PDA

View Full Version : Pacing a megadungeon



Pages : [1] 2

Talakeal
2023-02-22, 03:47 PM
My next campaign is going to be an old school mega-dungeon.

In short, I am wondering how to incentivize the characters to actually push themselves in exploring it rather than falling back on the old 15 minute adventuring day routine.

I have never had much success with this in the past. The last time I tried to run a hex-crawl game everything I did, from wandering encounters to non-lethal death just made the problem worse.

The dungeon is directly under the town, Diablo style, so long journeys and expensive supplies are going to be tough to justify.

Likewise, tying resting to a RL clock is annoying and honestly more of a punishment for me as the DM than it is for the players.

Any ideas?

Maybe tweaking XP based on time since a rest? Random encounters getting more lethal over time?

Here is a link (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654504-Gateway-to-the-Dreamscapes-Megadungeon-Campaign-Log)to the campaign log, updated every four weeks.

Mastikator
2023-02-22, 04:00 PM
Give them a time restraint.

Consider how many long rests they actually need to deal with all the monsters. That's how many days they have until something really bad happens, if they beeline for the end-boss, let them. Reward them for catching the final bad guy with his pants down.

stoutstien
2023-02-22, 04:00 PM
What system? Some are definitely more able to turnkey hex Crawling thn others

Vahnavoi
2023-02-23, 05:02 AM
If you've played Diablo, or Angband, or most other games of the genre, whether on computer or tabletop, you ought to have realized that "15 minute workday" is the normal and expected tactic.

As in: the basic loop is, you go as deep as you can as quickly as you can, fill your pockets with loot, then retreat as quickly as you can back to safety, rinse and repeat. Abilities to make this easy (Town Portal, World of Recal, etc.) are staples of the genre.

If a single trip takes more than 15 minutes of real time to process, your system is slow for this kind of play. 30 to 45 minutes is still acceptable, allowing for several trips per 4-hour session

If you want to push exploration as an angle, you need to do away with basic conceits that allow this to happen. To give you some ground rules:

1) No safe retreat. Every time player characters want to rest, they have to establish a camp in detail, they have to set up watches, build traps and fortifications, etc.. It's part of gameplay and consequences follow from how they do it.

2) The goal is on the other side, AKA motive to keep moving. Give players hints for targets deep in the dungeon.

3) Rewards tied to exploring terrain, not some tangential thing. For example, the player characters could literally be paid for finding and mapping new rooms.

4) Most rooms are empty and most encounters aren't combat. This goes together with:

5) Time is a resource and is in fact the most common resource used. "15 minute workday" happens because characters have all kinds of other resource limits, but unlimited time. Turn that paradigm around. Wandering through empty hallways, clearing collapsed tunnels, disassembling traps, going around a pit, these don't consume spells or hitpoints or even equipment, but they do consume time. Put this together with 2) and 3), and efficient use of time becomes the key to progress.

6) Keep a calendar. Things inside and outside the dungeon change as days go by. Events in time will work as distant targets to encourage exploring just as well as distant targets in space. Put this together with 3) and 5) to create tasks such as "I want X pieces of ore by date Y".

kyoryu
2023-02-23, 07:58 AM
Historically:

Megadungeons were not "cleared". A single adventure was one trip into, and back out of, the dungeon.

The dungeon was a campaign setting, not a single thing to conquer.

The dungeon would restock between visits. This didn't necessarily mean "revert exactly to what it was", but to refill and be a challenge. If you wipe out the kobolds, they might stay wiped out.

Remember that in old D&D, treasure was 80% of your xp. You leveled from getting treasure, not from fighting. It was more heist than genocide.

There were usually ways to get out of danger if you got in it, but these usually cost in some way - treasure or supplies.

So the real challenge was - knowing what you do of hte dungeon (which may have changed), plot a likely path to the best treasure, avoiding as much of the denizens as possible, get the biggest score you could, and get back out safely.

So the 15 minute day didn't work. Any "progress" would effectively be undone, and you'd have lost any chance for the better treasure. I mean, sure, you could do it, but that would be generally a terrible idea beyond the first couple character levels.


If you've played Diablo, or Angband, or most other games of the genre, whether on computer or tabletop, you ought to have realized that "15 minute workday" is the normal and expected tactic.

It's useful to go back to NetHack on this one. In NetHack, murdering everything on a given level is, in general, a terrible tactic. The pressures of food and time will destroy you. You need to be efficient in what you're doing if you want to achieve anything.

KorvinStarmast
2023-02-23, 08:11 AM
The dungeon is directly under the town, Diablo style, so long journeys and expensive supplies are going to be tough to justify.
Did you ever try to do a 3@30 Diablo run?

Did you ever play the Iron Man variant?
One of the groups I played that variant with had the following custom rule: once you entered the cathedral, you could not return to town until you found that way up and out of the Catacombs at 5th level. Once you re-entered the Cats, you could not come up until you found the way up and out of the caves. Once you entered the caves, you could not come out until you found the path to the fissure behind the healer's hut (Perrin?} And once you went back down you could not come up until you had taken out Diablo or been beaten.

Exploration became a thing.

In our old school dungeons, treasure maps were one of the pieces of treasure that you could find.
Make treasure maps. They can be incomplete, or not have certain things marked on them.
Add to that rumors or old legends like "under the well in the depths of Fang Caverns lies the golden mallet of Kamakemilion, scourge of the undead. Once past the hall of Eversparkle, the well can be found - {and here the markings on the map end}"

Recovering that mallet becomes a quest, and the very finding of the Well and the hall of Eversparkle become objectives.
And they need to find that mallet because "in nine days the zombie hordes will erupt from the Fissure of Fandango, just north of town ..."

J-H
2023-02-23, 08:36 AM
Enforce one long rest per 24 hours. If they start coming down and going up repeatedly with a predictable route, enemies will find and trap that route. This does require pacing encounters on your part so that they can get in a solid 8 hour adventuring day without being out of resources after the first two encounters.

One thing the Angry GM did in his Megadungeon series was have the party get trapped in it due to a collapsing tunnel for a couple of levels. You could pull that one or two times in different ways.

