Strength balance by DM bad guy selection

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I was thinking a DM can do tons to balance his party and make sure everyone feels equal.

Demons and devils with their magic spell save advantages, lack of manufactured metal armor and fire resistance cam frustrate a Bard or Wizard but get sliced up handily by a Rogue with a +1 weapon.

What other tricks have you all noticed that can help newb DM's balance things without being too obvious?

[Tiadoppler]

Have one tough enemy, two intermediate enemies and 5-10 weak enemies (or a similar ratio scaled up or down) in an encounter. A controller/blaster caster gets to go wild on the mooks, while the dpr guys melt the tougher opponents.



I like to make a list of the PC builds in a party, and write what they're super good at, and then each encounter should have at least 1-2 items on the list, so 1-2 characters can feel especially useful.


Warlock - Single target ranged DPR - High HP, hard to reach enemies
Wizard - Utility and defense - lots of weak attackers, clever enemies, unusual encounter design
Fighter - Tough, single target melee DPR - A narrow pass to block, a line to hold or a tough, dumb melee enemy to focus on.
Bard - Control, support - clever enemies, unusual encounter design, a single high DPR enemy to disable
Monk - Mobile DPR - large scale battles, difficult/varied terrain, hard to reach enemies, environmental traps to use



So, if I want to design an encounter for the Warlock and Monk to shine in, I have a list in front of me:


High HP enemies
Hard to reach enemies
Large scale battles
Difficult/varied terrain
Environmental traps


To me, that looks like a bunch of skilled archers hiding in the tops of trees. Or maybe, a group of hill giants throwing rocks down as the party climbs a cliff. Or a single, fast, burrowing enemy in a large cave system.

Once you have an organized list of things to include, it's a bit easier to design an interesting encounter.

[ad_hoc]

I was thinking a DM can do tons to balance his party and make sure everyone feels equal.

Demons and devils with their magic spell save advantages, lack of manufactured metal armor and fire resistance cam frustrate a Bard or Wizard but get sliced up handily by a Rogue with a +1 weapon.

What other tricks have you all noticed that can help newb DM's balance things without being too obvious?

I am not sure what you are asking.

Are you asking if we neutralize the difference abilities in the party so that all characters feel the same?

I don't modify adventures at all. The party is what it is. Sometimes their abilities are great for the situation at hand, sometimes they aren't. One challenge might be easy for one party but very difficult for another. That's okay.

[MrStabby]

I think the point is that a DM can do a lot to fix imbalanced games. Even just using the MM there are plenty of tools to keep the game fun for everyone.

A few "powerful" things that can often be challenged:

Walls - very powerful spells, some fiends can teleport for example. Elementals are also pretty good at finding any crack or crevice to pull through.

Sharpshooter - probably the most complained about feat. Tends to be less effective vs invisible enemies. Or creatures that can see in darkness, fog cloud etc..

High AC PCs - Saves are pretty much not impacted. Slap a banishment spell down and you are sorted. Alternatively fire elemental again can burn them with no save, or heat metal that can seriously hamper that PC.

Most circumstances can be covered by a well equipped caster. Hold person, fireball, banishment, wall of force... A smart npc caster who has spells that target different saves and has different effects can be a challenge (whist appropriately supported) to most parties of PCs.

[dreast]

High Strength players: Swarms of shadows, wolves, or both (shadow mastiffs) can really punish the people who neglect their Strength score, making that barbarian or paladin feel much more useful.

[Easy_Lee]

I dislike the premise of this thread. I don't think DMs should be building encounters specifically to punish or highlight certain PCs. Not only is that DM metagaming, it's also transparent to experienced players.

Instead, I recommend you design encounters, not solutions. You should have no preconceived idea of how your players will handle a given encounter nor which of them are going to shine. That leaves the power to choose how to respond in the PCs' hands, where it should be.

[dreast]

I dislike the premise of this thread. I don't think DMs should be building encounters specifically to punish or highlight certain PCs. Not only is that DM metagaming, it's also transparent to experienced players.

Instead, I recommend you design encounters, not solutions. You should have no preconceived idea of how your players will handle a given encounter nor which of them are going to shine. That leaves the power to choose how to respond in the PCs' hands, where it should be.

What in the high heck is "DM metagaming"? All a DM does is metagaming. It's his job. It's the only tool in his box. Complaining about DM metagaming is like complaining about DM cheating: By definition, it doesn't exist. Experienced players are no match for a standard-issue DM screen!

This smacks of 4e heresy! What next, programmed monsters?

[Easy_Lee]

What in the high heck is "DM metagaming"? All a DM does is metagaming. It's his job. It's the only tool in his box. Complaining about DM metagaming is like complaining about DM cheating: By definition, it doesn't exist. Experienced players are no match for a standard-issue DM screen!

Changing the campaign based on knowledge of your players' abilities is pretty much the definition. There are good varieties (making sure the treasure suits the party) and bad ones (countering your players with specific monsters).

Players are limited in terms of how strong and versatile they can build their characters. However, as a DM, your abilities are infinite. For this reason, DM metagaming can be even worse than player metagaming.

[JPicasso]

I think it's good DMing to at least think of two ways an encounter can be handled, and to make sure one of those ways allows some of the party who normally take a back seat to use abilities they don't normally use. There's nothing wrong with that.

Example: The party with its heavy-handed fighters could charge in the temple, like it always does, OR the thief who is normally quiet, could be set up to sneak in and disable the magical fire that heals the BBEG. OR, the ranger could send his wolf in to distract the minions while the party besets the BBEG alone, without his normal guards.

They may barge in again, no issues, but at least think of ways that other characters can contribute.

Also, give the PCs plans they come up with on the fly a chance to work, rather than just telling them 'No, roll initiative'.

But I don't think you'll ever manage to make everyone feel "equal". Just make sure you've thought of ways an encounter can be solved.

[Malifice]

I don't modify adventures at all. The party is what it is. Sometimes their abilities are great for the situation at hand, sometimes they aren't. One challenge might be easy for one party but very difficult for another. That's okay.

I wholly disagree.

You ass DM are responsible to the players as DM to ensure encounters are challenging and fun.

Modifying encounters to make them more fun or more challenging to your group, is no different to modifying (replacing) NPCs in adventures that are relevant to the PCs.

[Malifice]

Changing the campaign based on knowledge of your players' abilities is pretty much the definition. There are good varieties (making sure the treasure suits the party) and bad ones (countering your players with specific monsters).

Players are limited in terms of how strong and versatile they can build their characters. However, as a DM, your abilities are infinite. For this reason, DM metagaming can be even worse than player metagaming.

I wholly disagree. DMs cant metagame. Or to be more correct, we are expected to metagame.

When I sit down and design encounters, I do so in full knowledge of the party I DM for. I tailor the encounters to those PCs on some level every single time I do so (CR etc). I wont design an adventure they wont be interested in, or requires things they dont have, without including a means for them to get them (an adventure in another plane, contains a means for them to get to that plane and so forth).

