Making Encounters Difficult

[ddude987]

Hello Gianters!

So I am starting a 3.5 campaign this upcoming school semester and I want to run it more old school (but with 3.5).

So I am running a hexcrawl! Now I wanted to make encounters difficult and I've read plenty of guides and similar on how to do this but they don't really cover what I am looking for.

What I am looking for is making combat encounters difficult with non-combat objectives so that each encounter doesn't feel like its just slogging it out against tough monsters. How can one design encounters to have the players have to co-operate and incorporate actual strategy and meaningful choices on their turns. Most encounters I have DMd and participated in just feel like there is an obvious best choice (statistically) and so each player just makes the most statistically optimal decision and eventually they win the encounter (on average).

[Lightlawbliss]

Hello Gianters!

So I am starting a 3.5 campaign this upcoming school semester and I want to run it more old school (but with 3.5).

So I am running a hexcrawl! Now I wanted to make encounters difficult and I've read plenty of guides and similar on how to do this but they don't really cover what I am looking for.

What I am looking for is making combat encounters difficult with non-combat objectives so that each encounter doesn't feel like its just slogging it out against tough monsters. How can one design encounters to have the players have to co-operate and incorporate actual strategy and meaningful choices on their turns. Most encounters I have DMd and participated in just feel like there is an obvious best choice (statistically) and so each player just makes the most statistically optimal decision and eventually they win the encounter (on average).

The hard part with your question is that most non-combat objectives can be left till after the fighting and/or just change that "obvious best choice" you spoke of. Because of how dnd is, you have a system where the numbers can be used for easy to follow statistics.

That said, there are a few methods I have found work well when used at the right time and right way.

Having magic items around a room that alter the battlefield somehow. Even a simple 1/round trap can make huge changes to how a group fights, especially when you don't allow them to plan out their turns with each other before they take them (big mistake a lot of dms make). They could even be buffs that apply to monsters and players in an area(my personal favorite).

From time to time, I will pull out the template I call chaos incarnate. Simply put, I roll a d6 and a d2 for all their stats every turn (behind the screen obviously) and shift the monster's stats. The d6 says how much and the d2 gives direction. It is amazing how much that messes with calculations and assumptions.

The urgent message in the middle of a fight. I may have overused the "your son ran after you and will catch up shortly" one.

[Aegis013]

There's two ways to prevent what you described as your normal experience with encounters from the DM's side. Either limit the information available to the characters such that the optimal choice isn't apparent and watch them squirm as they try to figure out what to do (or flail like epileptic monkeys as described by the natural party leader from my IRL table), or to increase the information to such a degree that determining the optimal course is too difficult (somewhat like playing chess, or in D&D's case, super complicated hyper contingency chess).

The easiest and best way to do this, is to have the players want it to be that way. Instead of shifting from RP mode into "war game style mini-game" mode and ignoring how their characters would feel/act, they discuss tactics out-of-character and follow the best plan they could come up with perfectly. Granted, doing that actually makes sense for a team of decently leveled adventurers who have been working together closely for a long time, so this works best at lower levels/early in the campaign. Then again, you can't really control your players.

So other options are to use elements that don't necessarily abide strictly by the rules as the players know or understand them. Use monster statblocks, but describe a different appearance. This will keep them guessing (though, you should still provide useful information for successful knowledge checks, or however your table handles that, just don't be handing the players the statblock), you can also use environmental elements which can be interacted with: barrels of mysterious, but explosive, substance, magical glyphs on the ground causing various effects, etc.

Alternatively, your objective may be more difficult than "defeat enemy, take loot." Maybe you need to capture the target alive because they have valuable information. Maybe they have a hostage who has valuable information. Maybe you do need to just kill them, but it's because they're guarding a ritual which is causing all kinds of magical chaos to flood into the encounter.

Maybe turn the situation around. The party has to prevent a ritual from failing, and if even one of many monsters (probably trying through multiple means: spider climb, flying, invisible-sneak, brute force), gets through, they'll be able to disrupt the ritual. Keeping things just a little novel goes a long way in keeping things challenging rather than just using monsters with high numbers. Using clever tactics for monsters or advantageous terrain can also go a long way in making an encounter more difficult. There's also the opportunity of having the bad guys attempt to parley with the party, which can often turn out very interesting.

Food for thought, I guess.

[Shadowbane13]

I know how you feel. I've been elected as permanent DM for my group because of my story telling abilities. (Both a curse and a compliment I suppose) and I have run into this issue many times. And that typically is how the group falls apart. People lose interest when the encounters are typically the same.