Vahnavoi
2023-02-23, 08:54 AM
@kyoryu: it's never possible to kill everything in classic Angband: every level keeps generating wandering monsters while a player stays there and every level is replaced by a whole new one upon exiting and re-entering. A non-savvy player could theoretically go back and forth between Town and Level 1, grinding low-level threats for increasingly diminishing returns, forever.

It's a game of infinite resources over time, both ways. What isn't infinite is how much stuff a player has at hand at a given moment, which is what creates the "15 minute workday" dynamic. Escaping to safety once you've blown your load is just basic tactics in such an environment.

NetHack is different because it follows many of the rules I already mentioned. Notably, it lacks a safe Town level, fullfilling Rule 1).

King of Nowhere
2023-02-23, 09:06 AM
The thing is, lacking time pressure or other issues, the 15 minutes adventuring day is the smart, sensible thing to do. The adventurer who risks his life because he can't be patient for anorher day is not a hero nor a champion, but a moron.
So, while people may want to play a risky exploration, they are also savy enough to recognize when a behavior is dumb, and they don't want to feel dumb.

Therefore, it is your task as dm to come up with ways to pressure them.
There are many ways, but i can group them in two categories:
1) give them a time limit. Something bad will happen if they dither. Options vary from "doomsday happens" to "somebody else will arrive first and take the treasure in your place".
2) block the party inside, and make resting dangerous. At low level a cave-in can work. At high level you need to put teleport blockers and a bunch of other conditions.

Notice that the time/travel limit need not be true. Your players being uncertain on whether bad things will happen will generally work.

So, it's up to you to pick a reasonable excuse that would fit the setting.
One final piece of advice. If your players go out of their way to bypass your restrictions and get a rest, let them. They earned it. Some players like to be smart heroes and find creative solutions instead of just smashing door after door.
Putting a sensible obstacle to keep them from resupplying is fine, but if your players find a workaround and you just deny it you become an oppressive railroading dm.

ciopo
2023-02-23, 09:10 AM
step 1: all encounters "resets/respawns" on long rest
step 2: only "new" encounters give loot/wealth/experience/progress
step 3: calibrate "fast travel"/"encounter bypassing milestones" at around the amount of progress you feel is appropriate for 1 day of adventuring

so, if they nova hard and spend all resource to nuke one encounter... they gained whatever that encounter was worth... and they will have to face it again the day after, but gain nothing from it, thus they must defeat it with less resource expenditure, so they have resources for the next encounter. Mix and match how many eno****ers and how hard they should be in a day to taste

Talakeal
2023-02-23, 11:02 AM
Give them a time restraint.

Consider how many long rests they actually need to deal with all the monsters. That's how many days they have until something really bad happens, if they beeline for the end-boss, let them. Reward them for catching the final bad guy with his pants down.

Is there any way I can communicate this pressure to them?

They also aren't going to know how big the dungeon is or where the "last boss" is without having already explored it.


What system? Some are definitely more able to turnkey hex Crawling thn others

I haven't decided yet. Maybe D&D (any edition but 4), maybe something OSR, maybe one of my homebrew systems.

Some simulationist fantasy adventure game.


If you've played Diablo, or Angband, or most other games of the genre, whether on computer or tabletop, you ought to have realized that "15 minute workday" is the normal and expected tactic.

As in: the basic loop is, you go as deep as you can as quickly as you can, fill your pockets with loot, then retreat as quickly as you can back to safety, rinse and repeat. Abilities to make this easy (Town Portal, World of Recal, etc.) are staples of the genre.

If a single trip takes more than 15 minutes of real time to process, your system is slow for this kind of play. 30 to 45 minutes is still acceptable, allowing for several trips per 4-hour session

Ok, when you say "as deep as you can" that's the key issue. If players went "as deep as they could" there would be no issue. The problem is that the optimal move is instead to turn around and head back to town the first time a resource is depleted in any way.

Not quite sure what tabletop RPG could do an entire expedition in 15 minutes; heck most rounds of combat last longer than that at tables I have been at regardless of the system.



Historically:

Megadungeons were not "cleared". A single adventure was one trip into, and back out of, the dungeon.

The dungeon was a campaign setting, not a single thing to conquer.

The dungeon would restock between visits. This didn't necessarily mean "revert exactly to what it was", but to refill and be a challenge. If you wipe out the kobolds, they might stay wiped out.

Remember that in old D&D, treasure was 80% of your xp. You leveled from getting treasure, not from fighting. It was more heist than genocide.

There were usually ways to get out of danger if you got in it, but these usually cost in some way - treasure or supplies.

So the real challenge was - knowing what you do of hte dungeon (which may have changed), plot a likely path to the best treasure, avoiding as much of the denizens as possible, get the biggest score you could, and get back out safely.

So the 15 minute day didn't work. Any "progress" would effectively be undone, and you'd have lost any chance for the better treasure. I mean, sure, you could do it, but that would be generally a terrible idea beyond the first couple character levels.

Most of this I am already doing.

Are you implying that I should restock the entire dungeon with monsters every visit, but not the treasure?

That would work, but doesn't that also mean that we are going to be spending the first few hours of the every session fighting monsters in the same few rooms without major reward? That sounds horribly tedious.


Enforce one long rest per 24 hours. If they start coming down and going up repeatedly with a predictable route, enemies will find and trap that route. This does require pacing encounters on your part so that they can get in a solid 8 hour adventuring day without being out of resources after the first two encounters.

One thing the Angry GM did in his Megadungeon series was have the party get trapped in it due to a collapsing tunnel for a couple of levels. You could pull that one or two times in different ways.

Knowing my players they would just go back to town they after springing each trap until they miraculously got through without ever springing a single one.

Trapping players in the dungeon might work once or twice, but making it a regular thing strains plausibility and also cuts off the players to interact with the whole town side of the game (buying and selling, talking to NPCs, crafting or other downtime projects, etc.)


Enforce one long rest per 24 hours. If they start coming down and going up repeatedly with a predictable route, enemies will find and trap that route. This does require pacing encounters on your part so that they can get in a solid 8 hour adventuring day without being out of resources after the first two encounters.

One thing the Angry GM did in his Megadungeon series was have the party get trapped in it due to a collapsing tunnel for a couple of levels. You could pull that one or two times in different ways.

