PDA

View Full Version : DMing and the game of balancing responsibility as DM



Brauron
2009-07-29, 12:04 PM
I'm not sure I phrased that title right to get at what I'm trying to get at.

First off, I learned how to GM on Call of Cthulhu. So my instinct, in building encounters, is that I don't really think too much about "balancing" an encounter. I'm getting better about that, but I still tend to throw tougher-than-average encounters at the PCs.

Last session, we had our first PC death of the campaign. Our Half-Orc barbarian, weakened by a lucky critical hit from a Hobgoblin with a scimitar, charged at an Ogre, which I'd modified to be carrying a Greatsword instead of a Greatclub. The Ogre also had Improved Critical as a feat, because I failed to notice the prerequisite of BAB +8. This is my mistake and I take full responsibility for it.

In rebuilding that Ogre, I made it much more dangerous -- the Greatsword increased its general damage output, and then I also upped its odds of scoring a critical hit. And then I threw it at the PCs almost immediately after they had a rough fight with Hobgoblins -- though to play Devil's Advocate, the guy playing the cleric could have been a little less judicious with casting healing spells. C'est la vie.

So this whole situation kind of has me thinking about my responsibility as a DM to provide relatively balanced encounters. I recognize that I'm not obligated by the fact that I'm DM to throw easy encounters at my players constantly -- and that they'd probably grow bored and resentful if I did. And some encounters that I think will be a challenge end up being fairly easy for them, and some that I think will be short work for them kill PCs.

Any advice on building encounters that are moderately challenging while still being tactically interesting? Or is this one of those things that can only be learned through experience?

If it helps any, the PCs are a Half-Elf archery track Ranger 4, a Human Cleric 4, and a Human Fighter who uses a bastard sword and shield 4. Accompanying the party is an NPC Dwarf Monk 1/Wizard 3. All are very unoptimized.

Zadus
2009-07-29, 12:17 PM
In my oppinion there is no easy way to balance encounters and every party behaves differently. A party of wizards is going to have a tough time defeating a golem and a party of fighters is going to have an even harder time with a ghost.

I think the best thing to do is look at the party's strength and weaknesses and bring in monsters that cater to them. Try a few similiar encounters and keep an idea of what works and what doesn't. I'd also try and mix encounter difficulties. Nobody likes being put through the grinder. A few easy fights every now and then is a good thing and gives the players a chance to enjoy their characters abilities and play around a bit more with the encounter.

I'd also suggest the character's focused on melee have atleast one ranged weapon. That helps a whole lot.

And to keep battles interesting, throw some weird/out of the ordinary stuff in there. A moving platform, a rope to swing from, anything that changes things up just a little bit is cool.

valadil
2009-07-29, 12:27 PM
How well a group does depends more on how they play together than how optimized any individuals are. Start the campaign assuming they don't know how to synergize. Throw them encounters at their CR. When those start getting to be too easy, ramp it up a little with CR +1. I usually do this until they're at CR + level/4. So a level 8 party would be fighting CR 10 (8 + 8/4) enemies. Boss fights are an extra CR or two higher.

There are a couple things to look out for with this approach. Spell levels matter a lot. If your enemies are two levels higher, their spells are going to be a whole lot more powerful than those of the PCs. Casters often end up at PC level. Levels 6, 11, and 16 are also interesting because that's when BAB splits. A level 4 fighter taking on a level 5 fighter is reasonable. 5 vs 6 is not. 6 vs 7 becomes reasonable again. I find that this gap is where I'm most likely to accidentally brutalize PCs.

Finally, feel free to fudge your encounters. Just because I made a mistake prepping for the game, doesn't mean the PCs should die. If that ogre is too powerful, take his improved critical away. If you low ball the players and they find a fight too easy, give each enemy 50% more HP. I know there are some GMs that disagree with this approach. The way I see it is that I have a finite amount of time to spend preparing my game. I can make a fudge free encounter, if all my time is spend looking at numbers and running simulations. Or I can guess at an encounter, fudge it later, and spend the rest of my time planning plot and NPCs. Guess which method results in a better game.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-29, 12:33 PM
A DM is not obligated to present his players with a balanced encounter. He is obligated to present his players with a fun encounter.

A fight against hordes of goblins at level 10 where they can go to town and kill everything is not balanced, yet can be very fun. An escape from a rampaging demonic dragon at level 10 where tactics and trickery are more important than strength and turning back is certain death is not balanced, yet can be very fun. A fight against a Colossal animated object at level 10 in a featureless 100-by-100 room is balanced, yet can be very boring.

If your players enjoy having a few tense battles to the death, keep throwing those gigantic greatsword wielders at them; if they enjoy having many beatable battles, don't. If they enjoy the tactics of battle over the pure hack-'n'-slash, throw some kobold ambushers with crossbows at them; if they enjoy straightforward combat with fair odds, don't. If they enjoy the middle road of "moderately challenging but still tactically interesting" encounters, throw a lot of those at them; if not, don't. It's up to you and your players to decide what they find fun, and then it's up to you to make those encounters and those players to let you know if they had fun and, if not, how you can improve. Enjoyment takes precedence over balance.

Brauron
2009-07-29, 12:44 PM
Valadil -- I do usually fudge things to keep the PCs from dying in vain. Unfortunately, because of where we'd been forced to set up this session, I didn't have a screen and we were all pretty closely gathered around the battlemat. The attack roll for the Ogre came up a natural 20 and confirmed, right under that player's nose.

Pair'o Dice -- very well put. My players do have fun, and are quite vocal about that point. I try to provide a mix of encounters -- A major upcoming encounter will be the PCs being treated to dinner at a very upscale restaurant by the grateful father of an NPC they rescued. Into this, enters a group of bandits who, by CR, will be a fairly easy encounter -- it'll be the environment of the restaurant, with tables, etc. everywhere, that will make it challenging and interesting and, hopefully, fun.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-29, 12:46 PM
Pair'o Dice -- very well put. My players do have fun, and are quite vocal about that point. I try to provide a mix of encounters -- A major upcoming encounter will be the PCs being treated to dinner at a very upscale restaurant by the grateful father of an NPC they rescued. Into this, enters a group of bandits who, by CR, will be a fairly easy encounter -- it'll be the environment of the restaurant, with tables, etc. everywhere, that will make it challenging and interesting and, hopefully, fun.

Excellent. If your group is already having fun, there's no real need for you to change anything--if the player of the dead character was greatly upset, you might want to pull back a bit, but it sounds like they enjoyed the battle and moved on, in which case you should keep giving them the exciting encounters they want.

JonestheSpy
2009-07-29, 01:30 PM
Just to chime in - players should NOT not not feel confidant that every encounter will be "balanced". If they see a big ass ogre with a greatsword, they should tread cautiously. And hey, maybe that group of gnolls is actually being led by a powerful rianger. A bit of anxiety is entirely appropriate in combat, and you can ALWAYS be taken down by bad luck.

When you look at heroic fantasy - from Lord of the Rings to Watership Down to Star Wars, you'll notice that the good guys actually spend a lot of time running away.

Brauron
2009-07-29, 02:19 PM
When you look at heroic fantasy - from Lord of the Rings to Watership Down to Star Wars, you'll notice that the good guys actually spend a lot of time running away.

Now THAT is a good point.

