PDA

View Full Version : Why I no longer level encounters for the party...



Science Paladin
2017-03-29, 04:34 AM
So, I'm running a campaign at the moment, and as something a little experimental, I declared I would not level the world to the players. It is open world, and the world doesn't revolve around them. Things are the level they would logically be. You start at lvl 5, find a gladiatorial champion (lvl 18), get in a fight and immediately TPK? Should have been more careful.

This has gone down really well, with the players trying to work out what level NPCs are in the game before getting into fights, asking questions like "So...how long have you been a paladin?", appraising their swords, and generally thinking things through. It lead to a wonderful session where they were being hunted by a corrupt Church Inquisitor - they knew he wasn't leveled to them, he seemed more powerful than them, so they needed to flee and really carefully plan his assassination. When they finally poisoned him in his sleep they were so excited, and it gave a real sense of achievement. They didn't kill an NPC made to be a fair fight, but they killed a powerful Inquisitor who was never going to be a fair fight.

How are other people's thoughts on campaigning like this? Have other people done a lot of it? Any tips for keeping it good?

Koo Rehtorb
2017-03-29, 04:37 AM
It's the only way to play. Hi-five. :smallcool:

RazorChain
2017-03-29, 04:40 AM
I dont run a system with levels so...

Darth Ultron
2017-03-29, 06:20 AM
I have always done this as well, and it does work out great. I never liked the whole ''the guards are the PC's level plus two'' sort of world.

The encounter level system does not work much past 1st level. And it's not fair and balanced or make any sense....a ghost and a giant can both be a ''10th level encounter'', but the ghost is easily a much more powerful encounter. Even more so depending on what the characters are, what they have and what they do.

And sure you can ''adjust things'' endlessly, or you can just ignore it all.

Milo v3
2017-03-29, 06:33 AM
It is definitely very fun not having to hide elements of your world until they are level-appropriate.

Science Paladin
2017-03-29, 06:51 AM
Definitely agree with all of this! So glad I finally gave up all the careful encounter balancing, or making sure they met places right for their level at the right time. It makes the game feel more realistic, and definitely changes how they act a lot.

It does carry a greater risk of player deaths, but my group is okay with them, and this way they feel more like they just made bad decisions if someone gets hacked apart by a mob...

Quertus
2017-03-29, 07:15 AM
World makes more sense? Check.

Content is easier to plan? Check.

More responsibility to the players? Check.

Players are having more fun with it? Priceless. :biggrin:

Cluedrew
2017-03-29, 07:31 AM
My number one piece of advice is: Let them walk over things when they get stronger. That is to say, if you don't level things down for them, don't level things up for them. You will have to think creatively about how the world handles them when they become more powerful (or complete the campaign when almost nothing can challenge them) but make sure you don't rely on a sudden influx of more powerful enemies.

Now you sound like you are doing a pretty good job of it, just thought I would through out this warning for the future.

Earthwalker
2017-03-29, 07:34 AM
I am all in favour of having a world that is not level appropriate for the group. As long as the group of players have some way of knowing what level things are.

Like the examples given in the opening post.

The NPC has been a Paladin 10 years and has a sword worth 2K gp

What level is she ?
Can a lvl 5 party take her ?

VincentTakeda
2017-03-29, 07:35 AM
I also don't tailor the encounters to the party. Balanced encounters are a player crutch and make the world a bit ho hum.

PhoenixPhyre
2017-03-29, 07:57 AM
This whole topic depends strongly on the group for me. I have one group that explicitly prefers to run on rails. Their sessions play much more like an interactive movie. They encounter more monster types than humanoids, so the fight/no-fight distinction is pretty clear. This means that I have to make sure the fights that are clearly fights are mostly balanced. If they chose to fight something way out of their league, that's on them, but everything's telegraphed.

Another group is much more sandboxy. They pick and choose their fights and either ignore the little stuff or run away from the big stuff. Their fights are whatever's reasonable for the area. They've managed to talk their way out of a lot of fights I expected them to have though.

I don't explicitly level the world as they level though, I just get more selective about the things that pick fights with them. Yes, they could slaughter the guards. That would have other consequences though, involving things that are bigger and badder. They also leave the nice "civilized" area for areas that are more dangerous.

Quild
2017-03-29, 08:07 AM
Same thing here when I ran a small campaign.

The group was suppose to decline a mission they were given. And they did (one of the player had a strong idea of what spectator was, so it helped him to be very cautious before going after them).

The group was really surprised (knowing me) that my campaign turned to be more "investigation" orienter than fight oriented.

The group was supposed to optimize the conditions of fight for their 3 final targets. They went into a fight they were not intended to win but still won because of my poor knowledge of some rules. Unfair enough :smalltongue:.

Tanarii
2017-03-29, 09:01 AM
I don't tailor encounters to the party, but I do have level-appropriate zones (aka dungeons) mixed into the rest of the dangerous wilderness. Not appropriate to the party, just appropriate to the level I have selected for the zone. The party has to determine if they can handle it. (The world is effectively a level 1-16 zone, with far more challenges for 1-10 than 11+, with the outer planes being a 11-20 zone if it's ever needed.)

But given I often don't know the specific sessions party composition before they sit down, unless they've assembled a specific one themselves and decided on a specific location to investigate ahead of time, it's effectively impossible to do that anyway. I just use the CR & Encounter Difficulty & adventuring day guidelines to eyeball how far I think a party of X combines levels can push before they're in serious danger. I run separate Tier 1 & Tier 2 sessions though, since level 1-4 doesn't mix well with levels 5-10.

Edit: uh, this is all D&D 5e. Didn't notice it was the general RP section. So yeah, I like this style, which is a change up from how I ran the last two editions. It works well for some kinds of games, and not so well for others. I wouldn't want to use it for an adventure path, but for an open world it's pretty cool, and for a classic sandbox you can insert level appropriate zones (dungeons) scattered around if still needed.

Celestia
2017-03-29, 09:05 AM
If the players care about the realism, the story, the challenge, etc., then it's really the only way to go. However, if the game is just a casual, muder hobo, dungeon stomp, then it's an extremely bad idea.

Tanarii
2017-03-29, 09:39 AM
If the players care about the realism, the story, the challenge, etc., then it's really the only way to go. However, if the game is just a casual, muder hobo, dungeon stomp, then it's an extremely bad idea.
That's why I'm in favor of any given dungeon (or dungeon level) being a (mostly) level-appropriate zone. Players may need to discover if hey are of the appropriate level or need to go find somewhere else to explore. But at least they can figure that they probably won't encounter a ancient red dragon with no warning in an Orc cavern.

On the other hand the key to not running level appropriate anything (matching the part level or not) is giving the players lots of warning signs and lots of chances to investigate/scout properly, and not just dropping something on their head out of left field. Of course, insufficiently paranoid players will ignore that anyway and probably die. Or they adapt, as the OPs players did,

Keltest
2017-03-29, 09:42 AM
While I generally try to have a big sign that says "Level-appropriate encounters this way" at the beginning of a session, if they go off the grid and seek out dragons to fight at level 3, then I'm going to give them a dragon, darnit. And we will have fun watching their PCs burn to death, and maybe ritually burn their character sheets too.