Knowing my players they would just go back to town they after springing each trap until they miraculously got through without ever springing a single one.

Trapping players in the dungeon might work once or twice, but making it a regular thing strains plausibility and also cuts off the players to interact with the whole town side of the game (buying and selling, talking to NPCs, crafting or other downtime projects, etc.)



@kyoryu: it's never possible to kill everything in classic Angband: every level keeps generating wandering monsters while a player stays there and every level is replaced by a whole new one upon exiting and re-entering. A non-savvy player could theoretically go back and forth between Town and Level 1, grinding low-level threats for increasingly diminishing returns, forever.

Why is that non-savvy? That sounds like a pretty optimal strategy to me.


@kyoryu: it's never possible to kill everything in classic Angband: every level keeps generating wandering monsters while a player stays there and every level is replaced by a whole new one upon exiting and re-entering. A non-savvy player could theoretically go back and forth between Town and Level 1, grinding low-level threats for increasingly diminishing returns, forever.

Why is that non-savvy? That sounds like a pretty optimal strategy to me.


1) No safe retreat. Every time player characters want to rest, they have to establish a camp in detail, they have to set up watches, build traps and fortifications, etc.. It's part of gameplay and consequences

If the players can rest in the dungeon, doesn't that just make the problem worse?

AFAICT trying to sleep in the dungeon in old school D&D was basically Russian roulette, it was a great tactic until you rolled a bad random encounter while already out of resources and then it was game over.

It seems like it would turn the game into "Can you find a safe place to rest? If so, infinite resources you win. If not, random TPK in the night, you lose."



step 1: all encounters "resets/respawns" on long rest
step 2: only "new" encounters give loot/wealth/experience/progress
step 3: calibrate "fast travel"/"encounter bypassing milestones" at around the amount of progress you feel is appropriate for 1 day of adventuring

so, if they nova hard and spend all resource to nuke one encounter... they gained whatever that encounter was worth... and they will have to face it again the day after, but gain nothing from it, thus they must defeat it with less resource expenditure, so they have resources for the next encounter. Mix and match how many eno****ers and how hard they should be in a day to taste

Hmmm. I guess this could work if there are a LOT of shortcuts.

Otherwise it seems like we are just going to be doing the same few fights over and over and over until everyone, including the GM, is bored to tears and hates that game.


The thing is, lacking time pressure or other issues, the 15 minutes adventuring day is the smart, sensible thing to do. The adventurer who risks his life because he can't be patient for anorher day is not a hero nor a champion, but a moron.
So, while people may want to play a risky exploration, they are also savy enough to recognize when a behavior is dumb, and they don't want to feel dumb.

Agreed.

Sort of.

In real life, you don't want unnecessary encounters. In the fiction, a wandering monster or a trap can easily inflict a fatal wound on a person. While by the rules of most games, resources are more ablative, you aren't in any threat until you are worn down.

Add spell slots into the equation, and it gets even worse.

J-H
2023-02-23, 11:41 AM
Is there any way I can communicate this pressure to them?

They also aren't going to know how big the dungeon is or where the "last boss" is without having already explored it.
Why do they need to do the dungeon at all? What is the external pressure?

Examples:
When I ran Castle Dracula (Castlevania), it was "Dracula's army is besieging Vienna and Constantinople. If you take too long, cities will die." There was also no easy way out (it took several level-ups of encounters to get to the castle proper), and they got one free long rest every time they leveled. When they got near the final tower, a basically endless horde of skeletons started chasing them. They blocked the skeletons off with a heavy door, but they knew the skeletons would climb up and find a way to them if they kept going.

With Kaveman26's Cattle-Driving Necromancers campaign log, I think there was a big camp of opportunists to navigate outside, including dragons, and some deadlines related to a BBEG.


The external pressure or time factors are up to you and your campaign, but you need to have them. Ideas:

Maybe someone's summoning Mephistopheles (NWN Underdark xpack).
Maybe vampires are lairing in the bottom and raiding the city every third night, using their gaseous form to bypass all the traps and other inhabitants, so the only way you can reach them is by fighting your way down.
Maybe someone's charging up a giant doom machine and scholars say you only have 30+3d6 days to find the shutdown button.
The McGuffin might be destabilizing the area around it, with anyone within 10 miles having to make a Charisma save every 7 days to avoid getting turned into a Gibbering Mouther or Chaos Beast or something else bad. The DC starts at 1 but increases by 1 every week. If the players mess around, NPCs start dying, and they risk dying as well.

Just find something, or preferably two factors, that means "We need to hurry and push on."

Quertus
2023-02-23, 12:14 PM
First things first: Let your players play the game however they want to. Part of the point of a megadungeon is that the players can approach it however they want, it doesn’t inherently have arbitrary time pressures. Like, “world’s largest dungeon”, kinda a case study in doing things wrong, has a whopping 2 “must do” encounters, one of which has (iirc) a 100-day timer. That’s right, the PCs have 100 long rests as one of two timers on the whole dungeon. (Of course, failure means the world ends. No pressure.)

That said… if I had your players… hmmm…

1) the dungeon repopulates. Every X amount of time, the dungeon is “reborn” (albeit not necessarily identically). If you didn’t make it to the end, you have to start over.

2) the PCs aren’t the only ones going after this dungeon. Whatever you don’t clear, the next group going in might.

2b) I’d have at least one other actual group playing at the same time; ie, another group of PCs is taking turns with this megadungeon. This means that, to stay in sync, 1 gaming session = 1 specific period of time (presumably, 1 long rest).

3) the town manages the dungeon, and the PCs have to buy timed “rights” to certain levels.

4) different entrances / paths lead to different areas of different difficulty, length, theme, and reward.

5) death not only does nothing, it’s the only way out of the dungeon. This way, your players get experience knowing exactly how far they can push themselves, and can use that knowledge in later adventures. For bonus points, have the players state when they think they’ve reached their limits, to test how good they are (or aren’t) at making that determination.

Mix and match to taste.

