no desire to play out cake walks or auto-lose scenarios.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I don't. I give hints that a particular creature is fairly badass (for different values of badass, of course), by having it referred to be the locals, by showing signs of the devastation it causes, and by giving PCs opportunities to research their opponents, but not any indication of how the monster relates to them specifically.

Okay so a lot of DMs are giving in-game hints. My next question is: how do you identify different values of badass, especially when the info is coming from locals or books?

Most people, being non-combatants, would find anything with more than 3 or so HD/CR/levels to be outright terrifying. For example, a great wyrm red dragon is terrifying; but so is a werewolf. And unless a particular local has experienced both of them -- unlikely -- how are PCs supposed to know that one is more dangerous than the other? Even if the PCs are talking to or reading a book written by a famous adventurer-scholar, how does the adventurer-scholar express a monster's degree of badassery in a way that the players can put in context?

So...I guess I'm asking how are players supposed to correlate all these hints to their PCs' level, in order to make a judgment call?

 

[Grogg of the North]

Well I try to make it known to my group that just because its stated doesn't mean you should try to kill it.

I try to not to use too many "big" monsters. If the something as tall as a house comes out swinging a tree its usually a sign to be careful in my games.

And if the monster is intelligent, just have them laugh as the PCs take off a small bit of hp and it retaliates by smacking the fighter into a fighter shaped hole in the ground.

Meta-gaming should be a tool of last result. So if a PC constantly meta-games and announces what the creature is, its strengths and weaknesses, and any other information it makes me an angry DM. And an angry DM is a deadly DM....

 

[SkidAce]

I'd do the heavy-hand approach and just narrate over-powering and way underpowered encounters.

But that's just what works in my group. They have no desire to play out cake walks or auto-lose scenarios.

I kind of do this also. With a little flavor thrown in so they can pretend I didn't give it away*

If fighting a martial opponent, I can tell the fighter "You notice the skill and ease with which it parries and it's deadly strikes, looks way more skillfull than you expected. Or, "your blows by now would have killed 5 ogres, but it seems barely scratched".

Sometimes I bring in the wizard's expertise "Your arcane expertise reminds you that the Bumbling Bodkin Troll is in fact, magical and nearly impervious to harm, in fact, it appears your lightning bolt barely singed it."

Same with clerics and undead, rogues versus assassins etc. What ever fits.
Or I just make a general announcement , what ever fits the scenario.


*after all, maybe the "character" would have noticed...even if the player didn't.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I'm pretty straight forward about it: I just tend to tell whichever PC that is trained in the appropriate monster knowledge skill what to expect in general terms.

 

[delericho]

Okay so a lot of DMs are giving in-game hints. My next question is: how do you identify different values of badass, especially when the info is coming from locals or books?

In broad terms, the bigger the badass, the wider the legend, and the more destructive. So, if you go into the village pub and ask about the werewolf afflicting the next village over they'll probably give you a blank look, but everyone in the kingdom knows about the dragon!

Likewise, when asking about the werewolf, the PCs will likely hear the story about Old Tam's terrifying encounter, and how the beast scared him out of his wits. With the dragon, they'll hear about how it devastated their entire herd, that the whole village nearly starved that winter, and how its breath was "so hot even the stones melted".

So...I guess I'm asking how are players supposed to correlate all these hints to their PCs' level, in order to make a judgment call?

Well, there's a couple of factors. Firstly, the players do, of course, know their current tier (or, in pre-4e, whether they're low-, medium- or high-level). So, they know if they're looking for "save the village", "save the kingdom" or "save the world" levels of challenge.

Secondly, the PCs have their own reputations at work. So, when the locals hear that they're off to deal with the local werewolf, they may respond by enthusiastically encouraging this idea... or they might shrug and say "nice knowing you..."

But, ultimately, there's always a degree of guesswork. The players can never be absolutely certain whether the monster's reputation is deserved or whether it has been exaggerated, and neither can they be sure that they've heard all the stories. I guess they have to ask themselves a question: do I feel lucky?

 

[gambler1650]

This is where having a 'rival adventuring party' can be helpful... I always, if possible, like to include a rival but not actively hostile party in the area. They can run into the big bads in the area by mistake and relate the event to the players' characters in a tavern, or rumors about how the party lost two members within minutes... or along those lines. Assuming the players don't assume that they're incredibly better than the other party, they might get the hint...

Okay so a lot of DMs are giving in-game hints. My next question is: how do you identify different values of badass, especially when the info is coming from locals or books?

Most people, being non-combatants, would find anything with more than 3 or so HD/CR/levels to be outright terrifying. For example, a great wyrm red dragon is terrifying; but so is a werewolf. And unless a particular local has experienced both of them -- unlikely -- how are PCs supposed to know that one is more dangerous than the other? Even if the PCs are talking to or reading a book written by a famous adventurer-scholar, how does the adventurer-scholar express a monster's degree of badassery in a way that the players can put in context?

So...I guess I'm asking how are players supposed to correlate all these hints to their PCs' level, in order to make a judgment call?