Gralamin
2009-07-29, 02:35 PM
Something kinda parallel to the advice here.

Although Fun encounters are important, what makes encounters fun differs from person to person, and knowing what sort of players each of yours are is important.

In addition, sometimes the Theme of a game makes some encounters not appropriate because they aren't balanced. For example, if your playing a game where Players are Big Damn Heroes, then Attacking them with a stronger dragon they must run and fight from is alright, but attacking them with a single individual stronger then them, with little choice but to run away to survive isn't going to be conductive to the game experience.

Basically, Make sure your players know what type of game your trying to DM, and what type of players they are.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-29, 03:14 PM
Now THAT is a good point.

Indeed. That advice was given in older edition DMGs--the world isn't built around the PCs, the PCs are in the world, so they shouldn't magically have all balanced encounters just because they're PCs. "Old-school" dungeons usually featured a much higher "sneak around or run away" to "fight it out" encounter ratio.

arguskos
2009-07-29, 03:24 PM
Indeed. That advice was given in older edition DMGs--the world isn't built around the PCs, the PCs are in the world, so they shouldn't magically have all balanced encounters just because they're PCs. "Old-school" dungeons usually featured a much higher "sneak around or run away" to "fight it out" encounter ratio.
And interestingly, this philosophy seems to have fallen by the wayside in more recent editions. I am unsure if the game design has caused this, or if the mentality of the players has, but in either case, I see more and more players who treat the world as their playground. It is greatly frustrating.

AstralFire
2009-07-29, 03:30 PM
And interestingly, this philosophy seems to have fallen by the wayside in more recent editions. I am unsure if the game design has caused this, or if the mentality of the players has, but in either case, I see more and more players who treat the world as their playground. It is greatly frustrating.

Despite my typical advice in threads that the game should be tailored to the PCs, I also view the world this way. To me, being fair and balanced to the party just means giving them a good chance of surviving if they take the right, logically presented tactic.

Sometimes this is running away.

And I don't pull punches when I make it quite obvious a situation is dangerous and a PC decides to depend on PC immunity only to find out they don't actually have it. I hate killing a PC, but I will do it through mere averages if they attack everything that is hostile without evaluating the situation properly.

arguskos
2009-07-29, 03:35 PM
That's what I'm saying is correct and good Astral. It's just that many players and DMs I've spoken to and/or observed seem to think that PCs have plot armor by default now, and that they can do no wrong, yadayadayada. Which, honestly, aggravates the hell out of me.

I run a world dammit, not a video game. If a player wants to be the invulnerable Chosen One of Fate, he can bug off and go play Halo. If he wants to play a character and change the world around that character through meaningful action, then my table is ideal for him.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-29, 03:45 PM
I run a world dammit, not a video game. If a player wants to be the invulnerable Chosen One of Fate, he can bug off and go play Halo. If he wants to play a character and change the world around that character through meaningful action, then my table is ideal for him.

Completely agreed. PCs are special just like everyone else--if they have to work hard to be heroes sans plot armor and such, so do PCs.

AstralFire
2009-07-29, 03:50 PM
Case in my point, I recently had a game with a monstrous spider that was shown to be one-shotting - effortlessly - hounds that had been a typical (not trivial, not amazing) encounter for the party. It's grabbing hold of a rope and shaking it to try and remove the two PCs on it.

One of the PCs jumps off the rope and launches herself at the spider.

Despite the fact that two of the PCs indicated they were going to shoot the rope on their next turn to cut off the spider's access.
Despite the fact that the character in question has Wis in the 15 or 16 range (forget which) and positive Int.
Despite the fact that this character is a Jedi.

Given the overwhelming common sense that this character should have, I actually took a moment to warn the player OoC that she got a very bad feeling about this.

She chose to do so anyway, citing it was within character for her. Okay. Can live with that.

She was not, however, happy with me when the spider knocked out a third of her hit points, poisoned her, and put her two steps down the condition track immediately on the first round, despite her 'very defensive build'. And then when on the second, the spider brought her down another quarter and she moved another two steps down - if you're not familiar with Saga, it's similar to 3.5 in some ways. She is now moving at half-speed and has a -10 penalty to basically everything with a d20, another hit and she's KO. Luckily the rest of the party was able to rescue her, but she was a bit huffy the rest of the night because she went and solo challenged a monster meant for a party of four people four levels higher than her and lost.

I really had no idea what she expected. The spider was an easy encounter; it had no way of getting up after them, it was merely there to provide a sense of urgency. It was an easy encounter, but it was not an easy monster, because sorting algorithims of evil when adhered to too strictly move from 'interesting' to 'artificial feeling'. But against both IC and OoC wisdom, she went and attacked it anyway, and was not happy with me when her 'awesome build' folded like an accordion.

Also reminds me of a time that I was running a game where I explicitly allowed all published material, barring anything that pushed Tier 1. This was to be a playtest for some homebrew rules I was looking at, and thus I warned all of the PCs in advance that these were going to be tough fights.

One of the PCs freaked out at me and was sulky for the rest of the night when his awesome L12 uberdefender found itself against an ogre with Thicket of Blades, a reach weapon, and an ability that let him reroll miss chances. What the heck? I'm not an optimizing genius, but even I know miss chances are the lynchpin of defense at high levels. What's so illogical that monsters will adjust to this? In a playtest, no less?

Kylarra
2009-07-29, 03:51 PM
Your PCs should have a reasonable amount of plot armor, in that if they proceed along the logical path, unavoidable encounters should be about their ECL.

This does not and should not protect them from their own stupidity, but on the other hand, if you're not playing ToH-style, they shouldn't be going against things where the only recourse is to run away, assuming they're following your rails. :p

AstralFire
2009-07-29, 03:52 PM
Your PCs should have a reasonable amount of plot armor, in that if they proceed along the logical path, unavoidable encounters should be about their ECL.

This does not and should not protect them from their own stupidity, but on the other hand, if you're not playing ToH-style, they shouldn't be going against things where the only recourse is to run away, assuming they're following your rails. :p

It's all about balancing the various ratios of encounter types, and I suspect we're on similar pages here.

bosssmiley
2009-07-29, 03:55 PM
@OP: You are not there to protect the players from the consequences of their choices. After you've asked "Are you sure you want to do that?" your obligations as Nanny are discharged and they're on their own. Your role is to fairly referee the trouble they've gotten themselves into. :smallamused:

Holmes' Basic D&D had the following title for the combat section of the book:



MELEE RESOLUTION -- CONQUER, WITHDRAW, SURRENDER OR DIE!

Note that only one of the four options implies that the PCs win.

arguskos
2009-07-29, 04:15 PM
Note that only one of the four options implies that the PCs win.
Precisely! This here is a great point. It also helps that "overcoming" challenges (whatever "overcoming" actually means in context of each situation) gave XP, meaning that running away could actually give you XP if you managed to accomplish something by doing so.

JonestheSpy
2009-07-29, 04:27 PM
Precisely! This here is a great point. It also helps that "overcoming" challenges (whatever "overcoming" actually means in context of each situation) gave XP, meaning that running away could actually give you XP if you managed to accomplish something by doing so.