So, if the party starts out as 1st level scrubs, they start clearing out the 1st level (or pick up where the previous scrubs left off, depending on what turn order they purchased), and retreat. Once the group leaves (or if the timer runs out - perhaps they’re dead), the next group goes in and continues their efforts. Once all the groups are done, they can choose to go in again, or wait until they are more rested and/or wait until the dungeon restocks.

——- sample ——-

So, in 3e D&D, I might have a dungeon that randomly resets every 2d3+1 days. Entry into the main path costs 1 gold per party, plus 1 silver per character, plus 1 copper per minion/pet/mount/familiar/etc (pocket change, really, but it pays for the town guards); if you come out with monsters in hot pursuit, expect additional fines.

When the dungeon resets, it doesn’t just repopulate monsters and traps and treasures, but what monsters and treasures and traps are there may change, and even the entire layout may change. Certain layers change every time; certain other layers have never changed. However, there’s certain features that are always true; for example, there’s always a trap on level 3 that is a huge slide down to level 40. The monsters on level 40&41 are always low-loot for their threat. But very rarely level 42 will grant a “dungeon Wish”. One of the early explorers (who later went on to become a legendary hero) was the first to be granted a dungeon wish, and used it to open up a second entrance to the dungeon.

Since then, 3 more entrances to the dungeon have been created, allowing higher level parties to more easily farm better loot without having to wait for others to clear the path (or having to slog through everything themselves).

These entrances are important for another reason. When the dungeon resets, there are complex rules that amount to, “if the population of a section has not been sufficiently depleted, add a stack to the count for that section. When the count reaches the max for that section (often 1), disgorge monsters of a corresponding type.” In short, it has been discovered that certain sections need to be hit periodically to prevent the dungeon from sending monsters out into the town.

Occasionally, the dungeon will “glitch”, spawning a being seemingly working against the dungeon. They offer timed quests (usually “before the next reset”) to shut down a section of the dungeon. Once a certain number of sections are shut down (fewer than the number of sections that are known to disgorge monsters, sadly), the next reset will restore all sections to default… but with an additional glitch of doubling treasure drops during that reset. Needless to say, everyone is encouraged to complete these quests.

This dungeon is considered a national treasure; adventures from other nations are generally not welcome.

The guild manages turn order; those with higher rank in the guild (ie, more success) have higher priority to choose their order. Usually, higher level parties will get lower level parties to work the easier levels of a section. Sometimes, two higher level teams work together and alternate, either who goes after the scrubs, or dispensing with the scrubs entirely.

The guild must have some Secret, because beings not registered with the guild cannot enter the dungeon.

The dungeon doesn’t exist in real space - digging into the side of the dungeon just reveals more dirt/rock.

The different sections aren’t actually all vertical; the “level” numbers are more like page numbers, with the book written in the order the sections were found. Level 60-69 form a section that sees the party moving up, for example, while sometimes “levels” in a section are all actually at the same height.

kyoryu
2023-02-23, 01:12 PM
They also aren't going to know how big the dungeon is or where the "last boss" is without having already explored it.

There isn't a "last boss" in an old school megadungeon. Keep in mind they were intended to be used as a campaign setting that lasted for years, for large groups of people that would fluctuate over time.


Are you implying that I should restock the entire dungeon with monsters every visit, but not the treasure?

Treasure can regen too. The point is, it's going to be low value treasure.


That would work, but doesn't that also mean that we are going to be spending the first few hours of the every session fighting monsters in the same few rooms without major reward? That sounds horribly tedious.

So if they're not getting reward, why would they keep doing that? Also, not every room should be stocked, so getting from Point A to Point B shouldn't require fighting all of the monsters every time. Cleverly avoiding them is the winning move.


AFAICT trying to sleep in the dungeon in old school D&D was basically Russian roulette, it was a great tactic until you rolled a bad random encounter while already out of resources and then it was game over.

The ideal move is to get out of the dungeon under your own steam without resting. Everything else is suboptimal, but sometimes might be the best move you have available.


It seems like it would turn the game into "Can you find a safe place to rest? If so, infinite resources you win. If not, random TPK in the night, you lose."

There's no safe places. Just places that are less risky.


Otherwise it seems like we are just going to be doing the same few fights over and over and over until everyone, including the GM, is bored to tears and hates that game.

The game should be very non-linear and have major passages that aren't just full of creatures, etc. I'd really like to find a good example of a megadungeon to give you an idea. But it's not in any way linear.

Also, megadungeons aren't dense in the way that others dungeons are. They're not a series of combat encounters with minimal spacing.

As a third point, that was all based on systems where combat is comparatively quick, not something that takes an hour. Especially for trivial ones (and monsters can also run away).

So, no, you shouldn't have a huge list of encounters to run through. The actual encounters to get through, when you know where you're going, should be much smaller, and this style was designed presuming that combat was faster. A lot of the game is learning how to avoid/minimize encounters, as well... yes, you're leaving the encounter XP on the table, but you're doing that to get to the bigger rewards down the line.


In real life, you don't want unnecessary encounters. In the fiction, a wandering monster or a trap can easily inflict a fatal wound on a person. While by the rules of most games, resources are more ablative, you aren't in any threat until you are worn down.

Add spell slots into the equation, and it gets even worse.

Random monsters are, fundamentally, time pressure.

stoutstien
2023-02-23, 01:31 PM
Grab a copy of worlds without numbers. Free PDF.

Lot of tools to help frame any game regardless of system as far as this goes.

Narrative tools should be your primary focus. Mechanics will follow suit once you have that frame in place.

ciopo
2023-02-23, 01:39 PM
step 1: all encounters "resets/respawns" on long rest
step 2: only "new" encounters give loot/wealth/experience/progress
step 3: calibrate "fast travel"/"encounter bypassing milestones" at around the amount of progress you feel is appropriate for 1 day of adventuring

so, if they nova hard and spend all resource to nuke one encounter... they gained whatever that encounter was worth... and they will have to face it again the day after, but gain nothing from it, thus they must defeat it with less resource expenditure, so they have resources for the next encounter. Mix and match how many eno****ers and how hard they should be in a day to taste


Is there any way I can communicate this pressure to them?
Hmmm. I guess this could work if there are a LOT of shortcuts.

