But I think if a GM has new players, it’s entirely possible those players bring to the table a preconceived notion/expectation that encounters are supposed to be scaled to player strength; especially because both the 3.5 and 4E rules sets explicitly set that directive for the GM. Different tables, different approaches. I mentioned it so GMs with new players were at least mindful of that fact that each player at your table brings their own bias/objective/goals to the table, and that includes an understanding of the game’s power structure.

I have no evidence to support this, but I’m fairly certain that younger players probably have a higher expectation of scaled encounters = character level because that’s how many computer/console games approach challenges. I’m not even saying that’s an unreasonable expectation to have. I just know that my generation of table top gamers never assumed that every encounter was scaled appropriately to our characters. (Heck, I’m not even sure my generation had the expectation that individual character classes had power levels that grew at the same rate … but game balance is a whole ‘nother conversation.

I’ve personally been playing D&D for so long that we’ve never really come across something that we couldn’t ultimately take down. Sometimes it just took us three or four times (we had a high level psion with time regression) but we ultimately won.

Thanks for the suggestions I quite like your ideas.

It’s Tyson’s Fault. I could have ignored this if he didn’t have to start with that.

1) Logical placement of creatures is at the heart of a good ‘sandbox’ and a frankly, in my opinion, a more adult game. Why? Because of the emphasis on problem solving and taking responsibility.
Every adventure I create, every encounter I place, even Random ones, I give the proper warnings and also place the ‘campaign level context cues’. And it is important, in terms of legend, rumor, story, and song, to make sure players understand what is within their ability and what is outside of it.
So if they run into action that is too heavy, they generally had a chance to avoid it.
And if there really is no chance of running into stuff that would logically be there, challenges too easy and too hard, the game loses both versimilitude and much of the excitement.

2) Logic often means ‘progression’ in an adventure, a continual upping of the ante as the party continues. Internally this can really be used to increase that whole ‘dread’ factor.
“Wow, that fight was tough…and the guy in charge be even tougher”

3) It is the GM’s responsibility to follow through. Nothing creates more subconsious dread in a player if you’ve held your players responsible for their actions before.

4) And to be more clear…
“In today’s environment of scaled encounters and challenge ratings, the PCs will likely think (and probably rightfully so) this is a monster that can be overcome. Disabusing them of that notion — while at least playing fair — requires more groundwork on the GM’s part.”–OP

Scaled encounters and Challenge ratings being used instead of logical placement of encounters? Please.
It is merely my opinion, and everyone should do what works for them, because group fun is the real name of the game…
But these things are rules set up to stop bad GMs from ruining a game, by giving them a framework to follow in creating encounters, and as Troy postulated, giving the players the same framework for expectations.
and thus removing some of the sense of awe and wonder.

I wouldn’t call it a rule of cinema (because the player-to-character relationship is absent) but it fits the Jaws example too: Brody could have stayed on nice dry land, but he chose to get in the boat.

The nice thing about using foreshadowing is that even if the opponent is something that the party can handle you can still make it scary. I did this with a level 9 white dragon in one of my 4e games, and although the party was at a level appropriate for the challenge they were dreading when the dragon was going to appear because I had an NPC warn them that it was coming. They treated the dragon as a serious threat and not just as an encounter (if that makes any sense).

As for when the players refuse to admit that the PCs are overwhelmed: I say just proceed with the TPK when the players want to attack something that is obviously capable of killing them. Sometimes the dice and the tactics lead to pleasant surprises!

If you talk to the right people (the group leader, his or her advisor, the stubborn player, etc), group dynamics usually does the rest.

Usually.