PDA

View Full Version : [Any] GMs: Set Enemy Stats or an "Effort Meter?"



Endarire
2011-01-25, 10:36 PM
Intro
When you GM, do you make set stats for your enemies? Do you instead prefer to use an "Effort Meter," or have the party fight until you feel they've been challenged enough?

This also assumes there are set stats for a creature.

Me
I prefer set stats. As a PC and GM, I want my actions to be grounded in reality, not just stopping when the group has seemingly 'had enough.' Also, if the party mind controls the creature, or summons or calls a creature like it, I need to know its stats. Finally, if the group is quite lucky or clever, I want this success to have a definite impact.

starwoof
2011-01-25, 10:43 PM
I set the stats for my monsters beforehand, but sometimes I forget just how powerful my players can be. Just last session I had to double the strength of a boss monster so that the Master of Shrouds wouldn't drop it's strength to zero in two rounds. Instead it took him three rounds.:smallannoyed:

I have also been know to crank up hitpoints when I don't want a monster to die so fast. Recently I've gotten better at this and do it beforehand though.

Koury
2011-01-25, 10:49 PM
I'm 100% in the set stats side. Sure, sometimes the party gets lucky (almost killing a cleric who had like six levels on the party, for instance), but thats party of the game.

That being said, I'm not afraid to give abilities to monsters. I had a monster recently who had a Snatch ability. He could use it on the move and make an opposed grapple check to grab things from players hands that were less then a certain weight. First round, he stole the party light source right out of the mages hand. Second round? He stole the party rogue. Yes, the entire character (he was Tiny sized and weighed 5 lbs. Tough part was the touch attack to grapple). Fun times.

Xefas
2011-01-25, 10:59 PM
If you go with this "effort meter" sort of setup, you're pretty much entirely removing player agency from the game. If there's no player agency, then the event is arbitrary. I don't know about you, but arbitrary events in a game bore me.

If the rules for conflict in the game you're referencing are so poor that the DM even feels the need to consider scrapping it for this sort of thing, then maybe you should play a different system which has better mechanics.

Really, in a well made system, fudging the rules at all should be entirely unnecessary.

Kylarra
2011-01-25, 11:04 PM
I generally use converted/shorthand stats rather than full statblocks and such.

Vladislav
2011-01-25, 11:06 PM
If you go with this "effort meter" sort of setup, you're pretty much entirely removing player agency from the game. If there's no player agency, then the event is arbitrary. I don't know about you, but arbitrary events in a game bore me.
This.

If I was to go by the "effort meter", as you call it (catch name, btw), I'd know in advance the party will be battered, bloodied, and then the foe will drop. Knowing what will happen in advance is not my type of game.

Also, if the party ever figures out that's the way you play (and they will eventually), they can pretty much attack anything and everything they want, with no risk other than, oh, losing 80% of their hit points.

Zeta Kai
2011-01-25, 11:09 PM
I think the vast majority GMs, like myself, prefer concrete statistics to a nebulous effort threshold. The latter probably doesn't appeal to many players' or GMs' sensibilities. It just feels too arbitrary & pointless.

Fuzzie Fuzz
2011-01-25, 11:19 PM
I default to stats but if the encounter doesn't seem to be going as planned (either too hard or easy) then I don't have any problem altering them. A boss that was wiping the floor with the party might not have his super one-use power anyways, or if the PCs are effortlessly smashing him to bits, the one-use spell might be usable multiple times. For example. I might also just alter HP, or damage levels if the situation warrants it.

But I do stick to statblocks most of the time.

sana
2011-01-25, 11:20 PM
I use a really short stat block and will adjust that if really necessary.

