Campaign Lethality Scale?

[Alistaroc]

I seem to remember seeing a scale, I believe 1 to 5, of how lethal a campaign is.
Something along the lines of 1: Total plot armor and 5: You'll die every session
Does anyone know where I can find it?

[Alistaroc]

No one has anything?

[Platymus Pus]

is #5 darksouls mode? Because it sounds like it.

[Flickerdart]

This seems kind of useless as a concept. But here, I'll write you up one real quick:

1: The DM has his kid gloves on. Monsters are weak-to-nonexistent, and PCs win any combat they're in without taking anything but trivial damage.
2: The DM gives the CR system the cursory nod it deserves. Combats are still stacked in the PCs' favour, but every encounter takes the recommended dose of 20% of resources - including hit points. PCs may come close to dying or die if they are reckless, but are expected to overcome anything they face.
3: The DM doesn't pull punches. Above-CR encounters are frequent. The PCs will face some encounters the DM knows they're not able to overcome. The PCs do not dictate the pace of the adventure, and may find themselves ambushed while resting or travelling.
4: CR+4 isn't the limit, it's the starting point. A dead PC is pretty much expected every encounter. The party cleric prepares raise dead in more than one slot every day. Monsters are optimized, possibly more than the PCs, and use their strengths intelligently.
5: You are already dead.

[ComaVision]

5: You are already dead.

This is why I wouldn't play in a game run by M. Night Shyamalan.

Seriously though, I've seen the scale you're referring to before but I wouldn't know how to find it again. I didn't find it particularly useful as a resource anyway.

[elonin]

It's not as though he wrote anything that was scary.

[legomaster00156]

It's not as though he wrote anything that was scary.
But he did direct one. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/) (Note: only scary in how much it craps on a beloved series.)

[LudicSavant]

I seem to remember seeing a scale, I believe 1 to 5, of how lethal a campaign is.
Something along the lines of 1: Total plot armor and 5: You'll die every session
Does anyone know where I can find it?

Well I wrote this thing.



Ok so this is my first time DMing, we have been playing for about 6 month and I am running the Savage Tide Campaign. It started with 5 players and two dropped out so I picked up a NPC to help with the slack. However, now at around level 10 it seems our Warforged Fighter is impossible to hit, the Cleric/Paladin of Tyranny can't miss and is nigh impossible to hit and I have a Beguiler who, short of true seeing, is impossible to find.

None of those things sound overly worrying to me. Give me the specific builds and I can give you half a dozen challenges they'll never forget using little more than standard monsters, some basic thematically appropriate terrain, and fundamental tactics.

I must emphasize that you need to provide the specific builds of your players if you want to get more useful feedback on what level of things will challenge them without simply stomping their faces in.

I mean, I could easily just say something like "Oh hey look it's a pretty standard Sorcerer with a Mindbender 1 dip and +25 will save (thanks Force of Personality feat!) that automatically detects the location of everything within 100 feet (thanks Mindsight feat!) and slams them with multiple high DC save or dies (thanks rudimentary understanding of spell mechanics and Cha-boosting gear!) and a horde of minions (thanks Dominate, Animate Dead, or Summoning!) who can't be hit by a mere attack bonus (thanks Greater Mirror Image / Flight / Displacement!)" but that seems like it would be too easy. :smallconfused:

http://i868.photobucket.com/albums/ab249/crafty-cultist/Sorceress_Ryth_by_liiga.jpg
Why yes, that is a 0% ASF Feycraft Twilight Mithral breastplate.




A little bit of tactics goes a long way in providing challenges. Kobolds, played intelligently, can give people nightmares forever, and that includes optimizers.

Let's give a few examples of how you can ramp up essentially the same encounter (Drow that revere Vulkoor that use vision tricks against a level 3 or 4 party):

Easier: "Okay, in the room there are a bunch of generic stat block drow, and a Medium Monstrous scorpion, no doubt a spawn of Vulkoor. They cast Darkness on you and fire hand crossbows at you!"

e.g. the DM is not using the monsters right, and the monsters aren't very strong. The drow are actually giving you concealment against their ranged attacks, while you can still hit them just fine. Also, they're only using hand crossbows... why are they using hand crossbows if they're not infiltrating or something? Just because the default drow entry said they use hand crossbows, that's why!