Science Paladin
2017-03-29, 10:11 AM
The note about letting them stomp over things at higher levels is really good advice. Have to make sure they get the right sense of achievement when they do make it to the higher levels. I also like the idea of dungeons being set levels like 5-10, or 15-20, and letting the players figure out if they're ready...

One thing I have been doing to keep things running is by saying the world is intelligent. e.g. It becomes well known that an invisible assassin is killing the guards? Well then the city watch begins equipping their guards with ways to combat invisibility.

This afternoon the players will actually get to listen in on the Town Council meeting as the council discusses what to do about the resistance movement (the players), and what plans they can put into place. This should be fun, and give the players a little heads up on big non-leveled threats that may be coming for them in future sessions...

tensai_oni
2017-03-29, 11:23 AM
You know, on one hand it's kinda silly to have a world where everything the players meet is perfectly level-tailored to them, and foolish from the PCs' perspective to expect that.

But on the other hand, I know too many cases where creating a deliberately level-imbalanced game was just an excuse by the DM to drop a too strong encounter on the players for no reason, not giving them an indication of being in over their heads or even a chance to react before basically forcing a TPK.

NPCs stronger than the players also have to be used carefully, rather than as a way to force players to do something or behave in a specific way. There's only so many times players get railroaded into a course of action by much stronger NPCs (or else - a TPK!) before they start getting suspicions of DMPCing.

But hey, my worries and experiences aside, as long as it's done responsibly and players are having fun, who cares? As long as this thread doesn't devolve into thinking this is the Only Correct Way to play rpgs, and every other way is Wrong.

Rockphed
2017-03-29, 11:54 AM
NPCs stronger than the players also have to be used carefully, rather than as a way to force players to do something or behave in a specific way. There's only so many times players get railroaded into a course of action by much stronger NPCs (or else - a TPK!) before they start getting suspicions of DMPCing.

But hey, my worries and experiences aside, as long as it's done responsibly and players are having fun, who cares? As long as this thread doesn't devolve into thinking this is the Only Correct Way to play rpgs, and every other way is Wrong.

If the players run into the greatest knight in the land, it can provide a bit of flavor to the world, a quest, or possibly a chance to sell off that holy avenger none of them want that they found in the hoard of that last dragon. It should never be a case of "I'm sending along a powerful NPC to keep his eyes on you to keep you in line". Though, it could be fun to send a powerful enemy (who doesn't know he is their enemy) along with the PCs.

The other thing is that if the players go out looking for fights, they should be able to find some fights that are really easy for them (say a small town is getting raided by goblins) or really hard (say a small town has a large dragon who is demanding they send a daughter a month up the mountain for him to eat). They shouldn't just find an assortment of about level appropriate fights to conduct.

Yora
2017-03-29, 12:06 PM
It is definitely very fun not having to hide elements of your world until they are level-appropriate.

The best thing is that encourages players to use planningto deal with opposition they could not dfeat in a straight fight. When every fight could potentially be too tough for you, you always want to be as prepared as you can be and don't lean back assuming it will all be going smoothly.

Cluedrew
2017-03-29, 12:59 PM
The note about letting them stomp over things at higher levels is really good advice. Have to make sure they get the right sense of achievement when they do make it to the higher levels.I'm glad you like it. I'll also admit that besides the sense of "look how far we have come" it is also to make sure that this is not just an opportunity to throw too strong challenges at the party. Although you seem to enjoy the fact the players are overcoming those challenges, which is a good sign.

Another idea that might fit the game is to give them some high powered allies. Loose allies probably, but even something like a wizard quest giver who offers to pay you in a high level spell casting might do it. Or they are friends with local champion so opening moving against them could also bring a high level warrior into the situation. I'm not sure what will fit exactly, but someone that they can occasionally get a boost from, they may have to do some favours to, but is still distant enough that the party can decided to act (and can get into trouble) on its own.

Nupo
2017-03-29, 01:22 PM
I have always thought having the whole world be level appropriate to your characters was kind of silly, and very unrealistic. I'm careful to not just drop something that is way above their abilities on them with no option to avoid it. That would just be mean. Maybe more realistic, but still mean. If they don't exercise that option to avoid it, well too bad soo sad. We had one guy, years ago, that would never avoid any fight. He got good at creating new characters.

As has also been mentioned, don't be afraid to drop things on them that are way below their ability level. You would think it would be boring for a bunch of 10th level characters to take on a half dozen normal goblins, but it can be a lot of fun.

I typically drop a lot of potential plot hooks that vary greatly in challenge level. They pick what they think they can handle. If the whole world is level appropriate for them they won't ever learn how to size up opponents. They will simply charge into every encounter knowing they are never outmatched. How boring is that?

Mastikator
2017-03-29, 01:32 PM
I am all in favour of having a world that is not level appropriate for the group. As long as the group of players have some way of knowing what level things are.

Like the examples given in the opening post.

The NPC has been a Paladin 10 years and has a sword worth 2K gp

What level is she ?
Can a lvl 5 party take her ?

This, the players need the valid and relevant information to make rational decisions. The players need to know that they are expected to try to escape from certain encounters. The players need to know that "trying their luck" can result in death and they need to have made peace with that.

Yora
2017-03-29, 01:34 PM
Not adjusting monster populations means that there are simply some areas that are more dangerous than others. When players become more powerful and become able to explore areas that before where just too dangerous to visit, they have a real sense of progress. Not just bigger numbers on the character sheets.

Thialfi
2017-03-29, 02:00 PM
I'm all in favor of not level adjusting your world to fit with the party, but I'm very much against throwing the party against an enemy that they just can't defeat without leaving them a way out. This includes adjusting adventures on the fly to account for the current party strength.

D&D is supposed to be fun for everyone and TPKs are no fun for anyone.

This is exacerbated by the fact that we never let any player role up a 5th level character. Everyone starts at 1st level.

Anonymouswizard
2017-03-29, 02:15 PM
But on the other hand, I know too many cases where creating a deliberately level-imbalanced game was just an excuse by the DM to drop a too strong encounter on the players for no reason, not giving them an indication of being in over their heads or even a chance to react before basically forcing a TPK.

NPCs stronger than the players also have to be used carefully, rather than as a way to force players to do something or behave in a specific way. There's only so many times players get railroaded into a course of action by much stronger NPCs (or else - a TPK!) before they start getting suspicions of DMPCing.