And yes; sometimes I intentionally design those encounters to specifically counter the players. If the PCs like using stealth I'll intentionally place a few monsters (every now and then) with truesight and insanely high perception scores, or design encounters where the monsters come looking for the PCs (the monsters teleport in) and so forth.

Ill often also design encounters that play to those strengths and let the PCs tactics or abilities shine.

Your responsibility as DM is to design encounters that challenge and entertain the PCs, not being a dice roller and adding machine, who just happened to buy an adventure and reads out the boxed bits of text for your players amusement.

DMing is an art far more than it is a science.

[Easy_Lee]

I wholly disagree.

You ass DM are responsible to the players as DM to ensure encounters are challenging and fun.

Modifying encounters to make them more fun or more challenging to your group, is no different to modifying (replacing) NPCs in adventures that are relevant to the PCs.

Opinions vary regarding the DM's role, but I don't think it's useful to think the DM's primary role should be to challenge the players or make sure they're having fun. That can lead to railroading (forcing the players along the path you've decided because you think it will be fun) or being a killer DM (perpetually increasing challenge until the players die).

In my opinion, the DM should be less concerned with the players than with the campaign world. What the players do is their choice, while it's the DM's stated responsibility to direct everything else. When the DM is really into the game world and story, it's hard not to get sucked in. But if the DM isn't having fun, odds are good that no one is.

I think DMs should focus first on having fun themselves. Good things follow from that.

[MaxWilson]

I dislike the premise of this thread. I don't think DMs should be building encounters specifically to punish or highlight certain PCs. Not only is that DM metagaming, it's also transparent to experienced players.

You do realize that it's possible (and recommended) to write an adventure to challenge a broad range of PC profiles, without any knowledge of specific PCs?

If I design two encounters, one with two Hill Giants and 2d6 Giant Spiders attacking the party for food in a twisty forest with short sightlines (spiders in the trees throwing webs while giants toss rocks from behind cover), and the second on a narrow mountain trail on a cliff-face where three Stone Giants drop out of the sky onto the party from a higher ledge (taking some minor falling damage in the process) and demand tribute while a Mage supports them with spells from the higher ledge (and if they don't get tribute, they will attack PCs with their clubs and/or shove them off the edge of the cliff)...

In these two encounters, I can be confident that the two encounters will provide something for monks (wall-running and stunning), Sharpshooter archers, wizards (AoE on spiders, Counterspell, disabling spells on stone giants, Feather Fall on anyone shoved), melee fighters (draw aggro, cut webs, resist shove attempts), smite paladins, rogues (plenty of places to hide in the forest, though not on the mountain trail), and a wide range of other PCs. If I'm running Combat As War (and I usually do) there are additional opportunities for rogues and shadow monks if the encounters take place at night, since they might be able to scout ahead and suss out the ambushes before they happen. Any face characters or illusionists will have the opportunity to engage with the Stone Giants in a non-combat-oriented way, at a price in tribute (which could potentially be reduced to or below zero).

No knowledge of specific PCs is required.

[Malifice]

Opinions vary regarding the DM's role, but I don't think it's useful to think the DM's primary role should be to challenge the players or make sure they're having fun. That can lead to railroading (forcing the players along the path you've decided because you think it will be fun) or being a killer DM (perpetually increasing challenge until the players die).

Dude, both of those things (railroading and TPKing the party) are contrary to challenging them and ensuring they're having fun.


In my opinion, the DM should be less concerned with the players than with the campaign world. What the players do is their choice, while it's the DM's stated responsibility to direct everything else. When the DM is really into the game world and story, it's hard not to get sucked in. But if the DM isn't having fun, odds are good that no one is.

I wholly disagree.

The DM is responsible for the game. If it falls apart, sucks, is boring, TPKs everyone, is railroady or whatever, its invariably the DMs fault.

My job as DM is to design interesting and challenging adventures (and encounters) to entertain, challenge and engage my players.

If I get that right, from their enjoyment comes my own.

[Easy_Lee]

You do realize that it's possible (and recommended) to write an adventure to challenge a broad range of PC profiles, without any knowledge of specific PCs?

First, the OP posted about balancing his party through enemy selection and mentioned some creatures that he thought would impair specific classes, rather than encounters that would be generally challenging.

Second, I do think it's a good idea to write encounters to be generally challenging without thinking about how specific players might try to approach them. But you shouldn't make an assertion like that and say it's recommended without saying who recommends it and why. I don't know who else does things my way, but I do it to ensure that I don't railroad the players into particular solutions.


My job as DM is to design interesting and challenging adventures (and encounters) to entertain, challenge and engage my players.

If I get that right, from their enjoyment comes my own.

What makes you think you know what the players will find challenging, entertaining, or engaging?

[Spiritchaser]

A recurring battle master foe for many strength saves

[Malifice]

What makes you think you know what the players will find challenging, entertaining, or engaging?

Interpersonal knowledge, trial and error, personal experience, and the general art of DMing.

If the players are bored, or not having fun, you know. Conversely, when you nail it, you know. You can tell when they're enjoying themselves, and when they arent. You know them as people and players. It's a great feeling when you get it right, and the more you do it, the better at it you get.

Playing with the same guys for 3 years in a weekly campaign to 20th, I know them. And I know their characters. They trust me as DM to entertain, challenge and guide the story, and I trust them as players not to do silly crap like game the system, act like general murder-hobos, or anything else that might result in a book getting thrown at them, or rocks falling. They respect my role as DM (knowing how important the DM is). They love the campaign, and I love the fact they love it.

This is the difference between a good DM, and a great one.

[Potato_Priest]

What makes you think you know what the players will find challenging, entertaining, or engaging?

In my experience, combination of common sense, practice, and out-of-character communication can get you pretty far in this department.

[MaxWilson]

I wholly disagree.

The DM is responsible for the game. If it falls apart, sucks, is boring, TPKs everyone, is railroady or whatever, its invariably the DMs fault.

My job as DM is to design interesting and challenging adventures (and encounters) to entertain, challenge and engage my players.

If I get that right, from their enjoyment comes my own.

No thanks, that's not a game that would be fun for me to play.

Tailoring the game to the player characters is contrary to player enjoyment. It means that player choices have no consequences, only DM choices do.

What's the point in e.g. taking Stealth proficiency if the DM is just going to increase monster Perception to negate your Stealth and/or make sure you have no places to hide? You must as well not take it, and rely on untrained Stealth (pure Dex). What's the point in Heavy Armor Master if the DM is just going to ensure that monsters do high damage or use magic weapons? And if the monsters DON'T have magic weapons, or have low-damage attacks, you know that it's because the DM decided to give you a break.

At that point you're no longer playing in the game world, you're just second-guessing the Dungeon Master. The ONLY way to provide a fun play experience--one that would be fun for me, anyway--is to fix the game world in advance and then let the player choices affect how things unfold. If that means the players always have an easy time in fights against minions (because they have lots of AoE and crowd control) and a tough time against magic-resistant flying solos (because they have crummy single-target damage, few nonmagical attacks, and no at-will ranged capability), then they will struggle through some parts of some adventures and breeze through other parts. And that's what they've chosen. Don't take that away from the players.