Otherwise it seems like we are just going to be doing the same few fights over and over and over until everyone, including the GM, is bored to tears and hates that game.
I don't know what your preferred pacing would be, but let's say each time they defeat a miniboss, guarding the stairs going down a level, they get a teleportation token that let them teleport to those stairs going down.

So, if they don't want to repeat the same content with no progression ad nauseam, they "must" reach and defeat a new miniboss. Calibrate the amount of rooms/encounters along the way accordingly to how difficult you want a floor to be, and it becomes very puzzlelike, like they nuke a first encounter to learn its in and outs, next time they can spend less resources on it to have more resources for the next step toward the miniboss

kinda timeloop feel actually, you could wrap it around to be a timeloop story fairly easily, just put some "your consciousness is sent back in time but your body is not, boss creatures drop "save points" for permanent progress"

very gamified tho

King of Nowhere
2023-02-23, 02:04 PM
Agreed.

Sort of.

In real life, you don't want unnecessary encounters. In the fiction, a wandering monster or a trap can easily inflict a fatal wound on a person. While by the rules of most games, resources are more ablative, you aren't in any threat until you are worn down.

Add spell slots into the equation, and it gets even worse.

Depends on the risk/reward.

in real life, an invading barbarian horde would risk death every time they sacked a village; a paesant could easily kill somebody with a hunting bow or a pitchfork. but they took the risk every time to loot the village.
if those monsters - for some inexplicable reason - have treasure, then it is normal that adventurers will go out of their way to hunt them

ahyangyi
2023-02-23, 02:31 PM
Daily spell limit is one way to run the resource management game.

Food is also the traditional roguelike resource. I guess you want to get rid of certain spells if you go this route. And encourages eating and even processing the corpses of monsters, which isn't good for all tables.

Impeding doom is another.

And another resource management idea inspired by roguelike games is powerful consumables as both part of the loot and the main resource to manage. Combat would be brutal and you'd really need to use your consumables well to win them. Then avoiding combat becomes valuable because it saves your consumables.

So you don't have to rely on one way to do resource management, you can use another. Alternatively, you can also just decide that resource management is dumb. You are playing an RPG, not a management game, after all.

Talakeal
2023-02-23, 03:05 PM
So you don't have to rely on one way to do resource management, you can use another. Alternatively, you can also just decide that resource management is dumb. You are playing an RPG, not a management game, after all.

Unfortunately, all RPGs I am familiar with use resource management as the primary, and to an extent the only, form of mechanical challenge.


Depends on the risk/reward.

in real life, an invading barbarian horde would risk death every time they sacked a village; a peasant could easily kill somebody with a hunting bow or a pitchfork. but they took the risk every time to loot the village.
if those monsters - for some inexplicable reason - have treasure, then it is normal that adventurers will go out of their way to hunt them

Right.

What I am more talking about is traps and wandering monsters; these are non-issues for PCs because the risk of death is practically nil in any combat that the PCs have not been beaten down in first.

The last hex-crawl I ran suffered from this problem; the PCs would go back to town after the first fight of every dungeon, and if they actually suffered any noticeable resource expenditure on the way to the dungeon, they would abort the journey entirely. More random encounters made the problem worse, not better.

In real life / narrative, you are not significantly less likely to die if you take an arrow to the chest in the first fight or the last fight, so the goal should be minimizing the number of fights total.


I don't know what your preferred pacing would be, but let's say each time they defeat a miniboss, guarding the stairs going down a level, they get a teleportation token that let them teleport to those stairs going down.

Preferably something that requires the players to put some thought into the game and where actions can potentially have consequences.

I can't really get much more specific than that.

Vahnavoi
2023-02-23, 03:38 PM
Is there any way I can communicate this pressure to them?

Yes. Keep a calendar and make your players keep a calendar. Even better, have a clock, with some things happening in actual real time. Character dialogue is the easy example: how long it takes your players to say a thing is how long saying the thing actually takes. No more "talking is a free action".



Ok, when you say "as deep as you can" that's the key issue. If players went "as deep as they could" there would be no issue. The problem is that the optimal move is instead to turn around and head back to town the first time a resource is depleted in any way.

You grossly misunderstand. Depletion of resources is what decides how deep you can go. This is based on actual consumption, not hypothetical rationing. Used up a vital resource, like all your ammo, in the first room? Welp, that's as far as you could go. Time to head back. This isn't "optimal". It is basic. Good players can get farther with the same resources, while maintaining the same level of risk, because they can ration better. That way, they begin to approach optimality. Actual optimality is something else.


Not quite sure what tabletop RPG could do an entire expedition in 15 minutes; heck most rounds of combat last longer than that at tables I have been at regardless of the system.

Systems build for speed. You are used to stupid crunchy games where even wiping your ass takes a die roll and a table look-up. I can't give you names because most of my examples aren't commercial, they're unnamed custom engines made by convention game masters like me to teach new players how to play roleplaying games as quickly as we can manage.



Why is that non-savvy? That sounds like a pretty optimal strategy to me.

You must've missed "forever". The lack of savviness is the idea of trying to clear a dungeon level that cannot be cleared, like trying to kill all the monsters when new ones will always wander to the area, or trying to make a complete map of a structure that changes when you aren't looking at it. The task can literally never be finished, because the attempt is based on false assumption.

If we move past that misconception, the question you're asking is effectively "why would a player move from level 1 to level 2?" The answer is what was already said: diminishing returns. In Angband, each character level takes more experience points than the last, and each monster gives less experience point for each kill. Put together, staying at dungeon level 1 killing level 1 enemies means you hit a plateau in progression. It also means you ever level 1 treasure that sells for pennies. On the equipment side, there's a limited selection in town. Put together, this means very slowly working towards a hard cap.

It might be possible to become effectively invulnerable to level 1 enemies this way, but before that point, it means taking the same risks over and over again for ever decreasing gains. This is not "optimal" in any shape or form. At most, it's "optimal" for making sure a character doesn't die. But on a higher level, playing this risk-averse means that Morgoth wins. He has infinite resources too and maintains control of 99 levels out of 100 while the player grinds away.