As someone who pretty much exclusively runs unlevelled worlds, I've discovered that a good idea is to always assume the PCs are slightly above average, but don't always move in the largest groups. So while you might occasionally find a Legendary rank knight (I like Savage Worlds, where levels are organically gained a couple of skills or an edge [feat] at a time) most people in the world will have straight d6s in their Attributes and no more than a d6 in their combat skill (d8 for professionals), allowing characters who have gained a couple of ranks to get into a solo fight with five bandits and emerge victorious (you did bring a character with a healing spell, right?). Then again I also use 'extras', if a character isn't important to the story/world a single solid hit will either take them down or have them surrender.

Another scaling idea I use is that if the game has a metagame resource (e.g. Bennies) the enemies only get one person per fight that can access them (or I get a small pool of bennies for the entire encounter), just so players always have that small ability to manipulate luck that other characters don't. I've even houseruled Bennies/Fate Points into Call of Cthulhu to allow players to reroll or flip flop rolls, as well as regain a handful of hit points if needed, because I think horror works better if the characters are just lucky enough to survive for a while.

Tanarii
2017-03-29, 02:30 PM
D&D is supposed to be fun for everyone and TPKs are no fun for anyone.I won't say TPKs are fun, but the majority of groups I choose to play with, especially at the moment, view TPKs as the cost of failure to player skill. In other words, an acceptable loss to be learned from in the future.

Which means if the DM doesn't give you a chance to use player skill to avoid it, then yeah, the TPK is no fun at all.

Aliquid
2017-03-29, 02:48 PM
Depending on the system you are using... It might be handy to have a "assess opponent" skill.

It is great that the players are asking questions to assess their opponent, but they might not always ask the right questions... the characters might notice things that the player didn't think of.

Player rolls on it to see how well his/her character can read their opponent.
- "You notice that even though that is some fancy equipment, the Paladin is holding his sword like an amateur, and his armor is buckled up wrong"

Or maybe they can roll again after combat starts
- "that clearly was a lucky hit, this guy doesn't know what he is doing", or
- "You are lucky you dodged that one, she clearly knows how to swing that sword!", or
- "You are an experienced enough spell caster to tell that this guy is bluffing. He just used up his best spells, and is likely running out fast"

Quertus
2017-03-29, 03:31 PM
One thing I have been doing to keep things running is by saying the world is intelligent. e.g. It becomes well known that an invisible assassin is killing the guards? Well then the city watch begins equipping their guards with ways to combat invisibility.

I often rely on such an intelligent world. Let's say you want an item that lets you deal with invisible opponents, but don't want to pay for it. Start having town guard murdered by invisible assailants. Soon enough, the town guard are carrying what you need. :smallcool:


I'm all in favor of not level adjusting your world to fit with the party, but I'm very much against throwing the party against an enemy that they just can't defeat without leaving them a way out. This includes adjusting adventures on the fly to account for the current party strength.

D&D is supposed to be fun for everyone and TPKs are no fun for anyone.

This is exacerbated by the fact that we never let any player role up a 5th level character. Everyone starts at 1st level.

Although that somewhat defeats the purpose / advantages of letting the world be what it is, so long as it's the party choosing to throw themselves against an enemy, I don't see the problem with the TPK. But when it's "Rocs fall, they're angry, roll init", yeah, that's harder.

In your example, I think that a party that suffers losses may need to rethink their plans.


I won't say TPKs are fun, but the majority of groups I choose to play with, especially at the moment, view TPKs as the cost of failure to player skill. In other words, an acceptable loss to be learned from in the future.

Which means if the DM doesn't give you a chance to use player skill to avoid it, then yeah, the TPK is no fun at all.

This is pretty much my outlook. Could I have had better intel, better loadout, better tactics, a better exit plan? Did I pick the mission, or did the mission pick me? And did the character survive to learn from it?

Tanarii
2017-03-29, 03:47 PM
This is pretty much my outlook. Could I have had better intel, better loadout, better tactics, a better exit plan? Did I pick the mission, or did the mission pick me? And did the character survive to learn from it?
And if the character didn't, did I learn from it, as a player?

Winter_Wolf
2017-03-29, 05:05 PM
If I'm in charge of the game, the setting doesn't revolve around "level appropriate". It goes off of what's going to make some kind of sense. The kobold lair is going to be a kobold lair at party level one, and if they don't go exterminate, there'll be kobolds there when the party is level twenty. Barring some logical campaign consequences why they'd be rubbed out. If the kobolds do get dealt with, something else eventually moves in. Whether a community of miners, goblins, or even a different kobold tribe, it's not like there's going to be an abandoned lair for too long if it's still inhabitable.

Likewise is there's a big bloody dragon lairing at Burnt Bandit Pass, your characters are going to know about it and it's on the players if they simply have to sate their curiosity about the place when they're level four. If they're spot on with their planning, they might get back out alive, possibly even with some kind of loot. Hey, it's possible, even though it is extremely improbable.

Psikerlord
2017-03-29, 06:05 PM
So, I'm running a campaign at the moment, and as something a little experimental, I declared I would not level the world to the players. It is open world, and the world doesn't revolve around them. Things are the level they would logically be. You start at lvl 5, find a gladiatorial champion (lvl 18), get in a fight and immediately TPK? Should have been more careful.

This has gone down really well, with the players trying to work out what level NPCs are in the game before getting into fights, asking questions like "So...how long have you been a paladin?", appraising their swords, and generally thinking things through. It lead to a wonderful session where they were being hunted by a corrupt Church Inquisitor - they knew he wasn't leveled to them, he seemed more powerful than them, so they needed to flee and really carefully plan his assassination. When they finally poisoned him in his sleep they were so excited, and it gave a real sense of achievement. They didn't kill an NPC made to be a fair fight, but they killed a powerful Inquisitor who was never going to be a fair fight.

How are other people's thoughts on campaigning like this? Have other people done a lot of it? Any tips for keeping it good?

Low Fantasy Gaming rpg takes this approach with the random encounter tables, etc. It also has a formal "Party Retreat" rule however (good odds of escape, with a cost), to help avoid TPKs.

VonMuller
2017-03-29, 09:54 PM
You should only run a simulationist campaign if you, as a game master, enjoy seeing your players come up with ways to fool your plans.

If a Lvl 5 party can by-the-rules kill a CR 15 threat using planning, cunning, and creative thinking, you should give them the rewards they deserve.

If it's all a desire to see them suffer through a hard world (which is not the same as enjoying seeing then overcome adversity) then it's only a power fantasy for the DM.

There should be clear rules for the world. And you should be specially lenient with the "never say (just) no" rule of game-mastering.

Plan it like a Devil. Run it like a an Angel.

Develop a taste for being outsmarted, outruled, and surprised.

Piedmon_Sama
2017-03-29, 11:21 PM
Awesome! That's exactly how I do it, and I've had a pretty positive response as well. You know D&D ran pretty well for 35 years before they decided to start adding Encounter Calculators...