Of course in practice this isn't a problem because players with preferences incompatible with the DM's preferences will just leave. Anyone who plays at Malifice's table obviously likes Malifice's type of game, or they would have left long ago.

[MaxWilson]

First, the OP posted about balancing his party through enemy selection and mentioned some creatures that he thought would impair specific classes, rather than encounters that would be generally challenging.

I dunno, he asked the forum for general tricks, named a couple of classes, but didn't give many details about his party specifically. It seems to me that we'd have trouble tailoring the encounters to his PCs even if we wanted to! So I took it as a general request for how to build broadly-challenging adventures.


Second, I do think it's a good idea to write encounters to be generally challenging without thinking about how specific players might try to approach them. But you shouldn't make an assertion like that and say it's recommended without saying who recommends it and why. I don't know who else does things my way, but I do it to ensure that I don't railroad the players into particular solutions.

Okay, it's recommended by AngryGM and myself, at a minimum.

[Easy_Lee]

The reason I ask is because, in other parts of the gaming world, there's a debate about what actually produces fun. The angry GM gives a nice overview of one possible set of answers here: http://theangrygm.com/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/. But that's just one set of answers.

In truth, there is no universal measure of fun that applies to every person. That's why I say that, particularly for new DMs, starting with something that's fun for you is wise. If the campaign is fun for the person running it, there's quite a good chance that it will be fun for the other players. All of these others concerns, from "balance" to "challenge", are secondary for me.

That said, if you want to run a "balanced" campaign then having a healthy variety of creature and encounter types is useful. But that may not be the campaign you want to run. After all, it's roughly impossible to run a campaign about fighting an undead hoard without giving advantage to the cleric, paladin, sun soul monk, and revised ranger with Favored Enemy: undead. Here you have to sacrifice "balance" for your fun.

As for what the other players will find fun, who the hell knows? Not every DM has the luxury of running the same campaign with the same group for multiple years straight. That's why I try not to make assumptions in this regard, particularly on internet forums where I don't even know who I'm talking to.

[Malifice]

No thanks, that's not a game that would be fun to play.

Tailoring the game to the player characters is contrary to player enjoyment. It means that player choices have no consequences, only DM choices do.

Yeah that clearly makes no sense.


What's the point in e.g. taking Stealth proficiency if the DM is just going to increase monster Perception to negate your Stealth and/or make sure you have no places to hide? You must as well not take it, and rely on untrained Stealth (pure Dex). What's the point in Heavy Armor Master if the DM is just going to ensure that monsters do high damage or use magic weapons? And if the monsters DON'T have magic weapons, or have low-damage attacks, you know that it's because the DM decided not to.

It doesnt work that way. The DMs job is to challenge and entertain the players.

Presume I have a group of players that always fly. Their SOP is to cast the fly spell and attack from the sky.

When I sit down to design them a bunch of encounters in an adventure during the week, I design encounters that will challenge and entertain them. I'll design my encounters with this in mind. This means that on occasion I'll specifically makes this tactic a bad idea (flying monsters). Sometimes I'll specifically design an encounter that lets them highlight this ability (a bunch of ground based creatures that get massacred from above), sometimes Ill specifically design a series of encounters that put a spanner in their works (a dungeon that requires them to dismount and go via the ground) and so forth. I'll equip missile weapons on most monsters where it makes sense to do so (and sometimes I will intentionally strip those ranged attacks from them in order to let the party destroy the encounter and feel good about themselves).

When you sit down to design your encounters you (as DM) are expected to take into account the abilities, skills and so forth of your group. This is why we have the CR system to begin with. Im not sending my players on a quest designed for 20th level heroes when they're 2nd level, Im not sending them on a quest that requires them to cast a spell of X level, when they are a party of fighters, Im not sending them on a quest to save the world if theyre a bunch of NE murder-hobos (and vice versa) etc.

The DM isnt a number generating machine. Its an art, not a science.


At that point you're no longer playing in the game world, you're just second-guessing the Dungeon Master.

Nope. With a good DM, you never know its happening. His work during the week behind the scenes is invisible.

For example, my players think most of my random encounters are truly random. Spoiler alert; they arent.

They're pre-planned encounters that I insert into the game (when things are slowed down, they're over-resting, or other reasons). I roll the dice behind the screen, ignore the result, pretend to look something up, sigh and shake my head and then describe the monster rounding the next corner of the dungeon or whatever. Its part of the showmanship of being a DM.

Same deal with all your encounters. For all your players know, this was the encounter all along.


The ONLY way to provide a fun play experience--one that would be fun for me, anyway--is to fix the game world in advance and then let the player choices affect how things unfold.

If you're doing your job right your players will never know the difference. Thats where the art comes in.

My players dont know that I inserted an adventure into the campaign that features plenty of places to short rest, and spaced out encounters to enable frequent short resting (plus arcane labs, magic items tailored for a spellcaster etc) simply on account of the fact I've noticed the Warlock player hasnt been having a fun time lately, and I want to give him an opportunity to shine.

As long as I do it right.

Your method is basically to pre-stat a game world, and sit back doing nothing even if the PCs are either steamrolling your encounters, or conversely getting TPK'd all the time (neither of which is very fun).

Personally, I see the role of DM as something very different to that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There's explicit guidance in all the encounter-building materials published to consider the party when building encounters. Specifically--to check to make sure that you are unlikely to 1HK players (or that the players will 1HK monsters) and to check and be wary of monsters that primarily target weak saves.

That aside, there's a big difference (to me) between the following:

1) Intentionally designing a large fraction of the encounters to make their schtick useless. Especially if this is targeted at particular players--that BM PAM/GWM fighter finds all the enemies are flying and ranged.

2) Having a variety of encounters that allow the party to shine while also challenging them, with challenges weighted based on what they've designed their characters to do.

3) Only giving encounters that play to their strengths. The rogue always has somewhere to hide. No fire-immune/resistant monsters for the pyro. Etc.

4) Not tailoring to the point where things can be impossible. This was way worse in earlier editions where you needed someone who could remove conditions A-Z--those were "must have this ability to ride" gates.

All extremes of tailoring encounters have their flaws. Some tailoring is needed--I can't give the same encounters to my three groups (even if they were the same levels). What one group finds interesting, another finds boring. So I have to tailor it to them and to the characters. A bit.

[Malifice]

As for what the other players will find fun, who the hell knows? Not every DM has the luxury of running the same campaign with the same group for multiple years straight. That's why I try not to make assumptions in this regard, particularly on internet forums where I don't even know who I'm talking to.

This is kind of what I do. I do run games that I would find fun (game that are challenging, but rewarding, with intresting NPCs, story options, plenty of combat etc). Part sandbox and part AP.

I dont tolerate players that attempt to game the system, argue a lot, interfere with or drain the fun from anyone else. I boot them from my table.

