Adjusting adventures / campaign for specific party composition

[Tanarii]

In this thread http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?500955-How-effective-are-non-warrior-front-liners&p=21214507 there was a comment made that a DM should adjust if an unoptimized party comes up a little short. (I read the context as 'a little short in power'.) Debate ensued, at which point someone told me to start a thread. Doing so.

A) Do you think a DM should, should not, or it's a playstyle and it should be left up to an individual DM, adjust an adventure or even entire campaign to compensate for a party's capabilities. For example, what if it's a one class party? No magical spells party? No decent ranged attacks party? No hope once they get suckered into melee?

B) Conversely, what about if it's an impediment to the plot: What if no one can pick the lock, or otherwise get past a door that the adventure depends on getting past? What if they have no reasonable hope of defeating the BBEG's Henchmen, which is necessary for the plot to progress?

C) Does it depend on playstyle? CaW vs CaS? Sandbox vs Linear Adventure? Module vs Homebrew? AL pick-up games where you may not even know the number or level of players vs home group with the same PCs every session?

Your thoughts on the matter are welcome. Please feel free to observe the finest forum tradition of taking an unreasonably hardline position as to the right way to do things, and dismissing the other positions as clearly wrong. But politely please. No name calling is necessary. :smallbiggrin:

[Addaran]

A) It's mostly a playstyle and it depends on the group, the DM and the goal.

A groupe that decide to all play followers of Malar, who forbid using ranged weapons (at least in 3rd ed) could want the DM to fudge a bit the campaign so they can play the concept. Another might be using the concept as an excuse to test the system or for the challenge and would want the DM to proceed as normal.

There's also a lot of different reason why the party might be un-optimal. Fewer players (1-3), most are inexperienced, nobody find X role interesting.

B) If it's an impediment to the plot, you'll have to change something or decide the consequences. In the lock case, maybe they lose time going back to the village and hiring someone. Maybe they can't stop the ritual and the demon is summoned, then you follow from there. (the boss won't stay in his room forever Zelda-style) Or they smash the lock but it damages the McGuffin inside the chest, so they'll have a weaker version.

If you want to adjust, you can let them get off easily. If you don't want to adjust for them, then punish them for the failure (the other option is the game just ending....not very fun).

C) CaW vs CaS? Sandbox vs Linear Adventure? Module vs Homebrew? I think they all could go both way. CaW seems to fit well with the "don't adjust" mentality, but you could have a weird group that likes the playstyle but don't want to lose. They enjoy finding cleaver/cheating solutions and receiving them, but they don't want to actually lose the characters or be penalized permanently. So the DM would always end up "adjusting" after the defeat for them to still be alive (ressurection, captured, etc) and the story to continue.

[Ruslan]

It's a playstyle thing. However, it's also one of those things that should be made clear at Session Zero. A mismatch of expectations on this item can have very serious consequences.

[Knaight]

C) CaW vs CaS? Sandbox vs Linear Adventure? Module vs Homebrew? I think they all could go both way. CaW seems to fit well with the "don't adjust" mentality, but you could have a weird group that likes the playstyle but don't want to lose. They enjoy finding cleaver/cheating solutions and receiving them, but they don't want to actually lose the characters or be penalized permanently. So the DM would always end up "adjusting" after the defeat for them to still be alive (ressurection, captured, etc) and the story to continue.
Putting aside my dislike of these buzzwords - CaW by no means suggests not adjusting, particularly in any of the numerous party contexts where the PCs are mercenaries or hired professional adventurers or similar. If you've got a group of five barbarians the person looking for negotiators is going to look elsewhere, the person looking for a bunch of heavies might well be interested. Suddenly the adventures have been adjusted for the party composition with no metagame considerations of party composition.

[Addaran]

Putting aside my dislike of these buzzwords - CaW by no means suggests not adjusting, particularly in any of the numerous party contexts where the PCs are mercenaries or hired professional adventurers or similar. If you've got a group of five barbarians the person looking for negotiators is going to look elsewhere, the person looking for a bunch of heavies might well be interested. Suddenly the adventures have been adjusted for the party composition with no metagame considerations of party composition.

From the other post, it doesn't seem that it's the kind of "adjusting" you are refering to that was discussed. More like not putting a werewolf because the barbarians don't have magic item. Or changing some part of the adventure that requires to use dispel magic to get X loot.
Or with your example, having the noble give a "negotiator quest" to a bunch of barbarians, even if the module say that the noble hates common folks.

[Tanarii]

Putting aside my dislike of these buzzwordsThey make handy labels. Provided everyone defines them the same way.

As an example of label definitions, and risking a tangent, I define GISH the old-school way: a physical combatant that uses magic exclusively to self-buff. However, over time it's become common parlance to use it to mean anyone that just mixes up melee and magic, not specifically using magic to buff, but also for attack / debuff.