One thing I did to spice things up is to bring in third party NPCs essentially. So for example maybe we've intercepted a thieves caravan in the woods and began combat and from the nose we attracted a forest dwelling creature. Whether it be something simple like hungry/rabid wolves or a separate group of travelers. Basically saying that instead of "two sides" in the encounter there are now 3. And the party can either try to take both on at once or convince one side that working together can overcome the "new" threat. There's a bunch of different scenarios that you can use this in too. It's just a matter of having a crowded area really. Makes AoE casters and fighters with cleave very very happy.

Another thing I started doing was create fights where the enemy don't stop coming till a certain puzzle or challenge is met. Breaking a magic crystal or closing a portal to another plane. Could cause for quick encounters or your team can get overrun and die. Or they could even prevail and gain an absurd amount of exp. all in all it turns into a good fight especially when the dice are failing the players.

One last thing that I've kept consistent between my campaigns is real time questing. If my team grabs a main-line quest, or whatever you wanna call it, and follows it then things usually run smoothly but I always toss in there side missions with bonuses that my guys would love to get. But what happens when you ditch the main line and do 100 days worth of side questing? That army of goblins that was forming in the woods is now that much bigger, the city that needed your help has now been over run and is demolished or abandoned, people pass away or get murdered because you decided on loot instead of protecting them. Really making the players weigh in their decisions makes for interesting arguments around the table. You'll always have that one guy who wants the power and the loot where as there's the other who wants to do the right thing then go back for the loot. But again elements change, time passes, items disappear. It's fun watching your friends go crazy trying to get it all done in time and not being able to. They will be disappointed from time to time but they will not lose interest. I promise you that.

Hope some of this was helpful. I love story telling and puzzle/trap building so when I can cause mayhem between my friends it's fun.

[Darth Ultron]

The twist you might be looking for is to make the encounters for the players.....not the characters.


Modern D&D is all about the game being for the characters. Old school D&D was all about the players. And the difference is huge. In 3.5 the challenge is just basic math: what does the character need to do to succeed at an action or goal. Older D&D is wide open: the player needs to figure out what the character can do to succeed at an action or goal.

Take the most basic encounter of a surprise monster. The modern player immediately goes for the knowledge roll of asking the DM the combat information about the monster, and then using that for attack and defense. The classic player just has to figure things out in the game during game play.

You will notice a huge shift in game play when you engage the players, and not the characters.

[nedz]

Modern D&D is all about the game being for the characters. Old school D&D was all about the players. And the difference is huge. In 3.5 the challenge is just basic math: what does the character need to do to succeed at an action or goal. Older D&D is wide open: the player needs to figure out what the character can do to succeed at an action or goal.

Take the most basic encounter of a surprise monster. The modern player immediately goes for the knowledge roll of asking the DM the combat information about the monster, and then using that for attack and defense. The classic player just has to figure things out in the game during game play.

You will notice a huge shift in game play when you engage the players, and not the characters.
I think you almost got this right but the old school style you are referring to often included metagaming where the players knowledge of the monster manuals was key.
Do you play the game as if it were a board game, or as a role-playing game ?
Do you use your own OOC knowledge, or rely on a skill roll to keep it IC ?
etc.
Despite common rhetoric to the contrary there is no right or wrong here: it's just a play-style thing.
The Old-school counter tactic was to use home-brew monsters, even the simple trick of creating things like Ice Balors works here.

So I am starting a 3.5 campaign this upcoming school semester and I want to run it more old school (but with 3.5).

So I am running a hexcrawl! Now I wanted to make encounters difficult and I've read plenty of guides and similar on how to do this but they don't really cover what I am looking for.

What I am looking for is making combat encounters difficult with non-combat objectives so that each encounter doesn't feel like its just slogging it out against tough monsters. How can one design encounters to have the players have to co-operate and incorporate actual strategy and meaningful choices on their turns. Most encounters I have DMd and participated in just feel like there is an obvious best choice (statistically) and so each player just makes the most statistically optimal decision and eventually they win the encounter (on average).

The word you are looking for is tactics not strategy.

There are many, many options but these include

Reducing information (already alluded to) whether by using non standard monsters or just by having monster hide.

Increasing choices Use more, probably weaker, monsters in different units. Small unit tactics are key here - but this is a huge subject. The more decisions the players have to make the less sure they are about their decisions.

Add some time based dilemma Have some monsters use delaying tactics to stop the PCs interfering with some other task. Hit and Run tactics (to persuade the PCs to pursue) or Threats in being are good choices here.

Use different engagement types The standard encounter is either a meeting engagement or an ambush (possibly detected, and you should allow for possible detection). Try running a pursuit, or chase, (either way), or have reinforcements turn up (from different directions) to set up an envelopment.