My way isnt the only way of course. Max above does his thing very differently (and I would find his campaigns to be boring and dull, just like he would arguably not enjoy my way of doing things). But I have a good group of players, who know the rules, and appreciate what I do and the campaign. They've all commented (often) that Im the best DM they've ever had. They're invested in their characters and the campaign, taking notes, interacting with NPCs, and not doing anything gamist or stupid to the detriment of the integrity of the game.

They trust me to challenge them without being a **** or a killer DM, and I dont abuse that trust.

[ad_hoc]

Nope. With a good DM, you never know its happening. His work during the week behind the scenes is invisible.

For example, my players think most of my random encounters are truly random. Spoiler alert; they arent.

They're pre-planned encounters that I insert into the game (when things are slowed down, they're over-resting, or other reasons). I roll the dice behind the screen, ignore the result, pretend to look something up, sigh and shake my head and then describe the monster rounding the next corner of the dungeon or whatever. Its part of the showmanship of being a DM.

Same deal with all your encounters. For all your players know, this was the encounter all along.


I don't lie to my friends.

If I were to ever find out that someone was doing this I wouldn't talk to them again. I don't need that kind of person in my life.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't lie to my friends.

If I were to ever find out that someone was doing this I wouldn't talk to them again. I don't need that kind of person in my life.

But what if it isn't done by lying--what if the DM flat out says "ok, if I feel you guys are dawdling too much I'll throw in some encounters to help you hurry along"?

You have to trust that the DM has your interests in mind. Or don't play at all. Being paranoid and looking for fault is a bad way to be. Why does it matter if encounters are actually random (which they aren't, because nothing human-produced really is) or if they're inserted, as long as people have fun with them? If you're not having fun, that's one thing. Worrying about how the sausage is being made seems, to me, to be entirely beside the point.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't lie to my friends. If I were to ever find out that someone was doing this I wouldn't talk to them again. I don't need that kind of person in my life. I don't think this response to what Malifice posted makes any sense. The problem with stopping the game to roll a random encounter is that it slows the pace of play.
Having a bunch of prepackaged random encounters rolled up well ahead of time, and you just pick one (or roll a die and pick one) allows play to keep moving.

What Malifice did is something I have done ever since I realized what a drag it is to wait for the DM to roll up the random encounter. (and all of the fiddlyl bits and pieces that go with it, to include treasure and magic items that the monsters may use during the encounter).

As an aside: when I was in the Navy, I'd have the duty sometimes (basically, guarding a phone in case something needed attention on the weekends or there was a fire or someone in our unit got arrested ... ) and I'd be bored out of my mind. Great way to fill the time was to put together various encounter packages so that it was ready to go when we rolled a random encounter.

[Malifice]

I don't lie to my friends.

If I were to ever find out that someone was doing this I wouldn't talk to them again. I don't need that kind of person in my life.

Hahahaha.

How genuinely funny.

[Xetheral]

What makes you think you know what the players will find challenging, entertaining, or engaging?

If I can't read my players well enough, I'll simply ask. Sometimes I'll ask just to make sure my read was correct.

[tieren]

I also don't think the OP is talking about trying to thwart the players, but choosing enemies to properly challenge them.

For example in a CoS campaign I had a cleric player who was using turn undead to great effect against all the zombies and vampire spawn I was throwing at them. I then started to mix it up and make sure I used more than just undead so it wouldn't trivialize some of the important moments I had lined up.

There still were tons of undead (its CoS), but there were other things to that let the strengths of some of the other characters shine as well.

[ad_hoc]

I don't think this response to what Malifice posted makes any sense. The problem with stopping the game to roll a random encounter is that it slows the pace of play.
Having a bunch of prepackaged random encounters rolled up well ahead of time, and you just pick one (or roll a die and pick one) allows play to keep moving.

What Malifice did is something I have done ever since I realized what a drag it is to wait for the DM to roll up the random encounter. (and all of the fiddlyl bits and pieces that go with it, to include treasure and magic items that the monsters may use during the encounter).

If you're just going to pick one then fine.

I also have no idea what you mean by rolling a die and picking one vs 'roll up a random encounter'. A random encounter is rolling from a list of possible encounters.

That is not the same as:


I roll the dice behind the screen, ignore the result, pretend to look something up, sigh and shake my head and then describe the monster rounding the next corner of the dungeon or whatever. Its part of the showmanship of being a DM.

This is lying.

If I found out a friend was doing this in a game I wouldn't play with them anymore.

[ad_hoc]

I also don't think the OP is talking about trying to thwart the players, but choosing enemies to properly challenge them.

For example in a CoS campaign I had a cleric player who was using turn undead to great effect against all the zombies and vampire spawn I was throwing at them. I then started to mix it up and make sure I used more than just undead so it wouldn't trivialize some of the important moments I had lined up.

There still were tons of undead (its CoS), but there were other things to that let the strengths of some of the other characters shine as well.

Thus nullifying the choice to play a Cleric.

I ran CoS and there was a Cleric in the party. It was still a very difficult campaign that ultimately ended in a TPK.

[tieren]

Thus nullifying the choice to play a Cleric.

I ran CoS and there was a Cleric in the party. It was still a very difficult campaign that ultimately ended in a TPK.

I disagree. The cleric got great spotlight, and there were still plenty of opportunities to use the channel divinity and drive back undead.

But instead of 3 undead encounters I did one and made another gargoyles and another werewolves. It mixed things up and didn't seem like we had one easy answer for every encounter.

[LaserFace]

I strive for everyone at the table to have fun. This doesn't require me to nerf one guy to make the other feel better. Sometimes, I can do that, but I'll only do it if I think it's particularly interesting.

I think the best way to make everyone in the party feel like they can contribute is to give everyone opportunities. The best way for that to work, I think, is to have variety in encounters. It's pretty easy to do if you're conscious about it.

Use a wide range of:
Monster types (eg if you're up against a Goblin tribe, include friends, pets, allies, as well as other random monsters in the area, maybe Owlbears or a rival clan of Frog People)
Numbers and Compositions within Monster groups (eg 3 Goblins, 1 Bugbear, 1 Wolf pet for one fight, maybe 2 Wolves and a Warg the next, maybe have a fight with just 10 goblins, maybe they worship some weird magical beast like a god, and so on)
Terrain and Positions (eg dudes on ledges, dudes in trees, dudes on a hill, dudes flanking, dudes hiding and retreating behind rocks and debris, dudes you have to jump over chasms to reach)
Circumstances (eg These Goblins don't really want a fight and can be dealt with through Social skills, or this Bugbear is unwilling to parley because you previously threw his wolf in the fire)

Essentially I'm suggesting you let everyone have opportunities simply as a natural reflection of giving them a lot of different things to potentially deal with.

I think it's also very important to let your players try to do things you didn't anticipate. If they are consciously making an effort to exploit an area of terrain or a given situation, let them have a genuine shot at it. This gives people a chance to use their abilities in clever ways, and I think it encourages everyone at the table to really let loose.