Actual optimal play moves down to dungeon level 2 when player hits diminishing returns, then repeats and moves to 3, then 4, so on and so forth. The strategy breaks down late in the dungeon because character level and effective equipment hit functional gaps before dungeon level 100. Grinding in the lower levels cannot actually decrease even the risks of playing at those levels. At that point, the player will have to be actually good at tactics and start to beeline for stairs to beat the game. They can return to earlier dungeon levels to be invincible there, but, again, this means Morgoth wins.



If the players can rest in the dungeon, doesn't that just make the problem worse?

[. . .]

It seems like it would turn the game into "Can you find a safe place to rest? If so, infinite resources you win. If not, random TPK in the night, you lose."

Wrong. Games in the style of Angband have infinite resources, because retreating to safety and restocking is always an option.

In the alternative suggested, infinite resources are neither here nor there. Finding and upholding camp takes time and work. In short, it costs resources, not just replenishes them. This means a camp is unlikely to be safe in perpetuity - if the players want to maintain a level of risk, they have to move on.

Random TPKs can be a thing in both or neither. They are very much a thing in Angband. A player character does regenerate health and spellpoints while in the dungeon. However, monsters regenerate too, and new wandering monsters arrive out of sight. Resting in the wrong spot means no ground is gained, or worse. Infinite resources cut both ways.

WrittenInBlood
2023-02-23, 03:54 PM
Make monster respawn dependent on their "nests", scattered around - spawning pools, summoning chambers, portals or something like this, flavor it to taste. Players should be aware of how it works, or else they will think everything just resets to the starting state. Pressure to find and eliminate "nests" first will encourage exploration, eliminating them will clearly mark party progress, turning back without getting at least one "nest" will be intended fail state.

Talakeal
2023-02-23, 05:00 PM
Grab a copy of worlds without numbers. Free PDF.

Lot of tools to help frame any game regardless of system as far as this goes.

Narrative tools should be your primary focus. Mechanics will follow suit once you have that frame in place.

Downloaded and skimmed the entire book.

From what I could tell, it was just a slightly stripped-down AD&D with tons of tables for things that I find unnecessary, and my players won't give two craps about.

The only rule I noticed that I could tell had any bearing to this was the spell slots; fewer castings per day but not broken up by level, which seems like it would make the appeal of going nova so much worse.

Could you please direct me toward what sections I of the book I should read in more detail?


Yes. Keep a calendar and make your players keep a calendar. Even better, have a clock, with some things happening in actual real time. Character dialogue is the easy example: how long it takes your players to say a thing is how long saying the thing actually takes. No more "talking is a free action".

A calendar only helps if the players already know everything about the scenario; how big the dungeon is, how much time they have to explore it, and what is the optimal path to whatever they need to stop to avert the clock.

I don't follow. What does keeping a clock or making players talk in real time have to do with pacing dungeon exploration?





You grossly misunderstand. Depletion of resources is what decides how deep you can go. This is based on actual consumption, not hypothetical rationing. Used up a vital resource, like all your ammo, in the first room? Welp, that's as far as you could go. Time to head back. This isn't "optimal". It is basic. Good players can get farther with the same resources, while maintaining the same level of risk, because they can ration better. That way, they begin to approach optimality. Actual optimality is something else.

But what is the pressure to make the characters actually try and engage with the game?

Why not just blow all of your ammo (and other resources) in the first room and go back to town? Why ration at all? Why go deeper?


Systems build for speed. You are used to stupid crunchy games where even wiping your ass takes a die roll and a table look-up. I can't give you names because most of my examples aren't commercial, they're unnamed custom engines made by convention game masters like me to teach new players how to play roleplaying games as quickly as we can manage.

I am going to guess by "stupid" you mean "requires thought", which is almost the opposite.

IMO, it isn't "crunchiness" that slows down the game until the high end of player skill; for most people its an inability to remember the rules, focus, do mental math, etc.

At higher player skill, it is abut weighing options and making plans, which is imo a good thing.

Both ends of the spectrum, of course, suffer from decision paralysis, but I don't think the system has any influence over that.


Also, its really weird that you like old school dungeon crawling but hate crunchy games. That seems like such a contradiction.



You must've missed "forever". The lack of savviness is the idea of trying to clear a dungeon level that cannot be cleared, like trying to kill all the monsters when new ones will always wander to the area, or trying to make a complete map of a structure that changes when you aren't looking at it. The task can literally never be finished, because the attempt is based on false assumption.

If we move past that misconception, the question you're asking is effectively "why would a player move from level 1 to level 2?" The answer is what was already said: diminishing returns. In Angband, each character level takes more experience points than the last, and each monster gives less experience point for each kill. Put together, staying at dungeon level 1 killing level 1 enemies means you hit a plateau in progression. It also means you ever level 1 treasure that sells for pennies. On the equipment side, there's a limited selection in town. Put together, this means very slowly working towards a hard cap.

It might be possible to become effectively invulnerable to level 1 enemies this way, but before that point, it means taking the same risks over and over again for ever decreasing gains. This is not "optimal" in any shape or form. At most, it's "optimal" for making sure a character doesn't die. But on a higher level, playing this risk-averse means that Morgoth wins. He has infinite resources too and maintains control of 99 levels out of 100 while the player grinds away.

Actual optimal play moves down to dungeon level 2 when player hits diminishing returns, then repeats and moves to 3, then 4, so on and so forth. The strategy breaks down late in the dungeon because character level and effective equipment hit functional gaps before dungeon level 100. Grinding in the lower levels cannot actually decrease even the risks of playing at those levels. At that point, the player will have to be actually good at tactics and start to beeline for stairs to beat the game. They can return to earlier dungeon levels to be invincible there, but, again, this means Morgoth wins.

I have never played Angband. I have played a lot of Diablo.

Is there a timer you are fighting against? What does it mean for Morgoth to win?

In virtually every RPG I have ever played, Diablo included, the optimum strategy is to grind the easy area until you cannot progress there anymore, then repeat in the next easiest area.

The only way to prevent this that I can find is random cheap death. In Diablo, this just means you load your save. In a game with actual stakes, it means the game is over and everyone is pissed off, especially if the random cheap death occurred as a consequence of natural play.


Wrong. Games in the style of Angband have infinite resources, because retreating to safety and restocking is always an option.