Cealocanth
2017-03-29, 11:49 PM
That's how I run my open world game. I play Savage Worlds, which means that there aren't exactly levels, but things can still be scaled to try to meet up to the players' general power level. The thing is that the monsters have the abilities that they have, and modifying them make them feel less like the monsters they're supposed to be, so I make it clear that if the players in Novice tier decide they want to go take on a Hellfrost Dragon, they will probably need to go questing for a Macguffin or raise a small army to be able to do so. It works, but my group is a creative one used to finding alternative solutions to problems other than combat.

BWR
2017-03-30, 01:15 AM
um....yes and no.

Regardless of what system I run, the world as a whole does not re-power itself to always fit the PCs' power level. You can and will run into people (and monsters, if appropriate) that are significantly more or less powerful than you. This does not mean you will have to fight such opponents.
When I run adventures I try to keep the power levels of opponents they are meant to fight mostly near the PCs'. Whatever you may say about unrealistic and whatnot, it's not much fun to be a low-powered schmuck who is eaten by a monster way beyond their abilities to defeat. I strive to never put PCs in situations that they are incapable of solving or at least escape from (dice willing) should they not manage to think of a solution.

Anonymouswizard
2017-03-30, 07:51 AM
You should only run a simulationist campaign if you, as a game master, enjoy seeing your players come up with ways to fool your plans.

If a Lvl 5 party can by-the-rules kill a CR 15 threat using planning, cunning, and creative thinking, you should give them the rewards they deserve.

If it's all a desire to see them suffer through a hard world (which is not the same as enjoying seeing then overcome adversity) then it's only a power fantasy for the DM.

There should be clear rules for the world. And you should be specially lenient with the "never say (just) no" rule of game-mastering.

Plan it like a Devil. Run it like a an Angel.

Develop a taste for being outsmarted, outruled, and surprised.

To be honest I'm not convinced that the game should be run in any other way. I've seen level 5 parties curbstomp 'deadly encounters' of CR 8+ monsters before while unprepared and in suboptimal positions that I fully expect the players to outplan me.

Then again, I also bend the rules generally to help the players and their latest plan. The rules say per generators don't explode? Make a Repair check and get a raise, then run like blazes. Alchemists can't make bombs? That's boring, make an alchemy check, success had it deal 2d10 damage with +1d10 per raise, but you have to place it. I already allow mages to take the basic healing spell, the game's just more fun when the party had options.


That's how I run my open world game. I play Savage Worlds, which means that there aren't exactly levels, but things can still be scaled to try to meet up to the players' general power level. The thing is that the monsters have the abilities that they have, and modifying them make them feel less like the monsters they're supposed to be, so I make it clear that if the players in Novice tier decide they want to go take on a Hellfrost Dragon, they will probably need to go questing for a Macguffin or raise a small army to be able to do so. It works, but my group is a creative one used to finding alternative solutions to problems other than combat.

To be fair Savage Worlds is a system where the players could reasonably hire 20-30 mooks and take on monsters above their power level (in several ways they're supposed to), and once they reach Legendary can take an edge to get followers through pure game. I also love Savage Worlds, and have plans for both a science fiction game and a fantasy one with it.

Winter_Wolf
2017-03-30, 08:16 AM
You should only run a simulationist campaign if you, as a game master, enjoy seeing your players come up with ways to fool your plans.

If a Lvl 5 party can by-the-rules kill a CR 15 threat using planning, cunning, and creative thinking, you should give them the rewards they deserve.

If it's all a desire to see them suffer through a hard world (which is not the same as enjoying seeing then overcome adversity) then it's only a power fantasy for the DM.

There should be clear rules for the world. And you should be specially lenient with the "never say (just) no" rule of game-mastering.

Plan it like a Devil. Run it like a an Angel.

Develop a taste for being outsmarted, outruled, and surprised.

Man I LOVE it when players pull of the "impossible" win. That's the stuff of great stories, right there. I wish more players did. I'd prefer they actually do use cunning and brilliant planning rather than exploiting some dumb rules loophole/oversight, though. But I never really gamed with people who wouldn't abide by "gentlemens' rule" mentality.

Quertus
2017-03-30, 09:02 AM
Whatever you may say about unrealistic and whatnot, it's not much fun to be a low-powered schmuck who is eaten by a monster way beyond their abilities to defeat. I strive to never put PCs in situations that they are incapable of solving or at least escape from (dice willing) should they not manage to think of a solution.

And when PCs put themselves in that situation? Or the ultimate expression of players being responsible for their fate, the sandbox? Do you have problems with PCs fighting things outside their pay grade then, and, if so, why?

jayem
2017-03-30, 01:10 PM
You get a bit of automatic 'levelling' anyway from the realistic behavior. Which you can then exaggerate to tone down the worst excesses.
As a Level 1 party approaches the Kobald dungeon they find a pair of junior guards who are happy to see you bruised away (and if you do miss the hint, after that, that's not their fault).
By Level X, the minute they heard what you did to the last town, they've shut the gates, planned 5 ambushes and called their neighbours, (and it still isn't enough).

Knaight
2017-03-30, 01:43 PM
I'd contest describing this as experimental, and this is also more or less how I run my games. Levels tend not to be there, and NPC responses to PCs can be influenced by indirect signs of power (reputation, equipment, prior interaction, etc.) which can have fairly major effects in terms of opposition found through both enemy factions deciding to attempt to deal with the PCs by high or low priority threat protocols and through allies looking for favors* generally presenting things which they think you can actually do**.

*Where "allies" is defined very loosely; the corporation that hires your mercenary space ship for something illegal is probably not your friend, and while they almost certainly want the task they're paying for done they're much less likely to care about whether you live through it.

MrStabby
2017-03-30, 04:44 PM
This is pretty much how I run the worlds - things of all levels over the place. That said I like to layer on top of that world events - a plot or theme. The ones that work best are ones that naturally scale up through time.

In a consistent world the converse is also true. The PCs are an overleveled encounter for a bunch of goblin mercenaries. Those same mercenaries can ask around, identify party weaknesses, buy consumable items and lay a through ambush for the PCs. Don't hand the initiative to the players all the time.

Pex
2017-03-30, 05:43 PM
When the villagers tell a party "Don't go to the Forest of Doom. No one who enters ever comes back." are the players being stupid when they go there and get curbstomped by a dragon or a hag or a lich or was the DM being an idiot because the players thought the villagers' warning was a plot hook?

Milo v3
2017-03-30, 05:55 PM
When the villagers tell a party "Don't go to the Forest of Doom. No one who enters ever comes back." are the players being stupid when they go there and get curbstomped by a dragon or a hag or a lich or was the DM being an idiot because the players thought the villagers' warning was a plot hook?
Neither. Though, as they travel through said forest there probably should be evidence of whichever creature has it as it's lair so the players can theoretically still discover what they're up against or get a better picture of the creatures power.

Mr Beer
2017-03-30, 06:26 PM
I use level appropriate encounters, in that I'm generally re-skinning D&D modules to GURPS, so the PCs are basically dungeon crawling.

The world as a whole is not level appropriate though.