It might be unavoidable that your own internal biases might lead you to overuse a subset of encounter types, or monsters, whatever, but that's not a big deal unless your players aren't having fun. Make your game about fun, and I doubt you'll have to think too hard about it.

[MaxWilson]

If you're doing your job right your players will never know the difference. Thats where the art comes in.

If your players have half a brain they will ALWAYS know the difference.

[Xetheral]

If your players have half a brain they will ALWAYS know the difference.

My anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. I sometimes have players interested in what goes on from the DM side of things, and so outside of the game we'll sit down and discuss it. One of the major recurring themes of such discussions is the players being very surprised to learn what was pre-planned, what was improvised, what was truly random, and what was fudged. It's certainly possible to make it seemless.

[Easy_Lee]

I also don't think the OP is talking about trying to thwart the players, but choosing enemies to properly challenge them.

I don't think most DMs intend to thwart the players, railroad, exert too much control, or otherwise act like bad DMs. But it does happen.

We have to ask whether it's a good policy to choose creatures with the intent that one of your players will have trouble while another will not.

[Malifice]

This is lying.

If I found out a friend was doing this in a game I wouldn't play with them anymore.

Oh wow you're serious!

That's even more hilarious.

[MrStabby]

Well there are different ways of tailoring your encounters - some are better than others.

The suspect way, for me at least, is changing the world.

If you adapt your world to the players - making certain classes better or worse by the mix of enemies, changing the prevalence of enemy spell-casters vs more martial NPCs in the world and so on.

On the other hand there is the behavioural element of those people in the world. Someone wants to send assassins to kill the party - they pick those assassins that might have a chance. They see some people in heavy armour and some in robes and they attack the ones in robes. They have a choice of what spells to prepare and they take a mix of spells that target different saves. All of these are reasonable.

There are also assumptions that I think are right to make even when they are wrong. For example assuming that the guy with a bow has sharpshooter feat, the guy with arcane symbols on his robe has counterspell and assuming that if there is someone with heavy armour covered in holy symbols then it is worth landing a few attacks on downed PCs to stop them getting up again. In a world where fireballs exist it is unreasonable for military/combat NPCs to cluster together more than they need.

It is also reasonable for NPCs to optimise - especially when it comes to combat. Combat is a fight for your life, choosing to handicap yourself is going to be very much out of character for all but the most suicidal NPCs. Having a range of abilities isn't countering a specific party - it is a sensible RP choice by an NPC to try and survive.

If we want consistent, plausible worlds we should extend this. If an NPC has a poor perception score and has a job/role where they are vulnerable to being surprised they they would have bought a guard dog. This isn't about the PCs, this is about their ability to be surprised by ANYONE.


Finally worlds should make sense. Fire spells are more powerful than other damage spells (usually) so NPCs should prioritise fire resistance and there is an evolutionary advantage to being a Red Dragonborn over a Black one so we should expect to see more of the former in a consistent world - irrespective of what choices a party of PCs make.

This is why I tend to have almost all of the same spell immunities when I use Helmed Horrors, irrespective of the campaign/party: Heat Metal, Banishment and one spell determined by whatever group the Horror's creator has antagonised (and also how they are deployed) - spirit guardians if they have a beef with a local temple for example or fireball if they are intended to be deployed in larger numbers.

[Malifice]

Well there are different ways of tailoring your encounters - some are better than others.

The suspect way, for me at least, is changing the world.

If you adapt your world to the players - making certain classes better or worse by the mix of enemies, changing the prevalence of enemy spell-casters vs more martial NPCs in the world and so on.

Dude; not sure about you, but I dont stat up every single encounter the party are expected to face from levels 1-20 when I design my campaigns.

I spend 1 night each week designing enounters for my party, that make sense to the story or adventure, are CR appropriate, have intresting or unique abilities, and provide a mix of challenge (an encounter with a Solo legendary monsters, the next encounter with 3-4 Mid CR monsters, the next encounter with a spell caster, a 'heavy' and several mooks, etc).

I'll also often stat up a 'random' encounter that I can throw at them should they slow down, or be having too easy a time of it, and it makes sense to insert it at that point of the adventure.

Ill also turn my mind to a doom clock, and other adventuring day management considerations.

When I design those encounters, I always do so by reference to the PCs abilities to some level, even if its just their level indicating the CR range (and XP budget) of the monsters. I dont want to overwhelm them and have a TPK, but I dont want them to steamroll those encounters, and for them to be boring (unless sometimes I do want to introduce an overwhelming 'deadly+' or easily overcome 'easy' encounter).

Ill also occasionally design encounters that play to the parties strengths, or design them that play to the parties weaknesses. I want the players to showcase their abilities, but I also dont want a game that is routine, with one tactic or class feature dominating all others, or that features repeated boring steamrolling of encounters, or repeated PC beatdowns/ Fantasy Underground Vietnam where the players are in PTSD due to constantly being near death in every fight, and are too scared to be heroes.

[MaxWilson]

There are also assumptions that I think are right to make even when they are wrong. For example assuming that the guy with a bow has sharpshooter feat, the guy with arcane symbols on his robe has counterspell and assuming that if there is someone with heavy armour covered in holy symbols then it is worth landing a few attacks on downed PCs to stop them getting up again. In a world where fireballs exist it is unreasonable for military/combat NPCs to cluster together more than they need.

One of the ways good players will detect metagaming DMs is to fake out NPCs using disguises. Do enemies melee the monk with arcane sigils on his robe, believing him to be a squishy wizard, or do they ignore him in favor of the wizard carrying a (useless) greatsword because it makes the fights "too easy" if the wizard isn't threatened?

On the specific subject of detecting tailoring: some of you guys seem to believe yourselves to be unreadable. I suppose you're all fantastic actors who make lots of money whenever you play poker. Otherwise, it's the same argument that comes up whenever dice fudging is mentioned. Some posters (DMs) tell stories implying that none of their players have ever caught on. Some posters tell stories of DMs whom they knew to have been fudging, but didn't confront them. Some posters tell stories of DMs who were surprised to learn that players knew they were fudging.

But the difference between a tailored adventure and an untailored campaign is large. If you never run across scenarios that would be JUST PERFECT for that one guy whom you have considered rolling up but isn't in the party at all--if a long-rest party full of wizards and paladins doesn't see plenty of scenarios that would be great for wall-jumping monks and short-rest levitating warlocks and Sharpshooter fighters and places for rogues to hide even though there are no monks, warlocks, Sharpshooters, or rogues in the party--then you begin to suspect tailoring. There's an important element missing that should be there in an untailored campaign. If you run a second campaign with the same DM but different PCs, and it shows the same bias (still full of swarms to Fireball and melee demons to smite) even though you're no longer playing wizards and paladins, then maybe your suspicions were unfounded and the DM just has that style. But if the DM's bias changes because your PCs change, that DM is likely tailoring his campaign to your PCs. (And the more you play with him, the more surely you will know if that is his style.)