Definitely. I would also add that


Your PCs should have a reasonable amount of plot armor, in that if they proceed along the logical path, unavoidable encounters should be about their ECL.


is true up to the point that unavoidable combat encounters should be within ECL. As in the spider example above, nothing wrong with having monsters the players can't beat if there's ways around them. And hey, maybe the players will surprise you and come up with a brilliant strategy so they do fight and win - they just have to be prepared to suffer the consequences if they fail.

Kylarra
2009-07-29, 04:31 PM
is true up to the point that unavoidable combat encounters should be within ECL. As in the spider example above, nothing wrong with having monsters the players can't beat if there's ways around them. And hey, maybe the players will surprise you and come up with a brilliant strategy so they do fight and win - they just have to be prepared to suffer the consequences if they fail.Yes, I meant combat encounters.

Jair Barik
2009-07-29, 04:37 PM
Throw things that they won't be expecting at them but make it so their not overly powerful.

Examples, a Quell from LM will be potentially dangerous and make later challenges harder. Put some basic undead or groups of monsters after it that fight tactically and you have an exciting encounter. Same goes for mindmoss.

Make up weaons e.g. I had Troglodytes with medieval flamethrowers. Players didn't expect and it made the next encounters cool as they learnt more about the new weapon (then threw them all away when they saw a trog explode, the weapon being highly unstable and experimental).

Trapped encounters, swinging blades moving walls and opening and closing spiked pits all add to excitement. Killing off random enemy goons but keeping the players on their toes at the same time.

Skorj
2009-07-29, 04:45 PM
I've never liked trying to created "balanced" combat encounters in the first place, since the goal is fun after all. You can easily assign most encounters (after the fact) to one of the following difficulty levels.

Trivial - no point in even running the encounter.
Easy - no question that the party will win, but it will cost them resources.
Balanced - some question whether the party will win, especially if they aren't at full.
Hard - the party will probably lose unless it's properly prepped and has the initiative.
Impossible - the party can't win without a plot coupon.


By this definition, a "CR appropriate" encounter is Easy, not Balanced. I think this is the biggest mistake new DMs make. "Balanced" encounters (by my arbitrary definition above) are absolutely the hardest to get right as a DM, and often lead to cheap, undramatic PC death.

Easy encounters are fun, and easy to get right as the DM. With some experience you can throw them together on the spur of the moment, and if somehting goes wrong it won't lead to PC death, merely to the party using an embarassing amount of resources (use up all healing spells, whatever). The party still cares about these fights because of that.

Hard encounters are fun, if the party has the ability to research the encounter a bit ahead of time and make prepping for it part of the game, but the party does deserve a bit of plot armor if they stumble into one and are trying to run away. If the party is properly prepped, there might still be PC death, but it will usually be a good dramatic story that will be retold for some time.

AslanCross
2009-07-29, 05:04 PM
I always go for the challenge and not the coddle. My players tend to be ridiculously lucky, and as of late have been getting cocky. While I want them to ultimately succeed, encounter after anticlimactic cakewalk encounter does not add up to a memorable and fun story. The feeling of winning by the skin of one's teeth or winning due to superb planning is rewarding to both the players and myself.

Narmoth
2009-07-29, 05:16 PM
Finally, feel free to fudge your encounters. Just because I made a mistake prepping for the game, doesn't mean the PCs should die. If that ogre is too powerful, take his improved critical away. If you low ball the players and they find a fight too easy, give each enemy 50% more HP. I know there are some GMs that disagree with this approach. The way I see it is that I have a finite amount of time to spend preparing my game. I can make a fudge free encounter, if all my time is spend looking at numbers and running simulations. Or I can guess at an encounter, fudge it later, and spend the rest of my time planning plot and NPCs. Guess which method results in a better game.

That's the old way of running things. Before CR, you just looked at the Xp and stats, and made a guess. If you guessed wrong, you changed the encounter in-game.

Anyway. My advice is to find out how dangerous your players want the world to be.
As an example: I larp. Scandinavian larp is pretty intrigue-driven, with only a bit of fighting. Thus, characters are almost only killed as part of the storyline intrigue. Still, for me it feels very wrong if I can't be killed by an accident, or by a drunk fight in the tavern. I like to know that I'm never guaranteed to win the fight, and always can die.

Brauron
2009-07-29, 07:22 PM
Thank you all for the advice and words of encouragement. It means a lot to me, and it's heartening to see that I'm more or less on the right track.

Jair Barik: Funny you should mention new weapons, as I've been having fun with just that concept. I threw an assassin (not in the prestige class, just a rogue) at the party who wore a pair of bladed gauntlets -- basically Freddy Krueger's glove x2, a skull mask and a gore-caked robe to spread terror.

The PCs sold the gauntlets as soon as they could find someone to buy them.

The next major "move the main plot along" adventure I have planned involves the PCs being sent to infiltrate a small Hobgoblin military outpost to investigate reports of a secret weapon. The secret weapon turns out to be a Scorching Ballista (Heroes of Battle) mounted on a turntable atop an armor-plated cart -- essentially, a tank. It's inefficient (can only fire once per minute, plus I'm ruling that it takes a full-round action to aim the darn thing), hard to maneuver and relatively easy to disable (especially since the gunner is out in the open), but it's the look on the players' faces I'm going for.

TheThan
2009-07-30, 12:41 AM
Its nice to see so many “old school” Dms. I’ve grown a little sick of hearing people pissing and moaning about how their DM is unfair and isn’t being nice etc. so it’s a breath of fresh air to find people who agree with my philosophies about Dming.

Swordguy
2009-07-30, 07:55 AM
You know, the fascinating thing is the juxtaposition of opinions expressed in this thread and the Stupid Death: Characters perishing in undramatic / unlucky ways (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119852) thread.

In that thread, good DMing is being expressed as not killing players without a plot-centric reason and with much thought about whether the death would make a better story, while in this thread, good DMing is being expressed as presenting challenges appropriate to the game world, and happily killing the PC if they aren't smart enough to run away if the challenge is too great.

Both are valid styles, but having both threads next to each other on the forum is amusing

Random832
2009-07-30, 08:22 AM
What that really says is that it's hard to objectively say what makes a "bad DM" - it depends on the group as much as how the DM actually runs the game - what may be good for one group can be denounced as "treating players like children" by another group.

A "good DM" is as easy to define as it is abstract and meaningless - one who provides a good experience for all the players. A "bad DM" is harder to define.

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-30, 08:26 AM
Just to chime in - players should NOT not not feel confidant that every encounter will be "balanced". If they see a big ass ogre with a greatsword, they should tread cautiously. And hey, maybe that group of gnolls is actually being led by a powerful rianger. A bit of anxiety is entirely appropriate in combat, and you can ALWAYS be taken down by bad luck.

When you look at heroic fantasy - from Lord of the Rings to Watership Down to Star Wars, you'll notice that the good guys actually spend a lot of time running away.

Completely agree. A Dm can be a real jerk with a surpise attack 300d6 dsneak attack poisoned and with save or-die mixed with save or suck.

But other times, PC die because players don't understand when's the time to give up.

Jair Barik
2009-07-30, 09:06 AM
The flamethrower was homebrew. It had a 1 in to chance of exploding when used, used up 1 pint of oil per shot and could have a burning hands style spread (lower damage, higher DC) or a line spread (higher damage, lower DC).

Kaiyanwang
2009-07-30, 09:56 AM
Both are valid styles, but having both threads next to each other on the forum is amusing

This is dued IMHO to the sandbox vs plotcentric. Could be interesting ask the point of view about PC death and the tastes about the two gamestyles.