- CaW by no means suggests not adjusting, particularly in any of the numerous party contexts where the PCs are mercenaries or hired professional adventurers or similar.And we get to a definition disagreement. To me CaW requires not adjusting for party composition. IMO that's one of the cornerstones of the style. A 'pure' CaW style game also requires not adjusting for party level, or number of players. For example, level-specific zones (aka 'Dungeons') are a cornerstone of CaW sandbox / megadungeon style D&D. But players choose the level of their difficulty, it isn't adjusted for them.


If you've got a group of five barbarians the person looking for negotiators is going to look elsewhere, the person looking for a bunch of heavies might well be interested. Suddenly the adventures have been adjusted for the party composition with no metagame considerations of party composition.That's not adjusting for the party composition. That's the players and NPCs selecting from available options for what they think they can handle. Or potentially failing to accurately judge it, in which case the party might get in over it's head.

[MrStabby]

Are you wanting to tell the tale of the heroes or of the world?

If you want to tell the tale of the heroes, they need to be heroic and their strengths should shine. They should also be challenged. This isn't to say all encounters are toned down - if they excel at killing enemy type X, then killing 50% more of them is even more heroic.

If you are telling the story of the world in which the PCs live then you may need to be more brutal. The intrigue that they are caught up in is unforgiving and if someone wants the PCs dead they will use the resources they have as wisely as they can. The world won't fudge death saves, it won't make encounters easier and it wont forgive reckless foolishness. The dice will fall as they may.

[Contrast]

This is a slightly difficult question to answer in that all of the standards against which you are comparing and pretty arbitary. The DM guidlines for encounters already adjust for number and level of PCs - just because its too complicated for a forumla in the book to figure out how much more difficult an encounter is for a party of 5 bards compared to a party of 5 warriors, why shouldn't the DM be able to take that into account?

Per the other thread, lets take an example of a party where everyone turned up wanting to play a caster and there were no dedicated front liners at all.

DM1 decides to softball the encouter he had planned based on the party composition.

DM2 decides he's just going to play the encounter he had planned as is without adjusting for the party.

DM1s party gets wiped and DM2s party is totally fine because DM2 generally designs much easier encounters while DM1 designs much harder encounters with less room for error and even with the softballing it was still too much.

This does lead me into another related thought which I've been having lately. Should a DM include problems which can only be resolved through skills the party doesn't have? Specifically, I was pondering if a character should start with Mending. My thought process was that our DM tends to hand wave minor things like equipment maintenence etc, which I and my group have no real objection to as it lets us get on the dragon slaying and the like. So while Mending is hypothetically a very useful ability, in that circumstance it seems likely that the only reason the DM would include something where Mending would be relevant would be if I took it and made a point of reminding him I had it and wanted to use it.

The only way around this is to put stuff in that the party can't interface with on purpose, which seems to be a waste of a DMs stretched time and attention.

[Tanarii]

The DM guidlines for encounters already adjust for number and level of PCs - just because its too complicated for a forumla in the book to figure out how much more difficult an encounter is for a party of 5 bards compared to a party of 5 warriors, why shouldn't the DM be able to take that into account?IIRC the guidelines let you determine how difficult an encounter will be and how much a party can handle in an adventuring day. They don't actually require you to adjust anything for the PCs. That's just how many people, including myself in certain campaigns, use them. (Edit: And doing that is part of a CaS playstyle.)

The alternative is for the DM to use them to baseline when he'll have to expect a party to retreat on it's own or die, either at the encounter level or at the adventuring day level.

[CursedRhubarb]

If, as a DM, you plan to run a premade or make your own adventure that is built for a well rounded party and only a well rounded where you run into things such as "well you didn't play X class or aren't Y race and those are the only way through so you die, too bad." Then before characters are made you should let the players know or have them use premade characters specifically for the setting.

If you want to use a premade and the party turns out to not be an optimal one, say there is no one that can use thrives tools for instance. Instead of being screwed and the game ending the first time they come across a trap or a locked door let them use what they have to solve it. Perhaps the smart one can do an Int chect to figure out how the trap works then be able to disarm it. Or let them use a Str check to break the lock on the locked door.

If you wind up in a situation where the only way forward is to have X spell and no one has it, you can always add a potion, scroll, or a wand with one or two single use charges to the area loot for them to find.

Otherwise it can really suck the fun out of the game and your group is less likely to play again.

I won't play a game with my roommates as DM ever again for a similar reason. First game I ever played was a 3.5 game. The rest of the group was all elves or drow and casters or sneaky types so they said to play a melee person and barbarian would be easy to learn for a first character. We started with a dungeon and things were fun, we could all be of use. Then they decided to spend the next six game session days (about 30 hours total irl) in the same town and it was nothing but rp and social skill checks. Which is all fine and dandy for the rest of the group but led to my guy being punished for being a barbarian. Try to walk around town, almost get in fights with the guards for "daring to bring that uncivilized filth in their city". Go to a shop, the shopkeeper screams for the guards, falls to the ground and accuses him of attacking her and the guards believe it because he's an uncivilized brute. There was the drow shopkeeper that attacked him for being a male (stupid drow shopkeepers). Stay in he inn and just keep to himself? The innkeeper calls the guards for a savage that is terrifying her.