It's up to you whether you play with him long enough to "prove" what he's doing, or just quit the campaign as soon as you begin to suspect that it isn't going to be any fun. But a DM who believes his players will never catch on is as delusional as a Congressman^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcrook who thinks he'll never get caught by the FBI.


Ill also occasionally design encounters that play to the parties strengths, or design them that play to the parties weaknesses. I want the players to showcase their abilities, but I also dont want a game that is routine, with one tactic or class feature dominating all others, or that features repeated boring steamrolling of encounters, or repeated PC beatdowns/ Fantasy Underground Vietnam where the players are in PTSD due to constantly being near death in every fight, and are too scared to be heroes.

And this is where you give your method away. If the players all show up with variant human characters with the Mobile feat, your game will change, because you don't want to play to their strengths more than "occasionally." I've seen the way you design encounters, and I've seen the way you change your encounters in response to PC builds, and it's not subtle.

[Malifice]

And this is where you give your method away. If the players all show up with variant human characters with the Mobile feat, your game will change, because you don't want to play to their strengths more than "occasionally."

I highly doubt the game would change based on a group of PCs who all inexplicably took the mobile feat.


I've seen the way you design encounters, and I've seen the way you change your encounters in response to PC builds, and it's not subtle.

Lol! Of course Im giving my method away to you. Im sitting here telling you Im doing it, and showing you how.

Believe it or not, my players dont see how I design encounters, they dont see how they get changed in order to remain competitive against the PCs and present a challenge.

If I have a player that has GWM, I'll intentionally (from time to time) insert low AC but high HP monsters (and encounters that are Mook heavy for him to take advantage of cleave) so that ability can be highlighted.

But I'll also (from time to time) insert high AC monsters (or ones with the parry ability or similar), so that ability gets countered.

I dont know why you would bother designing encounters during the week without reference to the group youre DMing for. Constantly either steamrolling encounters, or getting steamrolled (or any combination of the two) is boring and crappy. It's not fun.

Would you want to play in a game where the encounters are either boringly easy, or overwhelming you all the time?

Would you?

Obligation number 1 as DM is to ensure the players are challenged (encounters are not too hard, but not too easy, require them to work together to overcome, but that they are generally expected to overcome), entertained (engage with the story and the mechanics, making careful choices about resource usage and actions in combat, interactions with NPC and the world around them, and meaningful decisions that affect the plot an the world around them) and enjoying themselves (are they having fun?).

Everything you do as a DM is subservient to that obligation.

[War_lord]

"DM metagaming", Wow that's a mind trip. Player "metagaming" was already the cry of the poor DM. "The referee is metagaming" is a new layer of doublespeak.

[Malifice]

"DM metagaming", Wow that's a mind trip. Player "metagaming" was already the cry of the poor DM. "The referee is metagaming" is a new layer of doublespeak.

Indeed. The DM cant metagame. Or to be more correct, he is expected to metagame.

His obligation is to create a fun and challenging campaign and experience for the players. This trumps every other obligation for mine.

[MaxWilson]

Lol! Of course Im giving my method away to you. Im sitting here telling you Im doing it, and showing you how.

I've seen the encounters you create. You don't think ahead--in fact you've bragged about that fact in this very thread. Every time there's a tactical discussion, you always ask for the other person to commit to a specific group of PCs before you draw up an encounter; and when you do draw up an encounter, it's always lacking along important dimensions (which you would obviously change if PCs were engaging along those dimensions).


I dont know why you would bother designing encounters during the week without reference to the group youre DMing for. Constantly either steamrolling encounters, or getting steamrolled (or any combination of the two) is boring and crappy. It's not fun.

An all-Mobile party is swingy: they effortlessly steamroll certain types of encounters (probably 30-60% of the encounters I've seen you create), and struggle with others. You wouldn't be able to resist changing your game to make it tougher on them, since you can't abide a 30-60% steamroll rate, and so the players would detect that you are tailoring the game to them. It's blindingly obvious, even before we get into the fact that you'd also give away your preferences through your dislike of TPKs.


Would you want to play in a game where the encounters are either boringly easy, or overwhelming you all the time?

Would you?

I'd want to play in a game where my choices matter. I'd want to play in a game where it's obvious that things COULD be boringly easy (and ideally skipped) or overwhelmingly difficult, depending on the choices I make, so I can meaningfully plan to maximize the former and minimize the latter. Constraint-solving is fun; but not if the constraints are evolving even after I plot my solution. That's no fun at all.


Obligation number 1 as DM is to ensure the players are challenged (encounters are not too hard, but not too easy, require them to work together to overcome, but that they are generally expected to overcome), entertained (engage with the story and the mechanics, making careful choices about resource usage and actions in combat, interactions with NPC and the world around them, and meaningful decisions that affect the plot an the world around them) and enjoying themselves (are they having fun?).

Everything you do as a DM is subservient to that obligation.

Well, that's an opinion. Fortunately your players must share it or they'd have left.

[Xetheral]

On the specific subject of detecting tailoring: some of you guys seem to believe yourselves to be unreadable.

I certainly don't try to hide that I run a tailored game--I'm open about that from session zero when I let players know that they're free to build whatever sounds fun and don't need to worry too much about party roles or party balance.

What I do conceal in the moment (but will freely talk about after the campaign with those who are curious) is when I'm working with prepared material and when I'm improvising (or altering prepared material on the fly). I find such seemlessness a useful tool to enhance immersion, and from after-the-fact discussions with my players, the differences usually go unnoticed. Similarly, when I'm fudging and when I'm not fudging is also something I conceal at the table (but will discuss later, if asked).

[Easy_Lee]

"DM metagaming", Wow that's a mind trip. Player "metagaming" was already the cry of the poor DM. "The referee is metagaming" is a new layer of doublespeak.

Only if you don't understand how the word is being used. Perhaps you would prefer, "The DM is using meta-knowledge to determine which creatures the characters will encounter and how those creatures will behave, rather than having the campaign and setting dictate these things, and is doing so in a way that is harmful to the spirit of the game."

[Malifice]

Every time there's a tactical discussion, you always ask for the other person to commit to a specific group of PCs before you draw up an encounter

Yes of course I do. That's exactly what I have been saying all thread isnt it?

I design encounters to challenge and entertain the PCs I am actually DMing for.

I dont design my encounters for a party of 10 x 20th level Fighters, when my actual party is 3 x 5th level Wizards, specialising in enchantment and divination magic.


An all-Mobile party is swingy: they effortlessly steamroll certain types of encounters (probably 30-60% of the encounters I've seen you create)

What?

Yeah nah.

[Malifice]

Only if you don't understand how the word is being used. Perhaps you would prefer, "The DM is using meta-knowledge to determine which creatures the characters will encounter and how those creatures will behave, rather than having the campaign and setting dictate these things, and is doing so in a way that is harmful to the spirit of the game."