This actually happens a lot. It makes encounters a pushover for anyone with a modicum of strategic awareness and a basic understanding of the rules (in fact, a smart player can probably breeze through a campaign like this with an NPC class). Expect this in games where you hear DMs raving about how Tome of Battle is "obviously overpowered" and that "Fighters are just as good as Wizards" or otherwise demonstrate a basic lack of understanding of mechanics or strategic awareness. I've also seen players do this a lot... including cases where players do significantly more damage to themselves than the actual enemies do!

Easy: "Okay, in the room there are a bunch of generic stat block drow, and a Large Monstrous Scorpion, no doubt a spawn of Vulkoor. They use Darkness for cover, hide, and fire their hand crossbows at you! They hold their swords in their off hand, ready to follow up on their initial volley with blades."

e.g. the DM just kinda threw together a few random unmodified entries from the MM and didn't think too much about how they could be used to their tactical potential. Still, a large monstrous scorpion can hurt you, and he's not using Darkness wrong, and even though they're still using hand crossbows for some reason, at least they're taking advantage of the fact that it can be used one-handed with no penalty now.

This is a common case when the DM understands the basics of the rules, but isn't interested in giving the players a real challenge. They will often have the mindset that players should not actually ever die (facing only the illusion of threat), and / or they will dislike the idea of customizing creatures or having monsters act strategically and leave them with silly things like Toughness and just march them at you. These players just want to enjoy the story and /or hit punching bags, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but some will crave something more as well.

Medium: "As you enter the room, you come face to face with the drow priestess riding a Large Monstrous Scorpion, who with a shout commands her swarm of vermin to attack! When you try to hit her, your sword passes through the illusion harmlessly... and your movement left you vulnerable to her counterattack!"

e.g. enemies are a bit more interesting and clever and/or have better stats. Also, things aren't being given ridiculous feats like "Toughness" all the time. Players are at genuine risk if they don't think through their actions. A common case for more experienced groups. This may well be all you need to challenge your PCs, though I haven't seen the specific builds yet.

Scary: "Chasing after your charmed comrade who was suggested to join her new friend on venturing deeper into the dungeon, you rush through the corridor hoping to get to her before she has a chance to come to harm. Before you, there is a dragonborn drow priestess / bard. As soon as they come into sight, you hear the heavy clank of a lever and the turning of gears, and an iron guillotine smashes through the corridor masonry, cutting you off from your companions with a wall of iron (CR1 DMGII trap). The priestess begins a hymn about the doom of all those who would oppose drowkind, and her weapons come alight with dragonfire. She caresses your charmed comrade, and raises a flaming knife behind her back. Charging in to help, you immediately find yourself running straight onto the point of a spear... 3 Vulkoor-spawned mutant berserkers (functionally level 1 barbarians), with weapons of draconic fire, hiding behind a silent image! You find yourself alone, poisoned, battered from attacks of opportunity, surrounded, and prone, and they raise their weapons with sadistic grins on their deformed faces."

e.g. enemies are smart and are built well. This (or the category after this) is the kind of game that will come up when people who would fit the "Brilliant Planner" player incentive type in the DMG II come together, or might show up in games that usually have "Medium" encounters as a boss fight or wham episode. A common case for groups that understand optimization and appreciate strategy more complex than "I kick in the door and roll initiative!" and are comfortable with the potential for losing.

Scarier: As Scary, but "The drow priestess is also riding a Large Monstrous Scorpion again (with barding and Tunnel Fighting), in addition to having the berserkers in the room, and she's wielding a lance and heavy steel shield now. Is that a Rhino Rush spell she's got there?

Dismissing the silent image that lured you to your death, a changeling mercenary sorcerer takes on your appearance and prepares to rejoin your comrades when they come through the wall, and the drow play dead or vanished with another illusion. She strips you of your possessions, handing out the choice bits of equipment to the appropriate allies, who happily drink your potions and read your scrolls in preparation for the rest of your allies."

e.g. enemies are devious, use teamwork, and have good stats, and have about as much respect for your plot armor as the cast of A Game of Thrones. At this level, basic kobolds will send weak-willed players fleeing in sheer unbridled terror.

This is what you get when you have a creative, experienced DM that understands practical optimization and strong players that are thrilled by the idea of a real challenge or their eyes sparkle at the idea of matching wits with a character like Tywin Lannister.


http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2013/129/e/6/drow_by_jianjiagu-d64n0bo.jpg

Additional difficulty cases (mentioned simply for the sake of completeness):

Arbitrary: You live or die more by the DM's fiat than by the value of anyone's tactical choices. You succeed when the DM lets you succeed, and you fail when the DM lets you fail. Rolls are commonly fudged.