That's great, but for a game with unlimited resources to have any challenge at all, it requires a level of skill far higher than most players are capable of.



In the alternative suggested, infinite resources are neither here nor there. Finding and upholding camp takes time and work. In short, it costs resources, not just replenishes them. This means a camp is unlikely to be safe in perpetuity - if the players want to maintain a level of risk, they have to move on.

What does a camp costing resources look like in practice?

Quertus
2023-02-23, 06:03 PM
Sample #2 - grey hawk meets Diablo

2e D&D, random loot tables (that orc might be carrying a vorpal blade, or a Staff of the Magi, whereas a Dragon might have a potion or Cursed item).

Set encounters do not repopulate; random encounters also get depleted, but do replenish over time (representing monsters crawling up from below or something).

Adventure deep enough, and you might find another entrance, hidden from the outside. This allows new “start/spawn points”, so the PCs don’t have to start from scratch every time.

Still would be nice to have at least 1 other PC party Exploring the dungeon in tandem. Optimal would be to write scripts for a number of other parties Exploring the dungeon

Mastikator
2023-02-23, 06:10 PM
Is there any way I can communicate this pressure to them?

They also aren't going to know how big the dungeon is or where the "last boss" is without having already explored it.

Why are they exploring it at all? They must have some kind of incentive, a quest or the promise of treasure. You can use that to inform them that the treasure will be used against them, or that the last boss (which is unknown) will do something bad.

A decent way to ensure they care about the last boss doing something bad is to first establish a status quo that works in the players favor, then inform them that the last boss intends on destroying it. It can be something like "they live happily in a nice village where everything is nice and peaceful, then the evil creatures arrived and started killing, they come from the mega dungeon and work for the mysterious evil overlord that they've heard about in folk lore".

Make sure the details conform to whatever setting you're planning on running. Players are spurred into action either because they wish to protect a status quo that benefit them, or because they wish to disrupt a status quo that disadvantage them. Work with your players when making characters, and secretly plot against create incentives for them to spur them into going into the mega dungeon.

Talakeal
2023-02-23, 06:31 PM
Why are they exploring it at all? They must have some kind of incentive, a quest or the promise of treasure. You can use that to inform them that the treasure will be used against them, or that the last boss (which is unknown) will do something bad.

A decent way to ensure they care about the last boss doing something bad is to first establish a status quo that works in the players favor, then inform them that the last boss intends on destroying it. It can be something like "they live happily in a nice village where everything is nice and peaceful, then the evil creatures arrived and started killing, they come from the mega dungeon and work for the mysterious evil overlord that they've heard about in folk lore".

Make sure the details conform to whatever setting you're planning on running. Players are spurred into action either because they wish to protect a status quo that benefit them, or because they wish to disrupt a status quo that disadvantage them. Work with your players when making characters, and secretly plot against create incentives for them to spur them into going into the mega dungeon.

That's pretty close to what I am going for.

They just aren't going to learn about the "evil overlord" until well into the dungeon, at first its just "figure out where these monsters are coming from and wipe them out at the source!"

kyoryu
2023-02-23, 06:31 PM
I mean, really, the first question of order is "what does a megadungeon mean to you?" I can tell you what it means in a 1eAD&D kind of way, and what that implies about campaign structure. But without that, we can't give whys. And without the whys, the whats are kinda hard.

gbaji
2023-02-23, 06:32 PM
Ok, when you say "as deep as you can" that's the key issue. If players went "as deep as they could" there would be no issue. The problem is that the optimal move is instead to turn around and head back to town the first time a resource is depleted in any way.

Knowing my players they would just go back to town they after springing each trap until they miraculously got through without ever springing a single one.

Trapping players in the dungeon might work once or twice, but making it a regular thing strains plausibility and also cuts off the players to interact with the whole town side of the game (buying and selling, talking to NPCs, crafting or other downtime projects, etc.)

And there's your problem. You need to decide what kind of dungeon this is. On the one hand, you seem to not want your PCs to just hoof it back to town after every encounter to rest safely, resupply, sell loot, buy new stuff, and then head back in. But on the other hand, you seem to want them to do exactly that. But you want to somehow force them to travel a specific distance into the dungeon in each trip from/to town that suits your view of "enough dungeoneering for one trip", but it's not the same as what they think is "enough dungeoneering for one trip".

Is this megadungeon something to be "won/defeated/whatever"? Or is it a massive setting with tons of dungeon crawl stuff to go explore? The former maybe doesn't fit well into the "megadungeon" model. You should instead have some specific threat in the dungeon, and a specific time frame it needs to be defeated, and then send them off to deal with it.

An actual megadungeon is it's own thing. It's the sprawling underworld with a cave leading to it near town, that draws adventurers from all over to risk their lives exploring. If you actually want do do a megadungeon, here are the suggestions I would make:

1. Make travelling into/outof the dungeon something significant that they must commit to. Either make it a very long distance away from town or require that some significant "chunk" of the dungeon must be completed before one can quickly/easily return. Otherwise, they must slog through the same terraign again each time.

2. As mentioned above, instead of it being a single multi-leveled dungeon, make multiple themed areas, which can be accessed independently. So the initial cave has a half dozen portals in it. Each transports you somewhere deep into the dungeon complex, and requires that you locate the exit portal/key/whatever to leave.

3. Have additional/deeper dungeon areas be "keyed". The first tier of areas can be accessed openly from the starting cave. Within can be found keys that will open up access to additional areas. Perhaps the chamber you are transported to also has additional portals which you can't use initially. Finding the keys to them will allow for quick travel to "new/deeper" areas (travel through first portal to entry chamber of a dungeon area, then can use any portals there that you have the keys for in order to travel to new/deeper/tougher areas).

4. Rinse and repeat. Note that you can make some areas themed and linear (you find the keys to portals in an areas starting chamber within that area), or non-linear (keys to portals may be scattered around, forcing you to explore multiple starting areas before you can find keys. Also, until you have found the exit area, you have no way to actually leave, so you can't just find a key in area1, to a portal in area3 and hop on over and bypass that area entirely (just step into the entry portal and use a key to a portal there to go to another dungeon). You can, but you will also have to spend time exploring area3 to find the exit (or maybe the exit key? just to make return trips faster/easier).