AstralFire
2009-07-30, 09:59 AM
This is dued IMHO to the sandbox vs plotcentric. Could be interesting ask the point of view about PC death and the tastes about the two gamestyles.

I run plotsand. I have a plot in mind, but I'm making a world, so if the PCs derail me, I make a new plot to fit what they're doing. Which I guess fits your hypothesis since I'm right in the middle here.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-30, 11:46 AM
I run plotsand. I have a plot in mind, but I'm making a world, so if the PCs derail me, I make a new plot to fit what they're doing. Which I guess fits your hypothesis since I'm right in the middle here.

I refer to my philosophy as the Etch-a-Sketch method, mostly for the pun factor--I have a beginning point and a couple ending points in mind, and though I already have a bunch of lines drawn, if the players, ahem, shake things up I can easily draw different plotlines.

Skorj
2009-07-30, 05:12 PM
I refer to my philosophy as the Etch-a-Sketch method, mostly for the pun factor--I have a beginning point and a couple ending points in mind, and though I already have a bunch of lines drawn, if the players, ahem, shake things up I can easily draw different plotlines.

Heh, there are different names for this. Planning how things will begin and end, but letting the path there be up to the players, is how wrestling and porn films are scripted. :smallbiggrin:

Umael
2009-07-30, 05:34 PM
Heh, there are different names for this. Planning how things will begin and end, but letting the path there be up to the players, is how wrestling and porn films are scripted. :smallbiggrin:

...that's how I run my games...

HEY!!!

How DARE you equate my games to wrestling!?

...I'm... shocked. Offended.

I shall go over here and hug my security blan- er... plot how to destroy the world! On admantium tracks this time! Well, okay, except for that part in the middle...

Jayngfet
2009-07-30, 06:14 PM
In general I hate the "PC's are special" mentality. I once explained to a player since that there were more than a few fifteenth level casters worldwide.

He instantly complained that they'd be more powerful than he was starting out at level five.

Since then I try to make it clear they're already a fair bit above NPC's as it is, that's what NPC classes are about. But if they want to be tryly heroic they have to earn it. They need to prove heroisim by slogging through hoards of zombies, demons, dark wizards, and whatever else threatens the world this week. I may admittedly overdo CR sometimes, but I won't coddle players with a bunch of first level mooks.

Gralamin
2009-07-30, 06:18 PM
In general I hate the "PC's are special" mentality. I once explained to a player since that there were more than a few fifteenth level casters worldwide.

He instantly complained that they'd be more powerful than he was starting out at level five.

Thats a game style choice, and having it also means that their is a question of: Why aren't more powerful people dealing with this? Why are the Player's bothering when there are very much more qualified people running around who can do it.

Jayngfet
2009-07-30, 06:24 PM
Thats a game style choice, and having it also means that their is a question of: Why aren't more powerful people dealing with this? Why are the Player's bothering when there are very much more qualified people running around who can do it.

I always have an explanation prepared. Perhaps you're in a remote area where most of these uber casters are far away, perhaps the threat has scared some into playing defense and building defenses around their residences. It really isn't that hard to find a reason or reasons.

Currently my PC's are fighting a decent level necromancer and his hoarde. They're several days travel from any more powerful help from the country they reside in(this is on a border), the mature adult dragon and her group across the border are currently dealing with much more important things(from their perspective), and the only other group who could be that much better than them are the necromancers attacking.

Eldariel
2009-07-30, 06:28 PM
Thats a game style choice, and having it also means that their is a question of: Why aren't more powerful people dealing with this? Why are the Player's bothering when there are very much more qualified people running around who can do it.

There's about 70000000 things wrong in the world. One group can tackle one issue. Not all of them are good and many (especially high-level Wizards) don't give a ****. And some are tied by some contracts or such to not directly intervene while others are busy warding off some greater powers to keep the ultimately relevant fight somewhat fair.

And some need the PCs' help 'cause even though the higher level NPCs might be stronger, they're still only single individuals usually only capable of being in 2-3 places at once; there is more that needs to be done while they're doing something more perilious of equal importance. Hell, take LoTR; the protagonists are chosen specifically because they aren't especially powerful and the demigod in the group is the first to die. There's certainly a more POWERFUL group possible, but powerful is easy to detect.

And not every adventure is stopping apocalypse; maybe the higher level NPCs simply don't happen to be involved in this particular struggle (check Red Hand of Doom for example; it's placed in a small mountain valley with little of importance - what do the great figures of the world truly care if this valley gets overrun by Tiamats' spawns? How would they even be aware of it in the first place?).


My point is that there're thousands of perfectly plausible reasons why the PCs are doing the stuff they're doing...and what the PCs are doing varies greatly. Any world where the PCs are the greatest heroes alive is gonna get the Thumbs Down from me, just 'cause that leads to PCs out of control and is extremely implausible.

They are above average but they aren't the only above-average individuals in the world; even DMG says as much. You can of course DM in a different fashion and in some cases PCs being among the strongest beings on their plane of existence and dealing with this immediate issue is actually believable, but that's mostly in post-apocalyptic situations where there simply isn't enough population to produce the superpeople.


Of course, everyone is free to play as they want and my opinions above are merely opinions.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-30, 08:37 PM
Heh, there are different names for this. Planning how things will begin and end, but letting the path there be up to the players, is how wrestling and porn films are scripted. :smallbiggrin:

...I hate you so much. Now every time I have to improvise something, I'm going to think "This plot is just like a wrestling porn film."

:smallyuk:


Why aren't more powerful people dealing with this? Why are the Player's bothering when there are very much more qualified people running around who can do it.

When you as a player get to 20th level, how many lost heirlooms do you retrieve? How many thieves do you catch? Do you rescue princesses? Kill tons of goblins?

If you wouldn't bother with that stuff at high levels, why would the NPCs?

Gralamin
2009-07-30, 09:49 PM
When you as a player get to 20th level, how many lost heirlooms do you retrieve? How many thieves do you catch? Do you rescue princesses? Kill tons of goblins?

If you wouldn't bother with that stuff at high levels, why would the NPCs?

Do note that this choice isn't specific to 3.5, but since the example seems to be: If high level divinations and information gathering methods point me towards "This could be a great threat, go destroy it." then yes, otherwise, probably never. Plus, most of these quests have relatively low consequences if the PCs chose to simply retreat and/or escape from the country if the act is treason. These things aren't real threats to anyone, and so they aren't really worth asking the question about.


There's about 70000000 things wrong in the world.
That is entirely based on Setting. But I suspect that a high level character could cut swathes into most of those, because usually a lot of problems are connected, and certain actions fix other things causing problems, etc.


One group can tackle one issue. Not all of them are good and many (especially high-level Wizards) don't give a ****. And some are tied by some contracts or such to not directly intervene while others are busy warding off some greater powers to keep the ultimately relevant fight somewhat fair.
More things based entirely on setting. You also apparently like apathetic high level NPCs.


And some need the PCs' help 'cause even though the higher level NPCs might be stronger, they're still only single individuals usually only capable of being in 2-3 places at once; there is more that needs to be done while they're doing something more perilious of equal importance. Hell, take LoTR; the protagonists are chosen specifically because they aren't especially powerful and the demigod in the group is the first to die. There's certainly a more POWERFUL group possible, but powerful is easy to detect.
How often do you DM a quest where people are chosen because they are weak?