This is a perhaps worryingly common case, and is often a result of inexperienced or incompetent DMs. However, sometimes it isn't. In these cases, this difficulty is applied subtly, often with intentions similar to those in "Easy," save that death sometimes occurs for "dramatic" reasons. In this case, the players might never actually notice that their rolls don't matter. Even if they do, they might happily accept or even support it, if they're the kind of player that doesn't care much about the tactical side of the game.

Impossibru: The DM decides you will die, and therefore you do. Game over.

This is a common case when people piss off a DM sufficiently and things are not resolved through more mature means. Bleh.

[Alistaroc]

This seems kind of useless as a concept. But here, I'll write you up one real quick:

1: The DM has his kid gloves on. Monsters are weak-to-nonexistent, and PCs win any combat they're in without taking anything but trivial damage.
2: The DM gives the CR system the cursory nod it deserves. Combats are still stacked in the PCs' favour, but every encounter takes the recommended dose of 20% of resources - including hit points. PCs may come close to dying or die if they are reckless, but are expected to overcome anything they face.
3: The DM doesn't pull punches. Above-CR encounters are frequent. The PCs will face some encounters the DM knows they're not able to overcome. The PCs do not dictate the pace of the adventure, and may find themselves ambushed while resting or travelling.
4: CR+4 isn't the limit, it's the starting point. A dead PC is pretty much expected every encounter. The party cleric prepares raise dead in more than one slot every day. Monsters are optimized, possibly more than the PCs, and use their strengths intelligently.
5: You are already dead.
Interesting scale... thank you :smallsmile:

This is why I wouldn't play in a game run by M. Night Shyamalan.

Seriously though, I've seen the scale you're referring to before but I wouldn't know how to find it again. I didn't find it particularly useful as a resource anyway.
It's not for me, but for my players

Well I wrote this thing.
VEEERY nice :smallbiggrin:


This isn't for me, but for my players. Most of them are relatively new if not first-timers, but they're quick thinkers and like a challenge. I thought I'd show them the scale and let them choose the kind of difficulty they want from me.

[elonin]

But he did direct one. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/) (Note: only scary in how much it craps on a beloved series.)

Yea, its bad enough that i don't count it as having to do with the series.

[LudicSavant]

VEEERY nice :smallbiggrin:


This isn't for me, but for my players. Most of them are relatively new if not first-timers, but they're quick thinkers and like a challenge. I thought I'd show them the scale and let them choose the kind of difficulty they want from me.

Easier: Incompetent foes. They make comical errors or are just plain statistically underpowered relative to the party.

Easy: Illusion of threat. I don't know how else to word that and I'm afraid it will have the wrong effect as a result, because some players want this and don't want to say that they want this.

Medium: Enemies will kill you if you are careless, but probably won't do anything super surprising.

Hard: Enemies are playing to win and will use tactics as such. You may not actually think of how the players will beat the challenges; that's for them to figure out.

Harder: The BBEG is always plotting a Red Wedding and knows all the anti-resurrection tactics.

______________


This is really simplified. There are a variety of difficulty levers.

- Tactics. Ranges from self-destructive to genius. Smarter enemies are harder.

- Sport vs War style. In Sport style, you fight an orc in a room. Then you go to the next room and there's another orc. In War style, the orc raises the alarm and all of the orcs come for you. Also they will follow you to your home base or set up ambushes for you or otherwise harass you in logical ways if they recognize you as an enemy. They also may retreat instead of fighting to the death, go and heal up, then come back. That sort of thing.

- CR (or whatever metric of pure strength) relative to party level. Obviously, higher level/CR/whatever enemies are harder.

- Build optimization. If you see a monster manual entry and the monster has Toughness, do you think "hmmm, maybe I could give it a different feat"?

- Forgiveness (e.g. will the enemy finish the party off? Will the DM fudge dice in the players' favor?)

- Resource availability (Are they getting wealth by level? Can they choose their magic items at magic mart?)

- Tailored vs Not (e.g. will enemies always be designed with the party's level in mind, or is it possible for them to bite off more than they can chew and thus need to use information gathering abilities and the like?)