Then again I use max hit dice for all opponents. Just to keep them around a little bit longer. Damn players, always trying to do something cool. :smallsmile:

sambo.
2011-01-25, 11:22 PM
i've been known to roll up my BBEG or main recurring villain for a campaign at the same time my players are (de)generating their characters.

i'll use the same methods and houserules for said BBEG as the players are using. the BBEG will then basically level up in-step with the PCs (sometimes with a +1 or maybe +2 level advantage, depending on the campaign).

frasmage
2011-01-25, 11:33 PM
My NPCs are usually mostly improvised stat-wise, so I do a bit of both. I usually stat out the defenses (HP, AC, saves) at the beginning of combat based on how long I want the combat to last and wing the offenses (so in that sense it is set stats, but by no means RAW). In other words, the ways in which the monsters fight back is not limited to "swing sword," but varies based on the amount of challenge I want to provide and the scenario. I like this system because I find it gives the players a target they can bring down of their own agency and they are rewarded for extraordinary luck, but leaves me the ability to pull the right spell or ability to make combat dynamic and adequately challenging regardless of how fast those hitpoints vanish.

As a DM, I don't ever prepare spells for my NPCs, I just decide on a flavor of the caster (i.e. class, school(s), subschool(s), etc.) and pull spells, or even effects that are not RAW, that have the most unique effect for the current combat situation. My NPCs always have the spell that makes combat just that much more challenging (usually CC). I'm more interested in making things epic and interesting than by the book. I've never really had a problem with overpowering the PCs (unintentionally), even without the checks and balances of limited spell selection. Just takes get used to gauging it.

Knaight
2011-01-25, 11:48 PM
The effort meter is a horrible, horrible idea. Statistics are needed, though what they are on can vary. If one is playing a game where a room full of goblins is a room full of goblins, all of which have Attack X, Defense Y, and Hit points Z, great. If another has the entire room be described as Task Difficulty A, Task Quantity B, also great. The important part is that there is some sort of quantitative description, with variable results. The entire room could even be Difficulty A, nothing more, as long as there was still a success result and a failure result.

Xuc Xac
2011-01-26, 02:03 AM
When D&D was originally designed, hit points were an "effort meter". Attacks did 1d6 damage. Giving an enemy X hit points was basically saying "This guy should last about X/3.5 rounds." The original purpose of hit points was to require combats to last a minimum number of rounds before the bad guy was defeated (or the good guys had to retreat to avoid getting killed). The idea of the "effort meter" has been around since the beginning, but now that there are so many ways to boost damage to extraordinary levels, people are finding that HP aren't the "effort meter" they used to be.

Fortuna
2011-01-26, 02:08 AM
I'm curious: where did you get the concept of an effot meter from? I've never come across it.

Skjaldbakka
2011-01-26, 03:43 AM
I use set stats, but have been occasionally guilty of adding or subtracting HP from the enemy because the fight is turning out to be harder/easier than I wanted/expected it to be.

It isn't as obvious as having enemies run away or have reinforcements show up. I generally won't give more than the maximum hp for their HD in this way though (or less than minimum, but that rarely comes up).

NichG
2011-01-26, 03:55 AM
I tend to stat things up about 5 minutes before initiative is rolled, using a very heuristic method that changes over the course of the campaign. Basically, I use stats but they only become fixed once combat begins. I've found it unrealistic to try to predict the trajectory of PC power before you get to know the players and their characters, so the Lv20 BBEG I planned at game one might become trivial before the party even meets him if they optimize strongly, or might never be within their reach even by the end of the storyline. So instead, the BBEG is 'roughly a 12 round encounter that has a small risk of a TPK and a large risk of one or two characers dying for the party at the appropriate time', whatever that may be. If they meet him early and attack, his stats then will likely be different than when they finally take him out.

Theme is fixed but I tend to give my monsters and villains a sort of 'dynamic sorcery' centered on their theme (which is also something I extend to the player characters), so their abilities tend to dynamically respond to what the party does rather than being solidly delineated beforehand.

Even then I'll adjust if I seriously underestimated the party capabilities to the point where it utterly trivializes the encounter - e.g. someone brings in a new character and I don't know how strong it is yet, someone suddenly gets a keystone ability in their build and has a mini-ascension - but I try to avoid that if possible.

Aspenor
2011-01-26, 08:06 AM
Stats, but most of them are in my head. Calculating a monsters BAB, Saves, HP, etc. in my head typically takes me 2 seconds, about the same amount of time it'd take to look in a book.

Comet
2011-01-26, 08:15 AM
For games that are very much about the combat, with rigid sort of rules about what kind of foes can oppose what kind of characters (D&D Challenge Ratings, for example), I go with the rules as much as I can. Sometimes I'll take away some monster/antagonist HP or such, since I like to keep combat short and sweet and move on to other things.