And not every adventure is stopping apocalypse; maybe the higher level NPCs simply don't happen to be involved in this particular struggle (check Red Hand of Doom for example; it's placed in a small mountain valley with little of importance - what do the great figures of the world truly care if this valley gets overrun by Tiamats' spawns? How would they even be aware of it in the first place?).
Divinations, orders from Bahamut, etc. If its effect is important. However, If you like sending PCs off to stop things that have little overall effect except another thousand dead people, go right ahead.


My point is that there're thousands of perfectly plausible reasons why the PCs are doing the stuff they're doing...and what the PCs are doing varies greatly.
Which was very well put, overall.


Any world where the PCs are the greatest heroes alive is gonna get the Thumbs Down from me, just 'cause that leads to PCs out of control and is extremely implausible.
How implausible it is, is really questionable, since it depends mostly on setting. By Default D&D land? Usually rather common. In other settings? Possibly not so much (Remember, this thread isn't JUST about D&D).


They are above average but they aren't the only above-average individuals in the world; even DMG says as much. You can of course DM in a different fashion and in some cases PCs being among the strongest beings on their plane of existence and dealing with this immediate issue is actually believable, but that's mostly in post-apocalyptic situations where there simply isn't enough population to produce the superpeople.

The DMG demographics are royally screwed in my opinion, for many reasons other then just the power level represented. "Superpeople" probably shouldn't be based on population. Adventuring is a profession where death is common, and advancing without adventuring is painfully slow in most games. Then, depending on how isolated places are will determine how many menaces there are out there. The more there are, the more likely people are to stay back and defend their villages, and thus not earn XP. If their is less, then there is also less XP to earn. Either way, it's really easy to say that the PCs are one of the very select few "brave" (or stupid, or crazy) enough to brave the wilds and earn riches.


Of course, everyone is free to play as they want and my opinions above are merely opinions.

As is my responses.

quick_comment
2009-07-30, 09:59 PM
The point of the DM is to make sure the entire group has fun.

In a group of Monk, Fighter, Ranger, Incantrix, this is unlikely to be the case. It can happen, but is unlikely. It is the DM's responsibility to make it the case.

Deepblue706
2009-07-30, 10:26 PM
In that thread, good DMing is being expressed as not killing players without a plot-centric reason and with much thought about whether the death would make a better story, while in this thread, good DMing is being expressed as presenting challenges appropriate to the game world, and happily killing the PC if they aren't smart enough to run away if the challenge is too great.


I think one point both threads seem to make little explicit note of is classifying what is Too Great a Challenge. Personally, I just using a range of CRs equal-to or above the Effective Party Level and let the rolls determine if something ends up being too challenging (like five crits scored on the collective group in the first round would suggest it is).

I'm not sure if anyone is actually suggesting this, but, 'being smart enough to run away' makes me wonder if there are DMs that have no problem saying things that PCs shouldn't be able to fight may be encountered, which goes against the philosophy of some gaming styles in yet another way. Even if I don't expect the players to challenge Stonebrow, the "Unkillable" PC-Taunting Dwarven Lord to a fight, I would honestly make the fight of a somewhat reasonable CR regardless of level because it's obvious that fighting him is what they want to do, and my job as DM is to provide entertainment, not slap them around for picking the "wrong" option (which may as well have never been provided as an option, in that case).

After all, isn't the DM supposed to use the rules to provide an interesting game, rather than judge them for wanting to do That Thing you didn't expect? Surely everyone's actions ought to have consequences (and some choices may be much better than others), but I think one of the most important aspects of DMing is providing freedom: which includes the freedom to try to fight, run away, or use skills, or anything else a PC can imagine.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-30, 10:33 PM
I'm not sure if anyone is actually suggesting this, but, 'being smart enough to run away' makes me wonder if there are DMs that have no problem saying things that PCs shouldn't be able to fight may be encountered, which goes against the philosophy of some gaming styles in yet another way. Even if I don't expect the players to challenge Stonebrow, the "Unkillable" PC-Taunting Dwarven Lord to a fight, I would honestly make the fight of a somewhat reasonable CR regardless of level because it's obvious that fighting him is what they want to do, and my job as DM is to provide entertainment, not slap them around for picking the "wrong" option (which may as well have never been provided as an option, in that case).

I can't speak for anyone else, but I will always make a challenge at least possibly beatable unless it's telegraphed beforehand somehow that it's out of their league. The PCs decide to go see if there are any red dragons in the area to kill because the paladin wants to be known as Dragonslayer? Sure, there are probably a few ECL+4 dragons in the area. The PCs decide to drop in on Aberzanzoreallylongname the Mighty, he whose name is spoken only in whispers by the mere mortals who dare mention him and who has killed many paladins in his days? Yeah, that's not getting dropped to ECL+7 just because the PCs think it would be a cool fight.

AstralFire
2009-07-30, 10:39 PM
After all, isn't the DM supposed to use the rules to provide an interesting game, rather than judge them for wanting to do That Thing you didn't expect? Surely everyone's actions ought to have consequences (and some choices may be much better than others), but I think one of the most important aspects of DMing is providing freedom: which includes the freedom to try to fight, run away, or use skills, or anything else a PC can imagine.

When I'm giving my PCs an encounter that I know that is likely to make them hurt real bad in a straight up fight, I telegraph the encounter's difficulty so much you could call me Alexandra Flippin' Belle. Even in the spider example I gave earlier in the thread, it would have been possible (if challenging) for the party as a whole to take the spider on. I only judged the player after she decided to take the spider on by herself despite numerous clues and an OoC warning and then got mad at me for the spider knocking her around badly.

You're by no means a bad DM if you make it so every encounter can be possibly dealt with through violence; however, personally speaking, an encounter where they're meant to run away can seriously add something to the verisimilitude of the world. Also, I wanted to give the PCs an encounter that wasn't going to result in 2 hour combat because of two slow response players. :smalltongue: Fat chance there.

Deepblue706
2009-07-30, 10:41 PM
The PCs decide to drop in on Aberzanzoreallylongname the Mighty, he whose name is spoken only in whispers by the mere mortals who dare mention him and who has killed many paladins in his days? Yeah, that's not getting dropped to ECL+7 just because the PCs think it would be a cool fight.

Yeah, I understand that sentiment. Although, I'd honestly have something that is meant to be significantly more powerful than the PCs simply not be around to fight. Maybe they drop into his home, and he's simply not there. Or he is, but he just says "Go away kiddies, I've got grown-up work to do". I mean, he's a legendary dragon, and they're nobodies. He can flick them away like insects. So, instead of making him turn around and incinerate them all, he'd be so disinterested that he basically just becomes hazardous terrain, rather than an encounter.

Jayngfet
2009-07-30, 10:42 PM
In terms of the 70000000 things wrong thing, think of it as a chain of command. Yes, they could help the barmaid kidnapped by group X, or they could channel their power to level the average city into the more important things. After all, there are infinite demons in the abyss who would love nothing more than to destroy everything ever, beings of the far realms destroying the sanity of everyone who comes close if they're lucky, and on a closer to home note, wars here and their, threatening them more immediately. Not to mention the more gigantic threats of elder evils. Even without a BBEG of their own a high level party motivated to stop evil has much more pressing matters than to solve minor problems, odds are they may not be able to stop to help unless the threat goes above destroying whole towns with ease, and perhaps not even then.