[Fizban]

Edit: in case you don't like reading forum arguments, here's a skip to version for you future people:

I would say the appropriate Lethality Scale is:

Non-lethal: characters don't die
Normal: characters can die during important events or due to extreme carelessness
More-lethal: characters can die due to poor luck or minor carelessness
Too-lethal*: characters can die for no reason
Rules stress-test: characters will die unless the players subvert the game, outplay the DM, have incredible luck, or all of the above.


*or Extra-lethal if you aren't biased like me :smalltongue:
(The Normal rating is based on the CR system and table 3-2: Encounter Difficulty in the DMG).

Expanding on/defending against Flickerdart's #2-3, I'd like to point out that is after all the whole point of the CR system. The players are intended to win without difficulty. . . most of the time. I feel that these discussions often ignore or at least overlook the fact that not all encounters are supposed to be the same difficulty, and the DMG does have a table indicating the suggested balance of easy/hard encounters. If the PCs beat most encounters without any risk of dying then that means everything's working as planned, then they get to the boss fight/assassination/whatever and now the real fight begins. The job as DM then is to keep the low risk encounters interesting and prevent the players from becoming complacent, so that when they reach the high risk encounters they don't crumple, and of course crafting the encounters so they reach the right difficulty in the first place.

If you're following the DMG's suggested breakdown for campaign lethality, you probably shouldn't have more than 1 PC death per level unless the whole party wipes. The level of optimization and tactics required to maintain this will obviously be linked to the level of optimization and tactics of your own players, and I think part of the pre-campaign discussion people should be having would include the expected lethality. There's also the possibility that when faced with failure the players may step up their game, at which point you might rehash the discussion and see if they're going to maintain that level of game or slack back off until the next boss fight.

[Knaight]

Another way to build the scale is to look at what it takes to get a character killed. One possibility:


The characters will not die. The players can make monumentally stupid decision after monumentally stupid decision, and the PCs will be just fine.
Character death is possible, but the players have to earn it, and they'll get a number of pretty explicit "this is a really stupid idea" warnings before the character kicks it.
Character death is possible, and it still is going to take some mistake. Still, it could be a minor one, and there isn't necessarily any warning.
Characters can and will be killed by the dice with some frequency, even if the players play brilliantly. If mistakes are made, it's going to take some lucky rolling to get the PCs out alive.
The best case scenario is rocket tag, and the foes are packing serious rockets. Even if the players are a bunch of tactical masters, things are stacked against them. The slightest error spells TPK.

[Flickerdart]

Expanding on/defending against Flickerdart's #2-3, I'd like to point out that is after all the whole point of the CR system. The players are intended to win without difficulty. . . most of the time. I feel that these discussions often ignore or at least overlook the fact that not all encounters are supposed to be the same difficulty, and the DMG does have a table indicating the suggested balance of easy/hard encounters. If the PCs beat most encounters without any risk of dying then that means everything's working as planned, then they get to the boss fight/assassination/whatever and now the real fight begins. The job as DM then is to keep the low risk encounters interesting and prevent the players from becoming complacent, so that when they reach the high risk encounters they don't crumple, and of course crafting the encounters so they reach the right difficulty in the first place.
I never said that any of the difficulty levels are wrong.

[justiceforall]

Easy: Illusion of threat. I don't know how else to word that and I'm afraid it will have the wrong effect as a result, because some players want this and don't want to say that they want this.

I've actually had players at the end of the session where some of them died pull me up and tell me very specifically that what you've written here was exactly what they wanted.

I have to say I was quite impressed they were willing to outright state they wanted just the illusion of being able to die, but had no interest in real threat.

[RolkFlameraven]

I've actually had players at the end of the session where some of them died pull me up and tell me very specifically that what you've written here was exactly what they wanted.

I have to say I was quite impressed they were willing to outright state they wanted just the illusion of being able to die, but had no interest in real threat.

I' had a player like this, and when he DMed it was just like this as well. Sadly he is the only one who enjoys this kind of play style so he wasn't happy and we all got board when he DMed as we failed to see the point if you couldn't die.

But some people like easy or god-mode cheat codes in computer games so they can play them for the story not the game play. I guess its the same idea?

[LudicSavant]

I' had a player like this, and when he DMed it was just like this as well. Sadly he is the only one who enjoys this kind of play style so he wasn't happy and we all got board when he DMed as we failed to see the point if you couldn't die.