For other games, Effort Metres are awesome. Especially if I'm new to the game and don't quite know what the NPCs are quite capable of. Shadowrun, Dark Heresy, World of Darkness and so forth, where there are no strict levels to gauge a character's overall potency.
There it's quite useful to throw weak enemies at the party, see that they wipe the floor with those mooks and then scale things up until you have an image of how these skills and traits actually function in combat and what kinds of edges a character can have.

edit: I'm not actually sure if Effort Metre is an actual term defined in some obscure RPG dictionary, but I'm using it here in the sense of "I'll keep throwing reinforcements/adding resilience to foes until I and the players feel that the combat has been a, well, combat instead of cleanup duty."

Megaduck
2011-01-26, 09:15 AM
Combat is never the focus of my game so I rarely stat out any but the most important characters. Generally I just write a brief description of who they are and what they want.

Combat Reflexes
2011-01-26, 09:20 AM
Calculating a monsters BAB, Saves, HP, etc. in my head typically takes me 2 seconds, about the same amount of time it'd take to look in a book.

You can find something in a book in less than 2 seconds? Wow.

Knaight
2011-01-26, 09:27 AM
When D&D was originally designed, hit points were an "effort meter". Attacks did 1d6 damage. Giving an enemy X hit points was basically saying "This guy should last about X/3.5 rounds." The original purpose of hit points was to require combats to last a minimum number of rounds before the bad guy was defeated (or the good guys had to retreat to avoid getting killed). The idea of the "effort meter" has been around since the beginning, but now that there are so many ways to boost damage to extraordinary levels, people are finding that HP aren't the "effort meter" they used to be.

In this case, "effort meter" is being used to mean something other than the definition given in the OP. The OP defines "effort meter" as a qualitatively defined ambiguous state in which the GM feels the PCs have exerted sufficient effort to have a satisfactory combat scene.

Allow me the indulgence of positing an example effort meter. Say there is a threat level (basically DC), and a threat resilience (kind of like HP, though called TR). A room of goblins might be DC 12, TR 22. Now, allow people to make skill checks with combat skills, with however much over the DC they are being an accumulation of points, once this exceeds the TR, the threat is removed.

This mechanic could be used elsewhere. Climbing a tall cliff could be DC 15, TR 38, with any climbing skills allowed. Maneuvering a boat through a canyon would allow boat skills, with a DC being how treacherous the canyon is and the TR a measure of how long. Basically, it is all an effort meter, by your definition.

By the OP's definition, things change. The room of goblins becomes DC 12, TR Until I feel like we're done here. The cliff becomes DC 15, TR Until I feel like we're done here. So on and so forth.

Dimers
2011-01-26, 10:55 AM
My games are not a string of level-appropriate encounters. The players will have many a fight go their way easily and (if they aren't careful in planning to avoid danger) quite a few that threaten TPK if they don't back down, alongside the well-balanced fights. Having that sort of verisimilitude makes real challenges more rewarding. So no effort-meter for me.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-26, 10:58 AM
Set stats. The "effort meter" results in a less realistic game, and I dislike when GMs do it. It results in actual actions in combats being pretty meaningless, and once players figure it out...things like tactics and planning get shorted as attempt to figure out the minimum level of effort to get by.

It's especially terrible when the effort meter is pretty static. Yup, we fight a few rounds, take some hp loss, down them, chug a potion and repeat. Boooring.


You can find something in a book in less than 2 seconds? Wow.

Well, the monster manual is alphabetical. Once you've used it for a while, you can find things amazingly quickly. I knew one fellow that could open to any monster without looking. It was relevant since he could tell what they'd be fighting purely by seeing how deep in the monster manual I'd flipped.

Necro_EX
2011-01-26, 01:27 PM
I really try not to use the 'effort meter' if at all possible. It definitely lends itself to making the game unrealistic and can be just plain harsh on the players for little reason.