Meanwhile there's low level adventurers, they can't try to halt the neverending flow of demons, the leviathan would swat them and never notice, and they make little difference in large scale warfare, the only thing they have is numbers. A lot of adventurers die before reaching high levels so there are many more low level adventurers scurrying around stopping bandits or patrolling the streets of city X.

Deepblue706
2009-07-30, 10:45 PM
You're by no means a bad DM if you make it so every encounter can be possibly dealt with through violence; however, personally speaking, an encounter where they're meant to run away can seriously add something to the verisimilitude of the world. Also, I wanted to give the PCs an encounter that wasn't going to result in 2 hour combat because of two slow response players. :smalltongue: Fat chance there.

Yeah, having a really badass monster that you should run from has a nice narrative touch, I agree. But, if I spent an hour saying "This is the Biggest, Toughest, Baddest Monster Ever" and someone has the audacity to actually Fight it, I wouldn't punish them. Instead, I'd reward them with one hell of a badass fight within their CR range (if a long shot).

Edit: As far as my judging comment goes, that wasn't directed at you. But rather, DMs (like the kind I've encountered from time to time) that would edit: would just outright kill an entire group because they all thought it'd be cooler to go against the suggested path. Because, that means there is less freedom, as an option that kills you is not an option (unless you're doing some kind of martyr thing).

AstralFire
2009-07-30, 10:54 PM
ANYONE WHO HAS EVER PLAYED WITH ME OR WANTS TO PLAY UNDER ME DO NOT CLICK

Secret: I regularly tell my players that I would have TPKed them if they did that.
Reality: I would miraculously save their asses every damn time, or if in D&D, provide a post-script to the TPK that lets them continue on after defeat, thanks to resurrection magic. I do not like actually killing a party. But the illusion that they could die at any time, when well maintained, heightens danger and the sense of challenge.

Kylarra
2009-07-30, 10:57 PM
Yeah, I understand that sentiment. Although, I'd honestly have something that is meant to be significantly more powerful than the PCs simply not be around to fight. Maybe they drop into his home, and he's simply not there. Or he is, but he just says "Go away kiddies, I've got grown-up work to do". I mean, he's a legendary dragon, and they're nobodies. He can flick them away like insects. So, instead of making him turn around and incinerate them all, he'd be so disinterested that he basically just becomes hazardous terrain, rather than an encounter.I'd probably capture them. Their next task would be to escape whatever prison area I stick them in and reclaim their gear. :smallamused:

Deepblue706
2009-07-30, 10:57 PM
ANYONE WHO HAS EVER PLAYED WITH ME OR WANTS TO PLAY UNDER ME DO NOT CLICK

Secret: I regularly tell my players that I would have TPKed them if they did that.
Reality: I would miraculously save their asses every damn time, or if in D&D, provide a post-script to the TPK that lets them continue on after defeat, thanks to resurrection magic. I do not like actually killing a party. But the illusion that they could die at any time, when well maintained, heightens danger and the sense of challenge.

SAME ALL-CAPS MESSAGE AS THAT WHICH IS QUOTED
Oh, totally. A good DM knows how to work his/her illusions. Again, that's not what I meant. I think I'll reword what I said.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-07-31, 07:33 AM
Edit: As far as my judging comment goes, that wasn't directed at you. But rather, DMs (like the kind I've encountered from time to time) that would edit: would just outright kill an entire group because they all thought it'd be cooler to go against the suggested path. Because, that means there is less freedom, as an option that kills you is not an option (unless you're doing some kind of martyr thing).

Well, sometimes you can capture PCs; sometimes you can have reinforcements show up; sometimes you can have a truce; but sometimes, you can't help but kill them. I mean, the cult of Orcus is probably going to want to kill and animate you--tying you up and forgetting about you just isn't their style.

If you're talking about the kind of DM who always TPKs first and asks questions later rather than finagling a story behind it, though, then I agree completely.

Gnaeus
2009-07-31, 08:14 AM
How well a group does depends more on how they play together than how optimized any individuals are. Start the campaign assuming they don't know how to synergize. Throw them encounters at their CR. When those start getting to be too easy, ramp it up a little with CR +1. I usually do this until they're at CR + level/4. So a level 8 party would be fighting CR 10 (8 + 8/4) enemies. Boss fights are an extra CR or two higher.

There are a couple things to look out for with this approach. Spell levels matter a lot. If your enemies are two levels higher, their spells are going to be a whole lot more powerful than those of the PCs. Casters often end up at PC level. Levels 6, 11, and 16 are also interesting because that's when BAB splits. A level 4 fighter taking on a level 5 fighter is reasonable. 5 vs 6 is not. 6 vs 7 becomes reasonable again. I find that this gap is where I'm most likely to accidentally brutalize PCs.

Finally, feel free to fudge your encounters.

I agree with all of this, with one caveat.

A few monsters in 3.5 wind up way overpowered. I have seen parties that regularly dispatched monsters 2 CR above their level with minimal damage or resource expenditure, suddenly wind up in a party wipe because the DM didn't realize that something about THIS cr+2 monster was different than the other cr+2 monsters the PCs had been dominating. In some cases that difference can be as little as who wins initiative. In cases like this, the DM isn't forecasting run messages at the party, because he doesn't realize the danger, and by the time the party understands what is happening, escape may be impossible.

eepop
2009-07-31, 12:06 PM
I don't try to keep to any specific range of difficulty. What I do make a point to do though is to be very clear about what the difficulty of something is.

I am not past presenting a challenge that is in all probability outside the abilities of the party, but when I do, they are going to know it and know the consequences if they decide to try anyway.

Thrawn183
2009-07-31, 01:34 PM
Alright, instead of arguing DM theory, I'm goint to try and provide actual useful mechanics.

1) Know the AC, Attack bonus and damage of your tank. Multiply his chance to hit by his average damage and you get his average damage per round. Look at the monster and figure out how many rounds it will take to kill it. Do the same for the monster towards the tank. This will give you a decent idea of how the matchup is.

2) If you use a monster with a single really powerful attack and give it improved critical... you're asking for a devastating critical. If you're looking for something that has sustained damage output, look at the megaraptor: it has 4 attacks a round but each one doesn't do that much damage on it's own. This helps diminish the impact of luck on the outcome.

3) Play with synergy. Let's say you throw the party up against a few wizards. If the wizards all pop out direct damage spells, there's actually a really good chance the party is going to have a tough time because pure damage synergizes with (and pretty much only with) pure damage. If instead you throw the party up against a wizard that is tossing out fireballs and and archer that is using poisoned arrows (not Con poison), the party will leave the fight just as badly hurt, but the chance of death is much lower. They'll just have HP and stat damage to heal rather than only more HP damage.

4) You might want the party to run into a mentor type character that can show them the ropes. Too often a party runs into a situation which they could have easily prepared for, they just didn't. A potion of waterbreathing never hurts. The ability to detect invisible creatures never hurts. A vial or two of silversheen negates some really high DR's like natural lycanthropes DR 10/silver.

5) Play around with attack types. Make sure that Fort, Reflex and Will saves are all being targetted (and being targetted on all characters) rather than just one. Make the wizard regret that low reflex save, but reward the high will save.