If the medium/high level (in D&D terms) party go a podunk town, they are almost certainly the toughest hombres there. There is no 'Level 14 retired fighter with a +3 sword hidden behind the bar'. If they meet bandits on the way, said bandits are more comic relief than a threat.

Conversely if they decide to kill a Kingh or take down the most powerful wizard in the land, yeah they're going to have a bad day.

oxybe
2017-03-31, 12:38 AM
When the villagers tell a party "Don't go to the Forest of Doom. No one who enters ever comes back." are the players being stupid when they go there and get curbstomped by a dragon or a hag or a lich or was the DM being an idiot because the players thought the villagers' warning was a plot hook?

This to me is what matters. Adherence (or subversion!) to genre, theme and tropes conventions takes precedence to me over realism, verisimilitude or whatever buzzword people are throwing around.

Do you, as a GM, expect me to jump at danger like a big darned action hero, or expect me to cheese fights by playing with scumbag tactics?

Make this clear before the first session.

Because I don't mind doing either, just don't get surprised if you sell me on the idea of the first and i quit the game after you play it out like the second. That's not the game I signed up for.

That some encounters are above or below our power level is rather low on the list of my personal priorities when comes to making a world believable. I've already accepted the premise of your world long before that even becomes a thing. The guy to my right is playing a dragon-man wizard-thing and we're on a magical airship going to meet some elf explorer who wants us to delve in a tomb: i've already tossed my chips into the pot. I'm in.

BWR
2017-03-31, 01:24 AM
And when PCs put themselves in that situation? Or the ultimate expression of players being responsible for their fate, the sandbox? Do you have problems with PCs fighting things outside their pay grade then, and, if so, why?

I did already answer that, you know. In the very post you quoted.

If PCs and players insist on going up against things tougher than they and failing, that's their business. My job as a GM is to make things fun for the players, and this rarely includes randomly killing PCs off in fights they can't win and don't ask for.

It's the easiest thing in the world for a GM to kill PCs, and you have to give them some manner of plot armor. They don't die of childhood diseases, a random car crash doesn't kill them, a rampaging dragon doesn't kill them at 1st level, etc. That sort of thing happens to tons of NPCs, but not PCs. A childhood illness may have weakened a PC, but they survive. A car crash may kill their parents or S.O., but the PC survives. A rampaging dragon may destroy their village, but the 1st level PC survives. They are protected from random death and lots of misfortune that are not the result of actions they take themselves because no one thinks it's fun or fair to have their PC randomly killed at the GM's say so.

Likewise, it's not particularly fun to forever fail at things because everything is beyond you, and I speak from experience of a particularly unfun sandbox. Should there be things in the world that are beyond the PCs? certainly. Should there be things the PCs are capable of handling? yes.

So when I run adventures (I rarely do sandboxy things) I strive to make them things the PCs have a chance at overcoming or at least avoiding/escaping from. Should I run a sandbox game there will be stuff the PCs can do as well as stuff they can't. This does not mean that everything the PCs come across will be overcomeable, and should the PCs make bad choices they will suffer the consequences from elements far beyond them. If a low ranking samurai in Rokugan gravely insults the Emerald Champion, he can expect to spill his guts. If a bunch of noob adventurers insist on sneaking into the lair of the fabled ancient dragon that destroyed a couple of countries some centuries ago, they will die horribly. If a bunch of neonates try to assassinate the Prince in Elysium, they aren't getting out of there alive.

Pugwampy
2017-03-31, 07:56 AM
I found out players can handle way more than DM recommended levels up to about 4 levels higher .
I usually try to mix the encounters from being super easy to mega difficult and then easy once more .

Players can run away and I dont usually chase after them so I am pretty much free to attack em with just about anything i like . I never TPKed in my life .

ngilop
2017-03-31, 12:13 PM
SO.. yeah


I thought that was how every campaign ever was already created.

There are actually tables out there where the DM makes 20 ( or more) sets of stats for each NPC a PC may or may not encounter? That seems like a ton of work.

Not to mention the fact of how wonky that would be the players could do the foolhardy thing of going into the dragon's mountain at level 3 and PRESTO probably win because the dragon is only CR 3, instead of the CR 16 it originally was supposed to be.

Knaight
2017-03-31, 02:30 PM
There are actually tables out there where the DM makes 20 ( or more) sets of stats for each NPC a PC may or may not encounter? That seems like a ton of work.

Scaling doesn't mean that you have to do this level of prep work. There's all sorts of valid criticisms, but this isn't one of them.

CharonsHelper
2017-03-31, 03:13 PM
Depending on the system you are using... It might be handy to have a "assess opponent" skill.

+1.

I believe that 3.5 actually had rules for this in Complete Warrior. (not 100% that's the right book)

Basically you got to make a Sense Motive check to check their BAB.

For casters I'd suggest letting Detect Magic work the same sort of way as they exude magic.

I will say though - a system with D&D proportion scaling doesn't make sense at all even if you go full tippyverse - so I'm not sure how much more a world with levels at random makes sense than ones where stuff is mostly level appropriate. :smallyuk:

Knaight
2017-03-31, 03:29 PM
I will say though - a system with D&D proportion scaling doesn't make sense at all even if you go full tippyverse - so I'm not sure how much more a world with levels at random makes sense than ones where stuff is mostly level appropriate. :smallyuk:

It's not at random - there's a method to it, and while I'd agree that D&D scaling is weird (it's part of the reason I tend to play other games), it does make sense that certain things have a particular level of power associated with them.

CharonsHelper
2017-03-31, 03:32 PM
It's not at random - there's a method to it, and while I'd agree that D&D scaling is weird (it's part of the reason I tend to play other games), it does make sense that certain things have a particular level of power associated with them.

No - I'm with you. I should have probably made the bit you quoted blue as it was semi-sarcastic.

I just meant to point out that you shouldn't take world realism too seriously as no D&D system is going to hit the mark anyway.

Fun at the table > world 'realism'

All day every day. If having higher level stuff around to potentially slaughter the party is fun at your table - do it! (I tend to lean that way myself - though it can definitely be overdone.)

If the group wants to be able to overcome every challenge - that works too.

Milo v3
2017-03-31, 05:17 PM
I thought that was how every campaign ever was already created.
Considering it's not how pre-written adventures/adventure paths work and it's the default method described in 3.5e.... No, there are tonnes of campaigns that have levelled encounters.


There are actually tables out there where the DM makes 20 ( or more) sets of stats for each NPC a PC may or may not encounter?
Probably not? When you're not leveling-encounters for the party you still only make one statblock of each enemy. The players just generally wont encounter that type of enemy until they are relatively close to it's CR.

Shackel
2017-03-31, 08:29 PM
I find that there are very few people in the first place(especially on this forum) that explicitly hide aspects of the world and shape everything around their PCs so that they don't encounter things over their head. All things considered, I find people give players too little credit: unless the DM drives them towards a blatantly overleveled area, players will often settle for what is within their weight class. They won't bother with cleaning rats at level 5, nor will they go and take on the dragon.