That said, if I didn't account for something related to balance for the Big Bad, you can bet your ass I won't have it just die in a couple of hits. That is, of course, unless the party devised some way to do massive damage to it in some way other than just smacking it around. The game's supposed to be fun for everyone, and a lot of people derive fun from the cinematic feel of the combat. It's just not satisfying if that guy you've been chasing down all this time dies like a pathetic bitch. He needs to be better than that.

So, if the party just does more damage than I had expected, then the boss might suddenly gain a HD or 2, just to get that last round out. Of course, I really try not to do this.

It's your job as the GM to take care of all these balance factors before the game.

Lurkmoar
2011-01-26, 01:43 PM
I generally use shorthand stats. If I want my players to put some effort in, I ramp up the tactics and reinforcements, not the enemy ability.

I do this because I have been the victim of a DM that churns out a character he didn't want to die that was our mortal enemy(Dracolich). But he underestimated his players. After I got two critical hits on him(this was 2nd edition with some house rules), the enemy exploded, killing everyone.

I had to drink a two liter of Mountain Dew to get over it.

randomhero00
2011-01-26, 01:49 PM
OP I actually do something in between. I have a rough idea of stats in my head. But they have range. Like 100-150 hps. If it seems too easy then I up it to 150 for instance. I always know my players AC so the to hit stays the same, but I don't bother doing BAB and stats to figure it out. Just enough to hit them about 65% of the time. Unless of course someone plays a true tank and has really high hps. So in other words I go by average AC of party converted to 65% or so to hit, of monster.

Its much quicker this way. I can do things on the fly. I can add in monsters in reserve. It makes for a fun story.

edit: because if they really wanted to they could make all encounters easy mode. And that'd get boring.

PS so in other words, even if I max my monster at 150 hps like the above example, and they get lucky or do something unexpected to make it an easy win then I give them the easy win.

PPS I never send my players against something they can't win against. Even an early encounter of the BBEG (if their rolls are lucky).

Tengu_temp
2011-01-26, 02:31 PM
I tend to set up the very basic stats from the beginning, and come up with everything else on the stop when it becomes relevant. I do it mostly out of laziness - why write down the NPC's exact Fortitude saving throw if it will never become relevant in the actual fight? It helps that I'm mostly playing games where improvising like that is incredibly easy.

I've never met anyone who used this so-called "effort meter". At most some people tweak the enemy stats mid-fight, which you might have to do sometimes to make sure the enemy is challenging enough.

Volos
2011-01-26, 03:01 PM
I prefer using stats, but then again it isn't often that the PCs face the BBEG or even his minions, so it really doesn't matter how badly they smash or get smashed by the regular monsters. I tend to make either crazy monsters or situations that make the fights crazy to figure out... but that's the kind of DM I am. My players never complain, in fact they enjoy it! It's always more fun when something they don't expect comes at them. I used to use the Effort Meter approach back when I didn't know enough monster stats by heart. It never worked out well. It tended to make the same player finish off all the monsters, making the rest of the group angry.

UserClone
2011-01-26, 06:16 PM
Depends on the game, really. In Wushu, for example, the 'effort meter' is the default mechanic, really.

Endarire
2011-01-27, 06:11 PM
In part, I got the "effort meter" from one of my DMs. We fought something in D&D 3.5 that should have died in one round by its stats, but he adjusted the stats on the fly to ensure it would take longer.

His traps also are based on expected PC ability instead of set stats. In short, roll 12 or more to find/disarm a trap.

I've heard of other GMs doing the same.

Knaight
2011-01-27, 06:29 PM
Depends on the game, really. In Wushu, for example, the 'effort meter' is the default mechanic, really.

No, it isn't. Wushu has defined stats, the "effort meter" is explicitly removing defined stats for an arbitrary "when it feels right". In Wushu, you essentially have to accumulate success to a target number, its just that how much that number includes is fluid.

UserClone
2011-01-27, 07:28 PM
Whoa. All I'm saying by that is that the GM in Wushu sets the 'meter' before each conflict, and once the PC(s) hit that level of successes (exactly as someone was saying about HPs in 0E/1E), the effort is over. The only difference between what the D&D 'effort meter' concept is and that is that in Wushu, it's both hard-wired into the actual rules, and the players know it upfront. Accumulating successes, whittling down HPs, running through X rounds, it's all different expressions of the effort meter to me.