6) Lastly, be cautious with dominate type effects. You dominate the fighter and the encounter just became a whole lot more challenging.

Deepblue706
2009-07-31, 01:42 PM
Well, sometimes you can capture PCs; sometimes you can have reinforcements show up; sometimes you can have a truce; but sometimes, you can't help but kill them. I mean, the cult of Orcus is probably going to want to kill and animate you--tying you up and forgetting about you just isn't their style.

Sure, that's fine. Although, I think any encounters with them should then be within CR.



If you're talking about the kind of DM who always TPKs first and asks questions later rather than finagling a story behind it, though, then I agree completely.

Well, mostly DMs having no problem providing encounters into games where the PCs would have no chance of beating them in a fight. Encounters should be in CR or not a fight. Enforcing players to "know their place in the world" through just killing them with fights they should never have been in is a ham-fisted way of providing verisimilitude, in my opinion.

Epinephrine
2009-07-31, 01:52 PM
2) If you use a monster with a single really powerful attack and give it improved critical... you're asking for a devastating critical. If you're looking for something that has sustained damage output, look at the megaraptor: it has 4 attacks a round but each one doesn't do that much damage on it's own. This helps diminish the impact of luck on the outcome.

This is SO important. The DM I was playing RHOD with (we're on hiatus) had a habit of giving the enemies Greataxes. Triple damage crits with 2H weapons kill characters. I'd rather face a TWF with kukri than a 2H with a scythe or greathammer.

On the synergy point, the effect of multiple saves can't be overlooked. With enough saves to make, people will fail them. the smaller the party, the more likely this is to happen, and the more you have to watch out for effects that take a player out of the fight. If you are DMing for 8 people, the odds of more than a few rolling really horribly is next to nothing - but if you are DMing for 3 people you have to be a bit more careful - two players both rolling low isn't that uncommon. Even if it's only going to catch a single character, losing a character drops their effectiveness by at least 33% (more if they now need to spend resources/actions defending the fallen character); in a big party it can still leave the fight pretty fair - operating at 7/8 or 6/8 strength is possible, and a lot easier than operating at 2/3 or 1/3 strength.

Swordguy
2009-07-31, 02:44 PM
Sure, that's fine. Although, I think any encounters with them should then be within CR.


I'm sorry, but I can't disagree strongly enough. My position on it is "Encounters initiated by the GM should almost always be within CR, while encounters initiated by the players should be whatever CR is appropriate for their actions."

To use the old standby, if the 1st level players go poke a Great Wyrm with a stick, on their own recognizance, then they get a CR 20+ encounter. Roll new PCs, and don't be stupid next time. Likewise, if I want to set up a recurring villain, I'd reserve the right as a GM to make him a high-CR encounter, but simply not kill the PCs when they lose. But if I "force" them into an encounter (say, as a plot hook or random encounter or similar), then yes, it should be generally within CR for them.

Just because you're playing a game doesn't mean everything has to be fair. In fact, it's the PCs job to make things as unfair as possible in their favor - that's called "good tactics". Likewise, the world can be unfair against you on occasion.

AslanCross
2009-07-31, 06:27 PM
In general I hate the "PC's are special" mentality. I once explained to a player since that there were more than a few fifteenth level casters worldwide.

He instantly complained that they'd be more powerful than he was starting out at level five.

Since then I try to make it clear they're already a fair bit above NPC's as it is, that's what NPC classes are about. But if they want to be tryly heroic they have to earn it. They need to prove heroisim by slogging through hoards of zombies, demons, dark wizards, and whatever else threatens the world this week. I may admittedly overdo CR sometimes, but I won't coddle players with a bunch of first level mooks.

While I don't like coddling the PCs, I don't like the world being populated by lots of high-level NPCs either (let alone epic), because it quickly leads to the mentality of "Why aren't they doing this for us?" or "Maybe they can help us."

This is pretty much why I like how the NPCs in Eberron are statted---they're either a bunch of Aristocrat levels (Aurala), suboptimal builds and have no reason to help you (Kaius), are only circumstantially powerful (Jaela), or are evil and paranoid (Krozen).

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-01, 12:42 AM
While I don't like coddling the PCs, I don't like the world being populated by lots of high-level NPCs either (let alone epic), because it quickly leads to the mentality of "Why aren't they doing this for us?" or "Maybe they can help us."

As I mentioned in the other DMing style thread, how often do your PCs rescue lost princesses or clear out a cave of goblins at level 15? There's no reason for them to help you or do it for you; it's beneath their notice and they have other things to do. Unless of course your level 15 PCs routinely go around helping 1st level adventurers?

AstralFire
2009-08-01, 12:44 AM
As I mentioned in the other DMing style thread, how often do your PCs rescue lost princesses or clear out a cave of goblins at level 15? There's no reason for them to help you or do it for you; it's beneath their notice and they have other things to do. Unless of course your level 15 PCs routinely go around helping 1st level adventurers?

Actually, I have had PCs who do just this. I mean, they blow through the adventure fast or it's stuff we do off-screen, but if you're Good aligned, you don't stop doing stuff you can help with just because it doesn't give you XP. Not that you have to go out and help everyone who asks, but...

Deepblue706
2009-08-01, 03:50 PM
I'm sorry, but I can't disagree strongly enough. My position on it is "Encounters initiated by the GM should almost always be within CR, while encounters initiated by the players should be whatever CR is appropriate for their actions."

While I agree it's fair to make consequences for their actions, I honestly wouldn't bother statting-out a monster that would impossible for them to beat. It may as well not be an encounter, but a DM throwing dice at the players fully at random, saying "You made the wrong decision". Perhaps your style works for your group. My groups tend not to be very "hardcore", generally just wanting to kick back and do whatever seems cool.



To use the old standby, if the 1st level players go poke a Great Wyrm with a stick, on their own recognizance, then they get a CR 20+ encounter. Roll new PCs, and don't be stupid next time. Likewise, if I want to set up a recurring villain, I'd reserve the right as a GM to make him a high-CR encounter, but simply not kill the PCs when they lose. But if I "force" them into an encounter (say, as a plot hook or random encounter or similar), then yes, it should be generally within CR for them.

You'd have them find a CR 20 dragon at level 1? I would just make it impossible to find or not a fight for them. I can't think of a reason why a CR 20 dragon would be so easily found. And then, why he would automatically kill them. I'd honestly have them be beneath it's notice, since they may just as well be insects. Maybe if they stick around too long he'd swat them, or he may end up just leaving to get a nice dragon-sized snack.



Just because you're playing a game doesn't mean everything has to be fair. In fact, it's the PCs job to make things as unfair as possible in their favor - that's called "good tactics". Likewise, the world can be unfair against you on occasion.

Except I don't really DM against my PCs. I usually just think of myself of hosting a halloween party in my "haunted mansion". Sure, I have "unfair" moments and I employ some manner of "good tactics" against the PCs, but last I checked, 3.X and onward isn't really about pressing everyone's buttons and challenging them at every turn unless it's very clear they want it. Usually, CR works as enough a challenge for me (the PCs never have it easy), and I do provide plenty of suggestions that fights may be or will continue to be particularly dangerous (I don't believe any of my players have accused me of being soft).