Usually, I find, the expectation is that the world is not adjusted to them, but the quests they are guided towards are: this is where a lot of misunderstandings come into play when one group is told that the ancient wizard of Dangerous Area X is terrorizing the town and, because that is very obviously an adventure hook, assume that it's meant for them no matter what level they are. After all, why have useless information like that unless it's a hook or bait for a "gotcha this world is cruel" moment? Either or, the understanding I've seen is that the further they go off the rails, the more likely it is they'll run into things under/overleveled.

That being said, though, I'm always a little bit wary of combat-as-war and worlds supposedly not adjusted to the player because more often than not peoples' beliefs on the power level of the exact same set of abilities can greatly vary. Should the guardsmen be Warrior 1-2 or are they all Fighter 5? Is the captain a Warrior 6 or a Warblade 11? What about the court wizard? Wizard 3 or Wizard 11/Archmage 1? What is the higher limits of the world? What is the lower limit? Even down to the expectations of Commoners: there are worlds where they're the standard Commoner 1, and I've also heard from some they should often be Commoner 2-3 if not Expert if they have much worldly experience. Quite the different results if a level 1 picks a fight with a peasant or vice-versa.

The most common case I can think of that sums up why I can understand people shying away from non-adjustment is that of the King's guard/the best knight/the jousting champion of the land, etc etc. Depending on the DM's personal views, not the game, the strongest knight in the land could be anything from a Fighter 5 who could easily put Warrior 2-3s to shame while still being more than capable of being fought by any leveled group of PCs alone... or a level 20.

With the exact same description of their capabilities.

Quertus
2017-03-31, 09:07 PM
I believe that 3.5 actually had rules for this in Complete Warrior. (not 100% that's the right book)

Basically you got to make a Sense Motive check to check their BAB.

For casters I'd suggest letting Detect Magic work the same sort of way as they exude magic.

IIRC, it's sense motive (optionally vs bluff) to determine relative CR. High end is "Dire Threat: +4 or more CR".

Back in 2e, I kinda forced into existence a combination of that and Martial Lore, where fighters could notice how other people carried themselves.

And Detect Magic certainly helps determine how powerful most adventurers are, give or take things like Vow of Poverty. Not so useful vs most monsters. Or deception-oriented wizards.

Velaryon
2017-03-31, 09:34 PM
While I generally try to have a big sign that says "Level-appropriate encounters this way" at the beginning of a session, if they go off the grid and seek out dragons to fight at level 3, then I'm going to give them a dragon, darnit. And we will have fun watching their PCs burn to death, and maybe ritually burn their character sheets too.

This is more or less how I do it as well. The majority of the encounters that I plan in advance will be level-appropriate, with some easy ones now and then to remind them how powerful they've grown and a few much more difficult (but still winnable) encounters now and then for variety. That said, the rest of the world exists independently of the PC's, so if they want to scale the mountains to challenge that great wyrm red dragon they've heard about, they're welcome to do so.

Pex
2017-04-01, 01:03 AM
I find that there are very few people in the first place(especially on this forum) that explicitly hide aspects of the world and shape everything around their PCs so that they don't encounter things over their head. All things considered, I find people give players too little credit: unless the DM drives them towards a blatantly overleveled area, players will often settle for what is within their weight class. They won't bother with cleaning rats at level 5, nor will they go and take on the dragon.

Usually, I find, the expectation is that the world is not adjusted to them, but the quests they are guided towards are: this is where a lot of misunderstandings come into play when one group is told that the ancient wizard of Dangerous Area X is terrorizing the town and, because that is very obviously an adventure hook, assume that it's meant for them no matter what level they are. After all, why have useless information like that unless it's a hook or bait for a "gotcha this world is cruel" moment? Either or, the understanding I've seen is that the further they go off the rails, the more likely it is they'll run into things under/overleveled.

That being said, though, I'm always a little bit wary of combat-as-war and worlds supposedly not adjusted to the player because more often than not peoples' beliefs on the power level of the exact same set of abilities can greatly vary. Should the guardsmen be Warrior 1-2 or are they all Fighter 5? Is the captain a Warrior 6 or a Warblade 11? What about the court wizard? Wizard 3 or Wizard 11/Archmage 1? What is the higher limits of the world? What is the lower limit? Even down to the expectations of Commoners: there are worlds where they're the standard Commoner 1, and I've also heard from some they should often be Commoner 2-3 if not Expert if they have much worldly experience. Quite the different results if a level 1 picks a fight with a peasant or vice-versa.

The most common case I can think of that sums up why I can understand people shying away from non-adjustment is that of the King's guard/the best knight/the jousting champion of the land, etc etc. Depending on the DM's personal views, not the game, the strongest knight in the land could be anything from a Fighter 5 who could easily put Warrior 2-3s to shame while still being more than capable of being fought by any leveled group of PCs alone... or a level 20.

With the exact same description of their capabilities.

Exactly. It's fine there exists beings of higher level and more powerful than the party. It adds atmosphere and will be fun when the PCs eventually can count themselves among them. However, I take great exception to being told the party was stupid and deserved their fate for taking on a foe way above their pay grade when the DM tells them through NPCs or props (treasure map, diary, etc.) of an adventure location they're not powerful enough to handle.

Nupo
2017-04-01, 09:16 AM
However, I take great exception to being told the party was stupid and deserved their fate for taking on a foe way above their pay grade when the DM tells them through NPCs or props (treasure map, diary, etc.) of an adventure location they're not powerful enough to handle.If in the past the DM only ever dropped plot hooks that are level appropriate, and then presents this one like it's an adventure he would like them to go on, then yes bad on the DM not the players. If on the other hand the DM always details lots of events happening around the world, many of which could turn into adventures of all kinds of varying difficulty, and the players embark on one that is obviously above their pay grade, they are stupid and deserve their fate.

Knaight
2017-04-01, 11:18 AM
The most common case I can think of that sums up why I can understand people shying away from non-adjustment is that of the King's guard/the best knight/the jousting champion of the land, etc etc. Depending on the DM's personal views, not the game, the strongest knight in the land could be anything from a Fighter 5 who could easily put Warrior 2-3s to shame while still being more than capable of being fought by any leveled group of PCs alone... or a level 20.

With the exact same description of their capabilities.

This is another reason I tend to avoid D&D - if you've got a skill based system with hard limits, you can reasonably conclude that the best knight is at or near the top for various combat skills, which produces a much lower range.

Shackel
2017-04-01, 02:26 PM
This is another reason I tend to avoid D&D - if you've got a skill based system with hard limits, you can reasonably conclude that the best knight is at or near the top for various combat skills, which produces a much lower range.