Also, it wasn't meant as an insult to Wushu by any means. I prefer that kind of straightforward task resolution, rather than the VERY swingy combat of very low (or high) level D&D.

Knaight
2011-01-27, 07:44 PM
Whoa. All I'm saying by that is that the GM in Wushu sets the 'meter' before each conflict, and once the PC(s) hit that level of successes (exactly as someone was saying about HPs in 0E/1E), the effort is over. The only difference between what the D&D 'effort meter' concept is and that is that in Wushu, it's both hard-wired into the actual rules, and the players know it upfront. Accumulating successes, whittling down HPs, running through X rounds, it's all different expressions of the effort meter to me.

Also, it wasn't meant as an insult to Wushu by any means. I prefer that kind of straightforward task resolution, rather than the VERY swingy combat of very low (or high) level D&D.

"I want my actions to be grounded in reality, not just stopping when the group has seemingly 'had enough.' "* clarifies the meaning of Effort Meter used here. Which means that while Wushu's system can be clarified as an effort meter (as whittling down HP and running through X rounds can be), that uses a different definition than the one set at the beginning of this thread.

My entire point is that we are operating under one definition, and need to stick to it. Precision in communication is valuable, so it was just a correction, albeit one that seems to have been seen as more than it was, which is probably my fault for making it that blunt. Ironic too, given the point of it. I wasn't defending Wushu, as it never looked like it was being attacked.

* The OP

UserClone
2011-01-27, 08:16 PM
Fair enough. I'm running under the assumption that 'effort meter' is as it's written on the tin. The problem the OP is suffering with, IMO, is that the system doesn't match the ideal. D&D 3.X is generally about set stats and achieving ironically less concrete objectives, where Wushu is meant to be used 'until the players have had enough' as written, by limiting only how long the fight lasts via the threat level and the , rather than, as I said, the very swing-y combat of d&d. Trying to 'make the fight last longer' becomes necessary when the huge number of variables comes in -- like critical hits, save-or-dies, coup-de-grās and a volley of sneak attacks in a single round (all the dice of which roll high on the bell curve), and wrecks the plan. In Wushu, the time limit isn't going to get bejumbled by all that. Also, the tag says [any] not [3.5], so I figured I had the right to express an opinion on another game in whose context the idea of an 'effort meter' would end up an entirely different, intrinsic, and therefore not damaging concept. However, you're entitled to your opinion as well.

Lord.Sorasen
2011-01-27, 08:37 PM
As a new DM, I very often put the party against encounters which they really can't handle (based on the CR rankings). When in doubt... I have trouble changing stats on the fly, but I do sort of effort meter it, generally by having them retreat and throw weaker javelins, or otherwise provoke attacks of opportunity. This detracts a little from the game, but what am I to do? I don't want the party to die because of an error I made. I'd be fine with them dying based on their own mistakes, but when I make it unavoidable, it's not fair to them.

Hopefully when I better grasp the rules I will be able to avoid this.

Knaight
2011-01-27, 08:49 PM
Fair enough. I'm running under the assumption that 'effort meter' is as it's written on the tin.

Under that assumption, it suddenly becomes much more palatable, particularly for extended tests. To use another, non D&D example, the Archipelago Fudge build has an alchemy system where one tries to accumulate points towards a goal dictated by difficulty (Ranging from 3 to 27, on the intervals of 3). Every round a check is made using the most relevant skill (ranging from 1 to 9, with results ranging from -2 to 12), once the total exceeds the difficulty, the alchemy is done. Its an instantaneous process, but there is 1 point of temporary toughness drain per check needed. Other long checks are similar, though there is also the possibility of failure in most of them for reasons other than dying.

Given that this is personal preference, blatant homebrew is also worth noting. Using my current system for high RP groups, Titled, every combat consists of one roll, just like everything else rolled for. You win, or you lose, usually. It can get more complicated, such as a group of PCs being involved, at which point those involved either make it through the fight reasonably well off or wounded.