Learnedguy
2009-08-01, 04:03 PM
Hmm, in 3.5, the only way I can really challenge my players are by throwing wizards at them.

Thing is, my players seem to loath book-keeping (as opposed to myself), and as such, their characters are often out of simple martial variety with about a single trick that they know well. This trick will work great in normal fights, letting them rip through opponents with ease.

Unfortunately, there's nothing normal about fighting a wizard, and frankly, if I wanted to, I could hand them their ass sideways back to them if I wanted to. So yeah.

I don't of course, because that wouldn't be fair. Instead I mix it up. I use this really dangerous spells that won't actually kill a character, but instead seriously hamper them (say, cornering them with a wall of force), and then I leave these loopholes for my players to abuse.

Because that's what I think good DM:ing is about.

Drascin
2009-08-01, 04:41 PM
You know, the fascinating thing is the juxtaposition of opinions expressed in this thread and the Stupid Death: Characters perishing in undramatic / unlucky ways (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119852) thread.

In that thread, good DMing is being expressed as not killing players without a plot-centric reason and with much thought about whether the death would make a better story, while in this thread, good DMing is being expressed as presenting challenges appropriate to the game world, and happily killing the PC if they aren't smart enough to run away if the challenge is too great.

Both are valid styles, but having both threads next to each other on the forum is amusing

For what it's worth, I rather subscribe to the school of "don't go around randomly killing players. If that random goblin crits with his axe and instead of leaving the wizard hurt it kills him, fudge and forget you ever saw a twenty there".

I was a lot more killy some years ago. But then, I realized that I never could finish a story, because there always was a point where there wasn't a single person of the original party who got into the quest for truly defined motives in the group now. They'd all been kinda rotating. And the motivations, obviously, went to hell, it all got sidetracked, and there was absolutely no ongoing story unless I went for the "save world" business that even newcomers would undoubtedly have a very big interest in seeing through. Now, I keep them alive as much as I can.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-01, 06:21 PM
Actually, I have had PCs who do just this. I mean, they blow through the adventure fast or it's stuff we do off-screen, but if you're Good aligned, you don't stop doing stuff you can help with just because it doesn't give you XP. Not that you have to go out and help everyone who asks, but...

Which is perfectly fine if it happens sometimes, but my question was how often. The assumption that low-level PCs have nothing to do because the higher-level NPCs have already done it and/or they can just go to the NPCs for help doesn't bear out in practice, because most of the time the high-level folks are taking care of high-level problems. Sure, one group of level 15s can go around helping out, but unless you have a few dozen groups doing this the likelihood of low-level PCs finding that there's nothing to do is fairly small.

Brauron
2009-08-01, 09:02 PM
I just have to say, I'm in awe of how much discussion what I saw as a simple llittle question (maybe not so simple after all) has spawned.

AslanCross
2009-08-01, 09:19 PM
As I mentioned in the other DMing style thread, how often do your PCs rescue lost princesses or clear out a cave of goblins at level 15? There's no reason for them to help you or do it for you; it's beneath their notice and they have other things to do. Unless of course your level 15 PCs routinely go around helping 1st level adventurers?

To the point, I've never DMed a group up to that level. I've only played in a game past Lv 6 (It was a Lv 18 one-shot).

My reason for enjoying the lack of high-level NPCs in a game is because they don't need the high levels. Just because a person is the king or queen of a nation doesn't mean they need to be incredibly unbeatable. Why do we need epic-level wizards in a world that gets along fine (with the help of PCs of course) without their help? Surely NPCs don't need oodles of levels in odd classes to make them interesting.

One could make the case for having epic characters without them having to solve all the world's problems (LOTR did it---I'm pretty sure Galadriel would be considered epic as opposed to Frodo), but just because it makes a good story doesn't mean it would make a good game. (See: DM of the Rings)

It really is up to taste, I concede, but this is my rationale for not liking four dozen statted NPCs with more than 5 PC class levels in every single city.

erikun
2009-08-01, 09:31 PM
I think it is the DM's responsibility to accurately portray the danger level involved. It's not necessarily keep the party safe, but to allow them to make informed decisions about the world around them.

I tend to see a lot of DMs complain about PCs killing everything put in front of them, "like a MMO," yet seem to forgot that, unlike a MMO, the players don't get convienently color-coded monster names indicating a level-appropriate encounter. :smalltongue: When the PCs run into the Hydra chained to the enterance to the BBEG's lair, they don't know that it's only a CR 6 with regen 5 - they know its a big bad multiheaded lizard which spits poison and will try to eat them. When they see the BBEG burn down a house full or orphans, then don't know he's a Fighter 20/Wizard 30 wearing Armor of Several Layers of Invulnerability - they just know he's an evil dude and within melee range.

Perhaps it's just been my groups, but some DMs assume uncanny levels of mindreading from players, and act surprised when we don't preform as expected. I mean, if you hire the PCs to go clean out the Demons in the Mansion, give them Demon Slaying weapons, and throw them up several demons they can kill off.... is it really such a surprise if they attack the Big Bad Evil Demon in the basement? Really? :smallconfused:

Saph
2009-08-01, 11:08 PM
While I don't like coddling the PCs, I don't like the world being populated by lots of high-level NPCs either (let alone epic), because it quickly leads to the mentality of "Why aren't they doing this for us?" or "Maybe they can help us."

I think it's pretty much essential in most large campaign worlds to have at least a few high-level NPCs around, because otherwise there's nothing stopping the CR 20 monster that lives nearby from wandering over and treating your world's capital city as a snack bar.

Standard D&D worlds have a small but extremely significant number of incredibly powerful, incredibly deadly creature. There has to be something holding them in check, or the PCs wouldn't have survived to adolescence.

And no, the NPCs don't solve the PC's problems. They have their own, significantly more dangerous problems, why should they go running off to fix something that the PCs are perfectly capable of handling on their own?

- Saph

AstralFire
2009-08-01, 11:10 PM
Aslan doesn't seem to run high level games, so he wouldn't have high level NPCs that need to keep those monsters in check.

Saph
2009-08-01, 11:17 PM
But doesn't that mean that once the PCs get beyond a certain level, there's nothing left for them to do? It's a viable way of running the game, but it also puts a practical cap on how high you can advance.

The way I see it, a world with lots of stuff that's higher-level than you is actually a good thing in the long term, because it means there's potential for advancement. Other people before you have gotten up to high level, and there'll still be things that can challenge you even if you get that high as well.

AstralFire
2009-08-01, 11:19 PM
But doesn't that mean that once the PCs get beyond a certain level, there's nothing left for them to do? It's a viable way of running the game, but it also puts a practical cap on how high you can advance.

The way I see it, a world with lots of stuff that's higher-level than you is actually a good thing in the long term, because it means there's potential for advancement. Other people before you have gotten up to high level, and there'll still be things that can challenge you even if you get that high as well.

Some people run slower advancement games with less XP, have shorter campaigns, etc.

I myself like games with a low but measurable amount of high-level NPCs, but there's something to be said for keeping it low, too.

Saph
2009-08-01, 11:23 PM
It's a preference thing, I guess. I think it has to be a balance, though; if you're running a game with high-powered opponents floating around, you need some high-level NPCs too, for the sake of consistency. If you're running a low-power world, then having high-powered NPCs all over the place isn't necessary (and is a bit hard to justify, too).