Yet even by that, it doesn't really come down to the system's fault. To me, a level 10+ is legendary, a level 15+ is dealing with international, even interplanar incidents. By my logic, for instance, the jousting champion could be level 5: down where most mortal adventures exist. The greatest knight who ever lived could easily be level 10+ just from that reputation, and a King's personal champion agent and bodyguard would be what might warrant a level 15 or higher.


This being if you don't have monsters to serve as measuring sticks("he killed four wyverns by himself? Oh now we know he's above level 12!") of course.

Clistenes
2017-04-02, 06:32 AM
I have always theorized that the reason there aren't more high-level characters in D&D worlds is that NPCs lack a DM picking their fights for them (also, the NPCs lack of meta knowledge of their world and its dangers).

So, if an NPC becomes an adventurer, he could spend months fighting nothing more dangerous than goblins, and suddenly one day, he or she would blunder onto a family of hungry Wyverns.

PCs have the advantage of their DM, who wants them to suvive and rise in power, and picks their fights accordingly. The DM plays the role of their special luck/fate/the gods whatever...

Also, players aren't afraid of death or of a ****ty afterlife. The NPCs are afraid, and will be very cautious when moving around, and won't seek a fight unles they are REALLY sure they can survive it.

As I said in another thread:


Another issue is that we don't know how NPCs gain their levels in 5th edition. They no longer have class levels as such, and they don't seem to gain xp.

If they gain xp and lvls like PCs, then a 9th level wizard had to kill 1920 foes of the level of an average Guard/foot soldier, or do something equally difficult/dangerous/impressive. That would make each lvl 9th wizard a legendary combat monster. Or a legendary genius, if their achievements were scholarly rather than adventurous in nature.


To put it into context, freaking Simo Häyhä, "The White Death", killed "just" 505 people during his whole career, and he became a legend. Flamma, a famous gladiator who refused to accept freedom and retirement four times, only fought 34 combats to death (his 34th foe killed him). François de Montmorency-Bouteville, the man who probably fought most duels under the reign of Louis XIII is known to have engaged in 22 duels only. Mushashi Miyamoto, who is considered the top swordman in Japan history fought sixty duels to death before switching to non-lethal encounters.

In short, that 9th level guy who killed 1920 foes would be a legend. There couldn't be many like that.

It's not impossible. The Conquistadores were known to have killed a mean number of 42 foes each in some battles, and the survivors of the Sad Night and the Battle of Otumba probably killed more than that. However, it was far from normal.


A PC who fought only one-on-one duels would need to kill 7 CR 1/4 monsters (like standard goblins), 18 1/2 monsters (like standard orcs), 45 CR 1 monsters (like bugbears or brown bears) and 30 CR 2 monsters (like ogres or griffons) in order to reach level 9.

That's 100 duels, quite more than the likes of Flamma or Miyamoto Musashi or François de Montmorency-Bouteville ever fought. And 45 of those duels would be against creatures as dangerous as brown bears and 30 against creatures as dangerous as polar bears. A guy who grabbed a sword and killed 75 bears would be quite the legend, and far from common (I don't think such person ever existed).

I don't think regular folk gain their xp killing stuff, but they should do somethig else related to their field just as difficult and impressive. That level 9th wizard has done scholarly stuff that makes him as impressive a person as a warrior who goes out to the wilderness and hacks 75 bears to pieces with his axe.

M@XWeru
2017-04-02, 04:36 PM
I've never leveled encounters for the party, but I've made sure they have the Knowledge skills to tell whether a monster is going to be in their league or not, and I guide them toward adventures involving monsters of reasonable levels.

Science Paladin
2017-04-03, 02:33 PM
I tend to try to make the leveling make sense for the area... So cushy little village that's part of a larger country? It's guards are probably warrior 2. Frontier town in a dangerous land far from help? Their basic guards are Fighter 5...

I feel like making the non-leveled world work does depend on letting the players get an idea what they're up against in different situations. If they get into a fight, get killed, then hear that the old farmer they attacked was actually an ex-pirate who was retiring and settling down to a quiet life, it's just unsatisfying. If they first spot a gently glowing cutlass on the farmer, see a parrot in his house, and hear rumors of a legendary pirate in hiding in the area...then it gets interesting.

Beelzebubba
2017-04-05, 01:50 PM
You know, one of the most satisfying D&D experiences I had gaming was having a first-level group take on a mystery of a bunch of horses dying in one small village in a relatively 'wild' place. The DM planted it among other 'seeds' in a sandbox world.

Through a bunch of detective work, research, trial and error, we figured out it was some flying creature that ate on a predictable schedule. So we prepared a trap.

We used a combination of role-play, poison, organization and training of NPCs, face to face negotiations, bargains, and trap design to solve it - and when the time came, we caught the biggest damn Gryphon anyone had ever seen (100hp) and killed it.

This was a DM who never fudged a roll in his life for any party member's benefit. He said he was expecting a TPK, and we won.

I can't fathom how many 'level appropriate' encounters I've forgotten in 30 years of gaming. I'll always remember this one.

As long as the DM drops enough clues when the danger is high, I'm all for having a living, breathing, 'level inappropriate' world.

JBPuffin
2017-04-05, 02:21 PM
Time to shill - I one hundred percent use the DMG prescribed numbers and shape plots around level-appropriate baddies. I've never had a reason not to.

Quertus
2017-04-05, 05:18 PM
Time to shill - I one hundred percent use the DMG prescribed numbers and shape plots around level-appropriate baddies. I've never had a reason not to.

So, tell us the story - how does the party handle the 5% of the encounters that are CR 4+ above their level? Do they get bored with all the encounters (around 50%, right?) that are below their pay grade? You say you've never had a reason to deviate from the DMG distribution of challenges, so tell us how it worked. :smallwink:

Bucky
2017-04-06, 03:22 PM
I'm currently co-running a campaign that uses a hybrid approach. The world as a whole isn't levelling with the PCs. But there are specific groups who are loosely opposed to the PC's goals that are gaining power the longer the PCs wait to confront them.

Take the example of a goblin tribe that recently moved in from the unexplored wilderness and started raiding villages. If the party encounters them at level 1, they find loose squads of standard Goblin Warrior 1s. If they wait until the party is level 3, the goblin squads have combat veterans among them, Goblin Ranger 2s. Put off dealing with the goblins until level 5 and the goblins have stolen knowledge also; there are Cleric or Wizard 3s supporting the now more experienced Rangers. And so on.

Meanwhile the dragon lairing in the nearby mountain isn't going to advance for years yet.

The key difference (in-world) is that the antagonist groups are new.

FreddyNoNose
2017-04-07, 10:28 PM
I am all in favour of having a world that is not level appropriate for the group. As long as the group of players have some way of knowing what level things are.

lol. Levels printed over their heads........

Knaight
2017-04-08, 02:37 AM
lol. Levels printed over their heads........

There are plenty of other ways to handle this. For instance, there's the possibility that it's a game where size actually counts for something, and is thus a reliable indicator (e.g. vehicular combat in a lot of sci-fi). There's the possibility that it's a game where there's a pretty standard position for a lot of common soldiers and the like, where the real threats are all known about and have extensive reputations (some wuxia). The list goes on.