UserClone
2011-01-27, 09:35 PM
As a new DM, I very often put the party against encounters which they really can't handle (based on the CR rankings). When in doubt... I have trouble changing stats on the fly, but I do sort of effort meter it, generally by having them retreat and throw weaker javelins, or otherwise provoke attacks of opportunity. This detracts a little from the game, but what am I to do? I don't want the party to die because of an error I made. I'd be fine with them dying based on their own mistakes, but when I make it unavoidable, it's not fair to them.

Hopefully when I better grasp the rules I will be able to avoid this.

Well, I find the best way to deal with an NPC's (and by extension, creature's) actions is to look at its mental ability scores, especially intelligence. Are you running a zombie that feints? An Amnizu (a devil with potent spell-like abilities) as a melee attacker? Something's wrong. I'd honestly recommend fudging the couple of rolls it would take to get the combat back on track in the case of something only a level or two off base in power. If the disparity in effectiveness spells full TPK and it wasn't the players' fault they got into this fight (I.e., attempted to assassinate the king in front of his elite guardsmen), then simply admit OOC that you've made a mistake, and hash it out as a group. That's what i'd do. Also, don't underestimate the power of using a different monster's statblock with the serial numbers filed off. This works especially well in 4E, I've found, where powers operate similarly among monsters of the same 'archetype' (I.e. lurker, artillery, et al).

Shatteredtower
2011-01-27, 10:59 PM
The effort meter idea has a place with the set statistics approach. It works quite well with cases where an opponent might seek parley after a remarkable stunt or leave the battle in response to a 'good' hit that would be considered trivial damage based on hit points alone.

The players might even learn to recognise this sort of behavior as something worth emulating, even when they hold the advantage for the moment. Don't let them assume it can't ever get worse or that winning is expected.

Use statistics like a map, as a guide only. Develop and exercise judgment.

Knaight
2011-01-27, 11:15 PM
The effort meter idea has a place with the set statistics approach. It works quite well with cases where an opponent might seek parley after a remarkable stunt or leave the battle in response to a 'good' hit that would be considered trivial damage based on hit points alone.

Again though, that's not an effort meter if there is any reason beyond "I feel like this has gone on long enough". Obviously not all fights have to be to the death, surrendering and running away should probably be a default position for intelligent adversaries, particularly groups. If the logic behind that is closer to "these goblins are probably not going to press an attack after twenty percent of their forces were lost when they ambushed someone" than "feels like this has gone on long enough", its simply rationally GMing.

Shatteredtower
2011-01-28, 12:05 AM
No, it's the same thing, no matter how it gets justified. "It falls once you've had enough," is just a poor form of it.

Even that may have a place, once in a campaign, as a lead-in to some event that wouldn't normally be so challenging. It's awfully hard to make something like this entertaining, however. Frustration and fatigue are more likely reactions.

faceroll
2011-01-28, 01:51 AM
If you go with this "effort meter" sort of setup, you're pretty much entirely removing player agency from the game. If there's no player agency, then the event is arbitrary. I don't know about you, but arbitrary events in a game bore me.

For D&D, I know the rules better than my players, which means all fights are ultimately arbitrary. It's just a matter of how much time I want to waste writing things on pieces of paper.

NichG
2011-01-28, 02:13 AM
Again though, that's not an effort meter if there is any reason beyond "I feel like this has gone on long enough". Obviously not all fights have to be to the death, surrendering and running away should probably be a default position for intelligent adversaries, particularly groups. If the logic behind that is closer to "these goblins are probably not going to press an attack after twenty percent of their forces were lost when they ambushed someone" than "feels like this has gone on long enough", its simply rationally GMing.

However there may be a nebulous intuitive 'okay, time to end it' moment rather than a quantified trigger. For instance, and this is a very exaggerated version, the party wants to go and speak face to face with the gods about some cosmic threat that they've unveiled but whose nature is invisible to divine detection (think Elder Evils and their immunity to divination, even of deific origin). They go to a god's realm and ask an audience. The guardian of the gate, a demigod in its own right, requires they prove themselves, and a fight ensues.

The fight would not be to the death since its intended as a test. You could run it saying 'when they take down 50% of the guy's hitpoints he yields' or you could say something more abstract like 'when they do something sufficiently impressive he yields' and basically wait to see what they do, giving hints as they go that the guy is looking to be impressed and not beaten down. That leaves it open to creative solutions from the players that the GM may not have preplanned as victory conditions. But its very much an effort meter sort of situation that doesn't involve some sort of set threshold for victory.