Had I known it would be a campaign of sit in town and roleplay while punishing the one martial class person for not being a flamboyant elf caster, I would have passed or tried to play something else.

So if you plan to run something that will punish them for not playing specific cookie cutter characters, let them know ahead of time and offer premades. Or be down for adding options so they can still play.

[Temperjoke]

I think it comes down to why and how you are adjusting your adventure. For example, if your players are less interested in combat, and more interested in social/RP, it would probably be wise to cut back on the amount of trivial random encounters that have no bearing on the plot, like encounters while traveling. I do think it's important to pay attention to the types of enemies vs the PC classes as well. For example, if only one of your players has ranged attacking capability, having one encounter with nothing but flying enemies would be challenging and exciting (how do we compensate? Can we bring them down somehow, or time it when they swoop in?); having every encounter being with nothing but flying enemies would be frustrating and aggravating to the players. If the plot line that you have planned is going to be a "lycanthrope-heavy or a lot of enemies that resist non-magic attacks" plot, then providing opportunities for the party to acquire appropriate weapons to compensate non-magic characters would be appropriate. How much you adjust things can also depend on your players. If your group is all new players, then it might be best to give them some easy battles at first, until they get a feel for how things work. At the same time, maybe you've got a party of veteran players who can handle deadly encounters and don't want any punches pulled, then maybe you should adjust it to be more difficult for them.

I guess, I'm trying to say that there is nothing wrong with tweaking things in either direction based on your group.

[Tanarii]

Are you wanting to tell the tale of the heroes or of the world?IMO that's the real question. And to me, it's an underlying part of the CaS vs CaW play-styles as well. This discussion has helped me solidify my view. But in regards to adapting the adventure to the specific group of PCs, doing so is inherently CaS / Play the Heroes, whereas not doing so is inherently CaW / Play the World.

Now obviously not every game is 100% one playstyle or another, which includes possibly making some minor adjustments due to a specific party, while not being willing to make others.

[White Tornado]

It's a playstyle thing. However, it's also one of those things that should be made clear at Session Zero. A mismatch of expectations on this item can have very serious consequences.
This. Mostly this. The most important thing imo is to get everyone on the same page. Both options can be valid playstyles, but it sucks if people have different expectations. I've had a DM who would surprise us with a monster that could technically only be hurt by spells, so the fighter and thief (2E y'all) were only useful as distractions. Other situations include "sucks nobody wanted to play a wizard" and "it's not my fault none of you learned to read this language". That just sucked. On the other hand, if you're playing a gritty hardcore campaign with optimized survivor characters, and one player insists on playing a Con 6 half-elf bard with emotional issues, that's not really fun either. (straw man scenario, I know)


Now obviously not every game is 100% one playstyle or another
I would say that your playstyle never should be 100% one thing or another. Let your gritty struggling nobodies have a good victory once in a while, or let you heroic epic paladin-bard tag team suffer a humiliating defeat. Sometimes a DM can and/or should plan this, but usually the PC's will do it themselves. Let them be smart and reap the benefits, and let them be stupid and suffer for it.

Also, on B), a story/adventure/campaign should never hinge on a single roll, skill, or spell. Can't pick the lock? You'll have to bash in the door, making noise, and fight through one or more ambushes afterwards. No cure disease or medicine skill? That'll be a trip to the nearest village. Failure should lead to complications.

Also, I don't know what CaW and CaS mean. I'm guessing Campaign as Written vs. Campaign as Story?

[Theodoxus]

I do this on the fly. In fact, one game I'm currently running, it started (under a different DM) as CaS, but I'm slowly turning it into CaW. I'm wrestling with what to do with a couple characters, as the party is half-way through a dungeon, and these two players missed the first half. I'm thinking of having them show up after the dungeoneering party has finished a long rest (they began it at the conclusion of the previous session) and handwave the travel and such - though it takes away some player agency, I think I'll have a brawl on my hands if I make the players who missed the episode sit out another one completely.

I'm not into Kobiashi Maru scenarios though. If the module (or story I've written) has a stone door with a DC20 lock, but there's no one with lockpicks or stone shape in the party, that door will suddenly become a stout ironbound door instead. It'll take a while, but they'll chop through it eventually - potentially calling other critters to them, but at least they'll make forward progress...

[Tanarii]

Also, I don't know what CaW and CaS mean. I'm guessing Campaign as Written vs. Campaign as Story?Campaign as War and Campaign as Sport.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Sport-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles

Or if you don't want to deal with EnWorld's forums, you can read most of it on hack & slash:
http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-combat-as-sport-versus-combat-as-war.html

[ad_hoc]

If the game is adjusted based on the characters then it doesn't really matter who the characters are or what they can do.

All you have left then are player choices in game. This sort of game would work well with prebuilt characters and where the challenges in the game are focused more on challenging the players rather than the characters. So more of a strategy game than a roleplaying one.

I prefer to leave adventures as they are regardless of who the characters are. Then it actually matters that one of the characters has a specific ability or skill.