Actana
2017-04-08, 03:41 AM
I've been toying with a concept recently in regards to 4e D&D with its minion/standard/elite/solo approach to enemies and the separation of in-game and mechanical power levels. The general idea would be that while the narrative power level of the enemies does not change, how their mechanical power level is presented is relative to the PCs. Essentially, depending on the PCs' level, enemies would be presented differently with different mechanics.

For a group of level 5 characters, what would normally be a level 15 standard enemy would be a rather boring fight. The stats are just too high to make it anything but a curbstomp for the enemy and makes the encounter essentially meaningless as the players likely won't be able to do much at all. But instead, if we turn the enemy into a level 8 or 9 solo, the encounter suddenly becomes a lot more meaningful while retaining difficulty and without the need to handwave the lack of higher level entities in the world.

The same goes both ways. As the PCs gain levels, what were once elites would become standard enemies, and the enemies who were standards could easily eventually become minions taken out in a single hit. The degree of levels required to outclass the enemies would likely be significant, but still adjustable based on what levels the campaign operates around.

Enemies below minion level would likely just become terrain features or obstacles without much agency, and those above reasonable solo levels would instead become hazards to avoid, not something to fight head on, with effects that can easily incapacitate the PCs.

Of course, presentation and common sense is key. Using a level 15 standard as a solo enemy only works if the narrative works around it, likewise with a solo that eventually get outclassed (I'd have to have excellent reasons to ever demote what was originally a solo to anything except an elite). When an enemy type changes doesn't have a hard rule exactly, but would be more based around what is most appropriate in an encounter. Given my current apprehension towards actually running 4e I haven't got around to testing the approach, but I like the general idea of it.

Grim Reader
2017-04-08, 07:07 AM
I am a fan of letting the players have a "panic button". A scroll with a spell well above their normal level, like a Summon Monster. If it is a consumable, they'll generally save it for when things go pear-shaped, and it'll let them extricate themselves from a misjugded situation.

Jarawara
2017-04-09, 10:07 PM
I am a fan of letting the players have a "panic button". A scroll with a spell well above their normal level, like a Summon Monster. If it is a consumable, they'll generally save it for when things go pear-shaped, and it'll let them extricate themselves from a misjugded situation.

I am a big fan of this technique. It allows the players to be bit more daring, a bit more bullish, knowing that they have a get out of jail card in their pocket.

I was first introduced to this concept by a DM who didn't actually know what the outcome would be. Our party found a Wand of Frost, which the DM thought we would have some fun with and then run out of charges. Instead, I sewed into my robes a special pocket for it, stuck it in there and 'forgot' about it.

I never used the thing but the effects were immediate and immeasurable. We had been playing cautious, retiring from the adventure early while we still had hit points, spells, and consumables. What if we needed that extra combat power on the way out, so better leave while we are able. But now, we could push farther, stay longer, accomplish more, knowing that if we were attacked on the way out, I could lay down the freeze on any threat that popped up. (I also got myself a good fire spell on a scroll, just in case cold-based baddies ambushed us.)

Giving the players a "Get out of Death Card" is a great way to get them to be more aggressive, knowing they have a backup in case they push to far. But there is a negative side effect... and my DM found out the hard way.

We're deep in the dungeon, exploring a series of caves, which had been conspicuously lacking in sentient creatures... something had cleared the area out of threats, claimed the area as their own. Then we came to a much larger cave, and found what that 'something' was. Dragon! A massive beast, blazing red in color, classic Tolkien dragon sleeping on a bed of gold, the 'boss battle' of this particular dungeon. DM had been waiting on this all session long, the epic finale of his masterpiece adventure.

Dragon was asleep, or seemingly was, so that the party could muse and plan a strategy on how to tackle this fight (or more realistically, *should* we tackle this fight). My Wizard comes to the front to peer around the corner, assess the situation. I say to the party, "I got this.", and I pull out the Wand.

One blast, Dragon is awakened and stunned and instantly angry. Second blast, Dragon is shocked, breathes flame and howls, and begins to take flight. Third blast, Dragon dies.

I put the Wand back into it's little pocket and promptly 'forgot' about it, while the party began planning how to haul that huge pile of gold home.


So, ah, yeah, giving the party a magic item that can bail them out is fine, but make sure to never forget about it. And never, ever assume your players 'forgot' about it.

Quertus
2017-04-10, 10:32 AM
I am a fan of letting the players have a "panic button". A scroll with a spell well above their normal level, like a Summon Monster. If it is a consumable, they'll generally save it for when things go pear-shaped, and it'll let them extricate themselves from a misjugded situation.

And, when they fail to successfully read the scroll, and it blows up in their faces, it's just adding insult to injury.

Winter_Wolf
2017-04-10, 06:02 PM
@Jarawara, I'd consider that a "well played, well frikkin' played" moment. Even as a DM. Definitely a congratulations would be in order for recognizing the opportunity and having the right tool for the job, and being willing to use it. I do actually know a few people who would have the badass item, and it's an appropriate juncture to use it, but they simply won't because, "but then I won't have it anymore." Because apparently the item is more important than their character's survival, or something. (I'm a bit guilty of this myself.)

logic_error
2017-04-10, 06:54 PM
So, I'm running a campaign at the moment, and as something a little experimental, I declared I would not level the world to the players. It is open world, and the world doesn't revolve around them. Things are the level they would logically be. You start at lvl 5, find a gladiatorial champion (lvl 18), get in a fight and immediately TPK? Should have been more careful.

This has gone down really well, with the players trying to work out what level NPCs are in the game before getting into fights, asking questions like "So...how long have you been a paladin?", appraising their swords, and generally thinking things through. It lead to a wonderful session where they were being hunted by a corrupt Church Inquisitor - they knew he wasn't leveled to them, he seemed more powerful than them, so they needed to flee and really carefully plan his assassination. When they finally poisoned him in his sleep they were so excited, and it gave a real sense of achievement. They didn't kill an NPC made to be a fair fight, but they killed a powerful Inquisitor who was never going to be a fair fight.

How are other people's thoughts on campaigning like this? Have other people done a lot of it? Any tips for keeping it good?


kudos. More power to you!!!

Earthwalker
2017-04-14, 04:50 AM
lol. Levels printed over their heads........

If I am running something like DnD (well pathfinder) I would at some stage directly tell the players the level of the NPC they are interacting with.

Knowledge skills in the system do let the player know game information about the world so this doesn't seem to much of a stretch. Pathfinder also has a wonderful way of working where everything scales so if you want to know is this guy is too tought for me... then you are mostly likely not going to find any information because the guy is too tough for you.

Information finding skills also get harder depending on the level of the thing you are facing.

You can do it directly and just say the level of the thing or you can use what ever code you and the players pick up for it being too difficult for them to take on.