Telasi
2011-01-28, 03:02 AM
Defined stats and abilities. In the worst case scenario, I end up grabbing a class table, scribbling down a stat array and taking average hp, and running from that. It's only happened once when the players did an unexpected dungeon bypass, and it worked well. This was in my Pathfinder game, specifically.

I don't play many systems other than (A)D&D 2-4/Pathfinder, but I've found that ones with defined abilities and stats are the ones I enjoy more. I tend to have difficulty measuring when players have had enough, so arbitrary effort measurement means characters will probably die.

Yahzi
2011-01-28, 05:17 AM
I usually generate the stats for the entire world before I start a campaign.

Otodetu
2011-01-28, 06:25 AM
If you go with this "effort meter" sort of setup, you're pretty much entirely removing player agency from the game. If there's no player agency, then the event is arbitrary. I don't know about you, but arbitrary events in a game bore me.

If the rules for conflict in the game you're referencing are so poor that the DM even feels the need to consider scrapping it for this sort of thing, then maybe you should play a different system which has better mechanics.

Really, in a well made system, fudging the rules at all should be entirely unnecessary.

Sometimes I don't even need to post on this forum; someone is wise enough to have replied with exactly my thoughts, or close enough that I feel my post would be redundant.

J.Gellert
2011-01-28, 06:54 AM
Predefined stats. If not, then why even have stats and dice? We'd just be playing freeform.

Though, to be honest, the system I'm using makes it really easy to generate and, more importantly, balance stats on the fly, so that you don't inadvertedly kill your players with overpowering encounters.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-28, 07:14 AM
If the logic behind that is closer to "these goblins are probably not going to press an attack after twenty percent of their forces were lost when they ambushed someone" than "feels like this has gone on long enough", its simply rationally GMing.

I agree. They have a logical, in game reason to retreat. It's a bit situational, and D&D includes no morale mechanic...but it's logical for such a thing to exist anyhow. Some prepublished modules(such as RHoD) include mechanics for attempting to flee when a fight has gone bad. I like this. It feels realistic.

It's not an effort meter, it's merely attempting to have the NPCs simulate actual people who exist for more than providing xp and loot.

Shatteredtower
2011-01-28, 07:42 AM
It's not an effort meter, it's merely attempting to have the NPCs simulate actual people who exist for more than providing xp and loot.

However you want to justify the effort meter is up to you. The main thing is you are still using stats as a guideline, and your judgment should still trump that.

Take your example with 20% of an enemy force. Should that be an absolute requirement, or is 10% good enough if the players, not their characters, are showing obvious fatigue? Should you up it to 30% or bring in reinforcements if someone in the group hasn't had a chance to act or was preparing to do something unusual? Look to your players first.

If you've ever had your party involved in a larger battle, you've used an effort meter, no matter how thoroughly you drew up the encounters' statistics.

Xuc Xac
2011-01-28, 07:45 AM
As a new DM, I very often put the party against encounters which they really can't handle (based on the CR rankings).... I don't want the party to die because of an error I made. I'd be fine with them dying based on their own mistakes, but when I make it unavoidable, it's not fair to them.


If the party is facing something they can't beat but stupidly refusing to run away, then they are dying based on their own mistakes. Their mistake is thinking that they live in a fair world where they never face challenges they can't handle.

Shatteredtower
2011-01-28, 08:06 AM
How do they know they can't win if you don't tell them? That isn't always self-evident, even with good descriptions.

Your job isn't to punish mistakes. It's to provide an entertaining game. Sometimes that means letting them know they got off light. Use sparingly, but never rule it out.

Knowing a mistake can be punished does not mean it should be in every case. Again, look to your players.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-28, 08:11 AM
How do they know they can't win if you don't tell them? That isn't always self-evident, even with good descriptions.

We're hitting them lots, but they're not dying. Also, it's some unholy large monster we've not seen before. Also, it's hurting us lots.