But some people like easy or god-mode cheat codes in computer games so they can play them for the story not the game play. I guess its the same idea?

You might want to check this out: http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

[Vhaidara]

As someone who actually has a system in place for pulling characters out before they die, its because people don't want to lose the investment. This isnt a roguelike, and anything short of true rezz is crazy unfun to deal with. It's a cooperative storytelling experience, not a fight.

[Fizban]

I never said that any of the difficulty levels are wrong.
True, I probably could have phrased that less aggressively. The thing is, I don't consider the goal of my style to be "easy," so seeing it ranked on a 2/5 on multiple "difficulty sliders" is a a bit :smallannoyed: I'm not trying to run an easy game, I'm trying to run a fun game-and I don't think that most people find a game where you die every other session is fun. A fun game has a chance of character death, but only during climatic events or if they players really, really screw things up. I will absolutely put together whatever sort of build or battle is needed to keep them from winning important fights too easily, but it's just as important to use my skills making sure no one gets wrecked without good reason. Of course I could be wrong about any given player's expectations of lethality, which is why that's a thing every group should discuss before the game even starts.

On investment/the illusion of threat: I definitely want more than an illusion of threat, but I'm also definitely the type of person who will be very upset if my character dies when I don't want them too. I would assume that makes be pretty difficult as a player, since it means I'm running my character to the max at all times and am thus difficult to challenge, making the window of opportunity for challenge without insta-death much smaller, especially if the DM isn't as good at encounter balancing and/or the rest of the party isn't up to scratch. My best solution is putting my effort into fallbacks and failsafes and running characters more likely to rabbit than stand and fight.

[Flickerdart]

The thing is, I don't consider the goal of my style to be "easy," so seeing it ranked on a 2/5 on multiple "difficulty sliders" is a a bit :smallannoyed:
Would it make you feel better if it was 40 on a 100 point scale?

There's no point in having a scale if the extremes are not accurately represented. 4 on that 5-point scale is "multiple people die every day."


I'm not trying to run an easy game, I'm trying to run a fun game
You're the one that's calling it easy, not me. I called it 2. You can feel free to call them Easy, Medium, Hard, Brutal, and Impossible if you so desire.

[atemu1234]

I prefer to measure my games in either centi- or decigygaxes. Current game hovering about 2 decigygaxes.

[Alistaroc]

I prefer to measure my games in either centi- or decigygaxes. Current game hovering about 2 decigygaxes.
You win :smallbiggrin:

[Fizban]

There's no point in having a scale if the extremes are not accurately represented. 4 on that 5-point scale is "multiple people die every day."
I called it 2. You can feel free to call them Easy, Medium, Hard, Brutal, and Impossible if you so desire.
Yes, you called it 2, out of 5, which in true review score fashion implies that it is less than desirable. The point is that a "difficulty scale" is wrong to begin with, since the difficulty should vary based on the situation, and suggesting that the game can be described in a single difficulty creates a self-fulfilling prophecy where people are more likely to make all encounters of the same difficulty instead of varying them. If there must be a scale of any sort, it should be properly referring to lethality rather than difficulty. Even for a lethality scale, rating it in simple numbers will automatically imply that lower numbers are bad because that's just how it goes.

I quoted you first, which was not the best option since you didn't mention difficulty at all. Later posters used the more common difficulty and challenge parsings which resulted in the perceived slight, regardless of the fact that the title of the thread is "Campaign Lethality Scale," and now we're here. It did give me time to phrase why the numbers were bugging me though.

I would say the appropriate Lethality Scale is:

Non-lethal: characters don't die
Normal: characters can die during important events or due to extreme carelessness
More-lethal: characters can die due to poor luck or minor carelessness
Too-lethal*: characters can die for no reason
Rules stress-test: characters will die unless the players subvert the game, outplay the DM, have incredible luck, or all of the above.


*or Extra-lethal if you aren't biased like me :smalltongue:

[Flickerdart]

review score fashion
It's not a review score. More difficult is not the same as good.

[atemu1234]

It's not a review score. More difficult is not the same as good.

This. My game is relatively lethal, but I maintain a consistent story and NPCs are interesting - the players enjoy the game, and I enjoy playing it. Still, 2 Decigygaxes is a bit higher than most (generic 3.5 falls to around 1 decigygax at the worst, and 5 centigygaxes normally)

My scoring system is hilarious and mildly inconsistent.