Of course he is. He's required to. The 'building an encounter' section in the DMG tells him to do as much. To balance the encounter towards the level (and number) of PCs, and to ensure that the monsters (on account of high CR) are not too OP for the party. It also encourages the DM to mix up his monsters, tweak them as desired, (adding armor or weapons, or special abilities) and that he should be designing encounters (and running games) that are challenging and fun for his players.

Should he just flip the Monster Manual open to a random page, and throw that at the PCs?

I guess the latter could be entertaining for a while.

If my PCs were running a bunch of Wizards I would run a campaign that ties into this fact (maybe they're all working for a potent Archmage, as his apprentices?) and I would ensure the quests link towards arcane type stuff (finding magical reagents and spellbooks, combatting magical rivals, performing strange rituals etc) with threats/ encounters being tailored to that groups strengths and weaknesses.

You either fine tune your encounters (adjusting up or down for difficulty and party composition, to ensure they remain fun and challenging) or you dont and have encounters that are steamrolled easily by the party (boring), or get the party steamrolled (also not fun).

Its a no brainer.

[Easy_Lee]

Of course he is. He's required to. The 'building an encounter' section in the DMG tells him to do as much. To balance the encounter towards the level (and number) of PCs, and to ensure that the monsters (on account of high CR) are not too OP for the party. It also encourages the DM to mix up his monsters, tweak them as desired, (adding armor or weapons, or special abilities) and that he should be designing encounters (and running games) that are challenging and fun for his players.

Which is a far-cry from opening the monster manual and picking those creatures that he thinks will specifically counter some of his players, but not others. If I were to strawman you in the same way you're trying to strawman me, I would be screaming about how you think the DM should play favorites. You obviously don't think that. And you equally obviously don't understand what I'm talking about.

But I don't need to argue on my own behalf. Instead I'd encourage you to look at the other posts and posters you've argued with and ask yourself this: can their arguments be interpreted in a way that makes them seem reasonable? If so, perhaps you should default to that interpretation rather than the opposite.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah nah.

Apparently you haven't done the math.


I certainly don't try to hide that I run a tailored game--I'm open about that from session zero when I let players know that they're free to build whatever sounds fun and don't need to worry too much about party roles or party balance.

What I do conceal in the moment (but will freely talk about after the campaign with those who are curious) is when I'm working with prepared material and when I'm improvising (or altering prepared material on the fly). I find such seemlessness a useful tool to enhance immersion, and from after-the-fact discussions with my players, the differences usually go unnoticed. Similarly, when I'm fudging and when I'm not fudging is also something I conceal at the table (but will discuss later, if asked).

I wouldn't much enjoy that sort of a game, but at least you're open about it. You're not one of the people whom I had in mind as claiming in this thread to be able to keep players from ever finding out what was going on.

[Malifice]

Apparently you haven't done the math.

Nah. Ive been too busy playing the game with actual people.


Which is a far-cry from opening the monster manual and picking those creatures that he thinks will specifically counter some of his players, but not others. If I were to strawman you in the same way you're trying to strawman me, I would be screaming about how you think the DM should play favorites. You obviously don't think that. And you equally obviously don't understand what I'm talking about.

But I don't need to argue on my own behalf. Instead I'd encourage you to look at the other posts and posters you've argued with and ask yourself this: can their arguments be interpreted in a way that makes them seem reasonable? If so, perhaps you should default to that interpretation rather than the opposite.

Im not strawmanning you mate.

I just reject the view that a DM should be blind to the capabilities of the group he is designing encounters for. My view is the DM should take those capabilities into account when designing his encounters (for good and for bad).

Im not saying you should create 'gotcha' encounters, or tailor every (or even many) encounters to hit the party where they are weak. But you should be looking to create (as a median) challenging and intresting encounters.

Or else why are you bothering to create them in the first place?

[MrStabby]

I have to say there are a some people I am really glad I don't play with.

Too much desire for personal glory rather than treating it as a group game.

If you do pull together a character that is very powerful but has a weakness and if the DM / world responds by trying to exploit that weakness then that makes it harder for them to be exploiting the other weaknesses of other party members. Your power is having a positive effect on the world.

[War_lord]

I've seen the encounters you create. You don't think ahead--in fact you've bragged about that fact in this very thread. Every time there's a tactical discussion, you always ask for the other person to commit to a specific group of PCs before you draw up an encounter; and when you do draw up an encounter, it's always lacking along important dimensions (which you would obviously change if PCs were engaging along those dimensions).

The vast vast majority of DMs I've came across are running long term campaigns, not one shots. Which means that they know exactly what the party composition is, unless someone fails to show up, leading to some minor last minute adjustments. So sorry but "you base your encounters on what's actually involved in them" is, frankly, a silly criticism. White room theorycrafting is totally irrelevant to this situation, because this thread isn't about module writing.


An all-Mobile party is swingy: they effortlessly steamroll certain types of encounters (probably 30-60% of the encounters I've seen you create), and struggle with others. You wouldn't be able to resist changing your game to make it tougher on them, since you can't abide a 30-60% steamroll rate, and so the players would detect that you are tailoring the game to them.

The players would detect that the DM is... the horror... designing encounters. How terrible. From the start of this thread you've been framing it as "Malifice sabotages their players", which is something Malifice hasn't said.


It's blindingly obvious, even before we get into the fact that you'd also give away your preferences through your dislike of TPKs.

Do you want to know what the horrible secret of fifth edition is? The way most people are playing, they don't want a TPK, TPKs are considered a bad thing. Why is that? Because most games I see are people playing narrative driven games. If you're trying to have any meaning to your game beyond plotless dungeoncrawling, TPKs are a campaign ender, and quite possibly a group ender. The party getting mauled to death by a bear at level 2 due to RNG is immensely anticlimactic, and you'd be wise to note that none of the wildly popular D&D podcasts reviving interest in the game have that as an element. A TPK is something that has to exist in theory, there's little interest in it as a reality.


I'd want to play in a game where my choices matter.

You still make choices in combat and roleplay. Unless "choices" to you only means constructing a build that lets you feel like you got one over on the DM before play even starts. In which case I'd wonder why you haven't stuck with Pathfinder.


I'd want to play in a game where it's obvious that things COULD be boringly easy (and ideally skipped) or overwhelmingly difficult, depending on the choices I make, so I can meaningfully plan to maximize the former and minimize the latter.

And I'd rather be entertained, rather then have the DM set a deathtrap with no heed to party capabilities, then hope that said deathtrap is evadeable.


Constraint-solving is fun; but not if the constraints are evolving even after I plot my solution. That's no fun at all.

Adversarial D&D is no fun. Maybe its fun to you, but the way play has evolved away from stuff like DM vs Player antagonism and save-or-die effects and toward cooperation and improvised storytelling is an indication that you're in the minority.

[Glorthindel]

As per usual, these arguements tend to drive to the extremes, when both sides have a valid point.

To me the difference lies between "the party consists of mostly short-rest recharge characters, I had better design room in most adventures for a couple of rests a day", and "the party is entirely ranged and spellcasters, better not use any big hard-hitting monsters that need tanking". Certainly the talk of "customising is lying and a breach of trust" is ludicrous, but there is definitely a point where going too far the other way is bad, and over-customisation removes the whole point of choosing strengths and weaknesses.