That is sufficient reason to run. My NPC builds are generally static(if they have onscreen actions that would get xp for a PC, they get it too, but most NPCs dont have encounters at the rate adventurers do). The world does not level up with the PCs. Therefore, there is a possibility of finding bad, bad things. When the level 4 party goes looking for dragons, they just might be successful.


If you've ever had your party involved in a larger battle, you've used an effort meter, no matter how thoroughly you drew up the encounters' statistics.

No. This is what mass combat rules and specific objectives are for. Slogging through killing mooks constantly is boring. Heros should not be normal troopers slugging it out on the front lines, rolling to see how many people they can kill. They are heroes. They are ALWAYS killing mooks. What matters is what they choose to do while they kill things.

Shatteredtower
2011-01-28, 08:20 AM
We're hitting them lots, but they're not dying.

Yet. And thus is your argument refuted, especially in a world where monsters have a sense of self preservation.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-28, 09:52 AM
Yet. And thus is your argument refuted, especially in a world where monsters have a sense of self preservation.

Yet. Yes, there is always a possibility that the next blow might fell something. Though, if you're using any descriptive language to describe combat at all, general state of well-being should be something the characters and their players are aware of.

But repeatedly hitting a monster that's kicking your parties butt in hopes of a lucky crit IS a bad strategy. Certainly an unreliable one. If you die because it didn't work out, well...tough luck. I've only seen one player not learn from this in a single death(just seeing one, doesn't have to be them). Some people have a harder time learning that not every problem is solvable by stabbing, but all CAN learn this.

Knaight
2011-01-28, 09:52 AM
Yet. And thus is your argument refuted, especially in a world where monsters have a sense of self preservation.

Hardly. This is a good reason for the PCs to run away, its a good reason for most NPCs to run away, its a good reason for most monsters to run away. That doesn't create an effort meter, that's GMing sensibly. Unless all opponents are insane, have incredible delusions of grandeur, have nothing to lose and a personal vendetta against the PCs, are blood crazed, are rabid, are fanatical and willing to sacrifice themselves, are in a situation where they are defending someone else they care about, or something similar having no retreats looks extremely artificial. Barring specific cases, all opponents fitting the above descriptions also looks extremely artificial.

Lord.Sorasen
2011-01-31, 07:26 PM
Well, I find the best way to deal with an NPC's (and by extension, creature's) actions is to look at its mental ability scores, especially intelligence. Are you running a zombie that feints? An Amnizu (a devil with potent spell-like abilities) as a melee attacker? Something's wrong. I'd honestly recommend fudging the couple of rolls it would take to get the combat back on track in the case of something only a level or two off base in power. If the disparity in effectiveness spells full TPK and it wasn't the players' fault they got into this fight (I.e., attempted to assassinate the king in front of his elite guardsmen), then simply admit OOC that you've made a mistake, and hash it out as a group. That's what i'd do. Also, don't underestimate the power of using a different monster's statblock with the serial numbers filed off. This works especially well in 4E, I've found, where powers operate similarly among monsters of the same 'archetype' (I.e. lurker, artillery, et al).

Well, honestly, my mistake is that I am having trouble finding that point where battles seem right. When I match the CR to the party, what tends to happen is that the monsters are within the right difficulty, but very likely to one shot somebody right away.


If the party is facing something they can't beat but stupidly refusing to run away, then they are dying based on their own mistakes. Their mistake is thinking that they live in a fair world where they never face challenges they can't handle.

You underestimate my inadequacy. Sometimes the party doesn't have time to know this. Right now, it's an OOC error being made: the party is very used to the video game RPG, where (generally) monsters last much longer, deal less damage, hit far more often (least at earlier levels). Since they're as new as I am, they don't realize a single bite from the Ankheg will drop the barbarian to 0 hp. And after that happens (that happened), I can't expect them to just leave the player behind. What I mean is that often they don't realize they can't beat something until it's already too late.

To be honest, for me my primary goal is to make sure the players are having fun. I think at a later point they'll be ready to see their characters die, but as of now they're all having fun coming inches away from death time and time again. Later on (very soon), they're going to fight monsters I know are out of their league, and I as a DM as well as as an NPC will warn them to run away. If they fight these guys, I have no regrets.