[MukkTB]

My personal belief about how the game should be played in terms of difficulty is something like as follows.

The game should be 'fair.' In any given situation a player won't die for arbitrary reasons. Before death the player always gets at least one move, one decision. One choice in the decision is the 'right' one. Its OK if the choice was made a bit before the event, such as during character building, (dumping perception?) but it should be a clear choice. Strings of bad dice rolls that result in death are acceptable.
-This isn't realistic, but I think it is a prerequisite to having fun in the game. We're not trying to simulate reality here.

The game can have a variety of difficulty settings because that is 'realistic.' The bad guy may be an idiot. The monster may not be too terrifying. Or the players may be facing something truly awful. Particularly tough encounters should be made of important NPCs who are experienced and intelligent. The DM should allow a careful player to determine ahead of time how tough a particular situation might be.
-The last part is again about the game aspect.

-D&D is a game and should therefore be interactive and contain solutions. The challenge for the player is to find the solution, even if the solution is to run away. Reality may have situations without answers, but as soon as the DM puts that kind of situation forward, players are going to disengage from the experience. The social compact going in expects this treatment.

[Fizban]

It's not a review score. More difficult is not the same as good.

Even for a lethality scale, rating [describing, whatever] it in simple numbers will automatically imply that lower numbers are bad because that's just how it goes.
I suppose you could preface a numbered scale by mentioning what the ideal number is on that scale. I am telling you that I had a gut reaction based on the fact that the scale was presented by number. Without giving context for which number was desirable you can't really get upset with my assumption. I suppose for someone looking for a game with minimum lethality, the opposite would be true, but I generally expect gamers of any sort to be at least somewhat competitive and refuse to take the low/weak/easy option on general principle. So instead of numbers, I suggest descriptive titles to avoid gut reactions.

Before death the player always gets at least one move, one decision. One choice in the decision is the 'right' one. Its OK if the choice was made a bit before the event, such as during character building, (dumping perception?) but it should be a clear choice. Strings of bad dice rolls that result in death are acceptable.
. . . The challenge for the player is to find the solution, even if the solution is to run away. Reality may have situations without answers, but as soon as the DM puts that kind of situation forward, players are going to disengage from the experience. The social compact going in expects this treatment.
I hadn't thought to mention that since it's such a root concept, but yeah it's good to point out. Indeed, the empowering thing about a game is that no matter what happens you get to respond, as even if that response is just rolling a die you might have dice manipulation mechanics that can turn it around. Also good to remember is the rule of three: assuming your players will guess the one correct solution is a recipe for failure, always include at least three expected solutions and be open to alternates. That's usually mentioned for clues in a mystery plot, but it applies to everything. When I'm going over an encounter I like to consider the optimal strategy, the direct ham-fisted strategy, and the screwed-up/retreat strategy to make sure they're all possible.

That's another way to phrase it: in a normal game characters can survive all three, while more lethal games remove them until only optimal remains, and a non-lethal game refuses to deal death even on a complete failure.

[Flickerdart]

Without giving context for which number was desirable
Which number is desirable on the electromagnetic spectrum? What about the temperature range between 100 and 200 Kelvin? What is the ideal number of miles on the N9 road between Marrakesh and Casablanca?

[Thealtruistorc]

The way I run my campaign depends upon my players. If they are very familiar with the game and expect a challenge, I definitely try for 4 whenever I can. If they are more interested in roleplaying and storytelling, I dial it back to a 2 or 3.

[LudicSavant]

I always feel a need to post this graph when people start saying silly things about easier being generally better (or vice versa)

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/qfu59kv60sbsyb6ozvjk.png
Source: Gamasutra

Different players have very different needs. So different, in fact, that a high-skill player's "boring" point is above a low-skill player's "frustrating" point. What may be horrendously frustrating and seemingly impossible for some players will be so easy for others that it won't be hard enough to qualify as even casual or mindless fun.

I also feel that this graph is relevant in explaining why accusations of "powergaming" and "munchkinry" seem to be far more common than actual munchkins. Players have different kinds of fun (mindless fun/abnegation, casual fun, balanced fun, challenging fun, hardcore fun/full engagement), and require different sorts of challenges in order to have those kinds of fun. And then they all misinterpret each other's needs or differing skill levels as powergaming or badwrongfun.