In a long running campaign, I would say it was impossible not to tailor to the party to some degree, even just subconsciously. Obviously it is worth mentioning that DM prep time is limited, and time spent devising options that no one has any ability to utilise is wasted time. And if you have one player who is always wanting/trying to use a skill or tactic (the stealthy rogue for example) it certainly is worth considering times that he can use that ability.

But on the flipside, it is occasionally worth including an option the party lack the ability to utilise in order to give the players a nudge towards considering previously disregarded options. It never hurts if the party have chosen not to have anyone skilled in one area, to indicate that things exist for such a skilled character to utilise if the party want to expand in that direction in the future (both for times when existing characters can expand their skillset, or when players are looking at new character ideas after a death). This is especially the case if the party have consciously discarded an option in order to optimise the party in a different way, leaving them a glaring weak spot. If no-one can detect of disarm traps, then the solution is not to remove all traps from the game, otherwise there was no cost to the party ignoring that area of expertise. It is a fine line from seeming to deliberately punishing the players choices, but if you constantly adjust encounters to remove the cost of this choice, then the players choice has been rendered meaningless. If you can play the most oddly-statted, unoptimised character you can devise, and face exactly the same level of challenge as if you had min-maxxed the numbers to the absolutely minutest degree, then what was the point of doing any of it.

[MaxWilson]

Do you want to know what the horrible secret of fifth edition is? The way most people are playing, they don't want a TPK, TPKs are considered a bad thing. Why is that? Because most games I see are people playing narrative driven games. If you're trying to have any meaning to your game beyond plotless dungeoncrawling, TPKs are a campaign ender, and quite possibly a group ender. The party getting mauled to death by a bear at level 2 due to RNG is immensely anticlimactic, and you'd be wise to note that none of the wildly popular D&D podcasts reviving interest in the game have that as an element. A TPK is something that has to exist in theory, there's little interest in it as a reality.

*snip*

You still make choices in combat and roleplay. Unless "choices" to you only means constructing a build that lets you feel like you got one over on the DM before play even starts. In which case I'd wonder why you haven't stuck with Pathfinder.

I've no interest in Pathfinder. I'm an AD&D guy.

A DM who won't let the party TPK, as you concede many DMs don't, is one who doesn't let me choices matter, and therefore not a DM who's worth my precious free time.


And I'd rather be entertained, rather then have the DM set a deathtrap with no heed to party capabilities, then hope that said deathtrap is evadeable.

False dichotomy. You don't have to set deathtraps if you don't want to. AngryGM recommends designing against a "canonical party," a fictional party which is not your real party. That's one approach. A table-driven approach is also workable, if you design good tables (i.e. with lots of variation).

Then you telegraph the threat level to the players (which BTW is the whole reason old-school dungeons have levels in the first place--so they can gauge the level of difficulty instead of the DM tailoring the difficulty to them) and let them make their choices.

The players should base their choices on what the DM puts in the world. If the DM bases his choices for the world on what the players put on their character sheets, the game isn't worth my time. If you play the game for other reasons it may be worth your time though.


In a long running campaign, I would say it was impossible not to tailor to the party to some degree, even just subconsciously. Obviously it is worth mentioning that DM prep time is limited, and time spent devising options that no one has any ability to utilise is wasted time. And if you have one player who is always wanting/trying to use a skill or tactic (the stealthy rogue for example) it certainly is worth considering times that he can use that ability.

Or just give him some friendly advice on where to go to use that ability. "Sneaking around in disguise and stabbing people in the dark? Hey, you should enroll in the Lonesome Rose's debt-collection force! They raid the mansions of Kirathi nobles who haven't paid their gambling debts. The best part is that the Lonesome Rose lets them keep part of the loot that they seize!"

[War_lord]

A DM who won't let the party TPK, as you concede many DMs don't, is one who doesn't let me choices matter, and therefore not a DM who's worth my precious free time.

I wasn't trying to convince you personally and I don't think Malifice was either.


False dichotomy. You don't have to set deathtraps if you don't want to. AngryGM recommends designing against a "canonical party," a fictional party which is not your real party. That's one approach. A table-driven approach is also workable, if you design good tables (i.e. with lots of variation).

Or I could just design for the actual party of players who are giving up their free time to play, trusting me to make sure it's enjoyable. Not one of the three parties I run for would be happy if I said "sorry the session sucked and you all died forcing me to turn half of the session into the next game's session zero, but at least I kept my sense of simulationism intact!".

By "Table driven" I assume you mean random encounters. Maybe those made sense in the era of the killer DM to preserve some sense of fairness, but we're not in that era anymore. I'm the DM, I decide what's in the forest, not a random table.


Then you telegraph the threat level to the players (which BTW is the whole reason old-school dungeons have levels in the first place--so they can gauge the level of difficulty instead of the DM tailoring the difficulty to them) and let them make their choices.

I don't run dungeon crawls, the DM of the game I'm a player in doesn't do dungeon crawls. I literally tell DMs that I have no interest in dungeon crawls as a players and will do everything to avoid them. If I did ever feel like doing an old school dungeon crawl... I'd buy something on Steam, because CRPGs have been doing the dungeon crawl better then TRPGs for about thirty years now. Old school dungeons are boring to play, their existence shatters verisimilitude, and they fail to showcase the improvisation and true choice that's the strength of modern roleplaying.


The players should base their choices on what the DM puts in the world.

Players should base their characters on what they want to play. If a player based their character on wanting to outsmart me as a DM, I'd be disappointed, not because I'd feel threatened in any way (after all, I would tell them, if this was a game about me trying to kill you, you'd start in the Tarrasque's stomach.), I'd be disappointed because they're only damaging the game for themselves.


If the DM bases his choices for the world on what the players put on their character sheets, the game isn't worth my time. If you play the game for other reasons it may be worth your time though.

If the DM bases his choices on a random table, the game isn't worth my time.

[MaxWilson]

If the DM bases his choices on a random table, the game isn't worth my time.

"Other reasons."

[Easy_Lee]

Players enjoy creating their own solutions. I think we all agree on that. The best sessions I've ever had, as a player, were ones where our actions surprised everyone involved including the GM.

The more you design encounters to specifically challenge this or that player, the more assumptions you must make about how your players will act. You can't determine how high the players will need to roll until you guess what actions they're going to take.

I don't think it's either wise or safe for a GM to make any such assumptions. Creature CR is there so you can roughly predict an encounter's overall difficulty. That's all you need. Until you see how things play out, there's no reliable way to predict how difficult it will actually be nor who will struggle. One of your players might, and likely will, behave unexpectedly.

And you don't need powerful or interesting creatures to create a difficult or memorable encounter, either. Tucker's Kobolds were of a CR vastly below the party they destroyed. That was an interesting, engaging, memorable encounter and those qualities had nothing to do with the creatures used.