[Fizban]

Which number is desirable on the electromagnetic spectrum? What about the temperature range between 100 and 200 Kelvin? What is the ideal number of miles on the N9 road between Marrakesh and Casablanca?
The one I can see, the one that doesn't kill me, and the one with a rest stop. Of course by stripping out even the information on what those numbers represent, you're suggesting a post where the lethality scale is:

Lethality (in units)
1
2
3
4
5

Where the user should go look up what a lethality unit is if they want to understand it. I'm pretty sure every figure regarding the electromagnetic spectrum I've seen included a little rainbow where visible light is, a thermometer tells you the current temperature, and if you're traveling a road you know how long you've been going and what landmarks are visible.

Maybe it's better to say, you seem to think a campaign lethality scale is like a weight scale, where the result simply tells you what to mark on label. It's not. Campaign lethality is experienced in the game, as a person experiences the temperature in a room. Unlike standard temperature units, we're inventing lethality scales here. If you wake up in a room and see a thermometer which indicates the temperature you feel is too hot is actually very low (say a candy thermometer meant for a different purpose, which I've relabeled as mayonnaise because I find it more convenient) it's going to be misleading if you don't already know how it works. The room could be too hot, or you could be sick and running a fever, or maybe the blow to the head messed up your perception. And there we go: I woke up in a room with your mayonnaise labeled candy thermometer and went, "Huh, this room feels hot to me but the thermometer says it's low, this is not useful."

Or you know, just admit that even while people can play the game their own way there is probably a collective assumption that people use when guessing at these things and that a simple numerical scale might not be appropriate, or make it's own suggestions based on how people react to simple numerical scales. So I'll repeat my assertion: a lethality scale should use descriptive labels that indicate the expected lethality of an average game, and based on the CR system and table 3-2 of the DMG we can see that the expected lethality of a normal 3.5e game is that PC's only have a chance of dying in 20% of encounters (unless they keep messing up a bunch).

DnD 3.5 has an expected lethality rating, it's right there in the DMG for everyone to read if you assemble the parts (I find it quite reasonable)For people that don't realize that, you'll have to label your differently centered thermometers more clearly to avoid bugging people that do.

[Flickerdart]

The one I can see, the one that doesn't kill me, and the one with a rest stop.
You can see light in quite a range, but you just cut out radio and microwave, so...good job, I guess?

You will not survive any temperatures between 100K and 200K.

There's more than one rest stop on that road...

But the point you so gleefully miss is that higher numbers on any of those spectra are not better numbers.

[Knaight]

But the point you so gleefully miss is that higher numbers on any of those spectra are not better numbers.

This is particularly true as the spectra can be expressed as either wavelength or frequency, and higher one one is lower on the other (barring index of refraction shenanigans, but the figures for vacuum are generally used). Similarly, the lethality scale could be flipped into a survivability scale.

So, Fizban, if you insist on seeing a numerical scale as inherently having higher numbers as better - which makes no sense to either me or Flickerdart - then you can think of your campaigns as having a 4/5 on the Flickerdart Survivability Scale.

[Fizban]

I suppose you'll accuse me of splitting hairs, but I didn't say numerical scales automatically have higher numbers as better. What I said was that numerical scales tend to elicit a gut reaction before anything else. If you can really say that you've never reacted to something based on the form it was written in, well I find that unlikely, and the usual form for a 1-5 scale has lower numbers being worse. That is the point you are so gleefully missing. And after I evaluated my gut reaction and saw that it was unwarranted, I decided that numerical scales are a poor choice for this exercise precisely because that's what ticked me off. If it ticks me off, it can tick someone else off, so why cling to an arbitrary number scale when you could label the scale with even more information in the first place? If there is a written, expected, desirable default difficulty then why not center the scale based on that? (Is it fear of offending people who didn't know they missed something?)

I don't really see where Flick is going with his analogy since picking a desireable point for centering the scale doesn't remove the rest of the scale, but Knaight's flipping it into a survivability scale is clever and would also prevent any negative gut reactions. I still don't see why you'd prefer a numbered scale over titles that serve as a second column of information, but I don't have to convince either of you. I've said my piece, anyone who reads the thread and doesn't find number scales useful enough or has a similar gut reaction will know that I was here. Might move my suggested scale up to my first post so it's more noticeable for people that don't like reading forum arguments.