5. You can also require multiple key "pieces" in order to open some portals. Makes for even less linear dungeoneering. If you scatter key pieces all over the place, you can basically require your characters to have to do a whole lot of dungeon delving before getting very "deep" into the megadungeon. Again, this is about presenting the players with specific sized "chunks" of dungeon they must explore to make progress in the larger megadungeon. So they must manage resources for each chunk, but over time are slowly progressing deeper into the whole.

6. It goes without saying that as you progress into deeper tiers, the difficulty goes up (as to the rewards). Again, this is aimed at still requiring them to really push themselves to get through each area. Failure to do so will require them to try again and have to slog through the same area again. If you really want to push them, make the key pieces only remain outside the dungeon if they complete a set. So you can find and use the exit key each time, but you must find 3 or 4 specific key pieces within the area before you can come back and just use a portal to bypass this area in the future. So each key piece is like an emphermal thing that fades away if you leave the dungeon, but if you put all of a set together it becomes a solid key that can be used on return trips.

Lots of different ways to manage this.


Requiring some sort of "waypont" be reached before one can physically leave forces the players to actually explore an entire area/section on each trip. The difficulty of each area will determine what power level they should probably achieve before attempting it. And yeah. No teleporting in/out of the dungeon (it's an ancient complex, woven with powerful magics that none can penetrate, right?).


You could literally run an entire massive campaign just with that sort of thing. And hey. Some of the portals don't have to take you to underground "dungeons", right? You could literally rationalize any combination of adventure types with this sort of thing if you really wanted to. This kind of setup presents "chunks" of adventuring that must be completed before leaving (resource manage is required). But also allows for relatively quick travel back to the next unexplored area. And yeah, you can have previous areas respawn over time as well if you want. They can re-explore them, but (hopefully) should not want to. They should prefer to explore new/challenging areas, for new/better loot/exp/rewards.


You can also do something like this with a traditional (but very very large) leveled dungeon. It's just a lot harder to both rationalize how to get them in and out of the dungeon, and progress very deep into said dungeon, while also requiring management of resources. Unless the dungeon itself contains occasional very clear "safe zones", it just wont work. Also, you have to put method to get back to town (if your assumption is that they should be able to do this at all). So you're already talking about some sort of shortcut/portals/something to facilitate them getting from "x levels into the dungeon" back to town and then back to where they finished up exploring last time. If you're already rationlizing that, why not just go all the way with the concept and actually structure the dungeon itself that way.

Again. If you're actually setting a campaign around "exploring a megadungeon", then you can absolutely justify this sort of thing. If it's just "a big dungeon", then you can't and have to accept that the players are going to use any/all of their abilities to make things as easy as possible on themselves. I've done "big dungeons". But those really are different animals than what it sounds like you are wanting to run.

If this sounds a lot like some MMORPG dungeons, yeah, it kinda is. But this method actually "works".

I actually ran something similar to this not too long ago (well, introduced it). The players found a means to travel to a limited number of additional planes. One of them was sort of a mashup of the EQ "plane of war"+"bastion of thunder" zones. They had a need to explore the plane sufficiently (needed to get some info for planar travel research), but stuck it out long enough to complete the "war" part outside the giant bastion thingie, to gain a key to the tower in the center. Inside will be a ton of different levels and wings, with different elemental themed areas, and keys required to progress up the massive tower/bastion. They've left it for the time being, but plan to come back sometime with a powerful group and continue exploring.

So yeah. This sort of thing can also be introduced as just a side element in a larger campaign setting if you want. Kinda of a "hey. If you guys are tired of dealing with kingdom politics, and world spanning threats, you can always just hop over to that plane and we can do a few months of dungeon crawling". It's a fun diversion from more story driven adventures.

tyckspoon
2023-02-23, 06:44 PM
But what is the pressure to make the characters actually try and engage with the game?

Why not just blow all of your ammo (and other resources) in the first room and go back to town? Why ration at all? Why go deeper?

In virtually every RPG I have ever played, Diablo included, the optimum strategy is to grind the easy area until you cannot progress there anymore, then repeat in the next easiest area.

The only way to prevent this that I can find is random cheap death. In Diablo, this just means you load your save. In a game with actual stakes, it means the game is over and everyone is pissed off, especially if the random cheap death occurred as a consequence of natural play.



So, standard caveat that no standard of 'rational play' or common play patterns appears to apply to the unruly collection of neuroses that makes up your players.. but generally the reason for why this doesn't happen is it's simply not fun. There is a quote from the developers of.. IIRC, Dungeon Stone Soup? Maybe ADOM? One of the classic style roguelikes which says "We have already implemented a penalty for slime-farming. It's slime-farming." (Context: slimes are a reproducing enemy, and each instance has the usual chance to drop items. Farming them involves deliberately allowing them to reproduce and then killing them for potentially hours. This is a fairly risk free way to farm anything the slime can drop, which can upset the balance of risk to reward that most of the game's challenge is based around. It's also ludicrously tedious, and involves hours and hours of performing repetitive tasks instead of.. actually playing the game, and so the devs see no particular reason to disable it or further penalize the activity.)

Now, that is in a video game, where if you want to do that you personally get to suffer through all the slog. Trying to set up a roguelike dungeon for a tabletop RPG may result in your players just declaring that they do this and expecting to fast-forward to the loot summary, similar to the 'we stay in town crafting and selling stuff until we have X00% more money than the game expects, and only then we start adventuring' 'hack' you mentioned in the economy thread. If you seriously have to build in a mechanic to defeat that, I think what you have to do is configure the rewards such that purely what you get from killing foes is at least slightly negative compared to expected costs. Set up two portions of expected rewards per [discrete dungeon segment]; one block is a one-time only reward for accessing or clearing a particular section. Retrieve a particular unique item, bounty for slaying a special non-respawning monster, special payment for discovering a new entry path to a deeper realm of the dungeon, bringing back new information about a monster type that was not previously well documented, whatever. If you consistently push forward, these benefits will mean your rewards grow more than your expected costs.

Then the other section is what you can harvest from the regenerating/respawning part of the dungeon. Monster drops/loot from the enemies. The income from this should be less than the expected cost of acquiring it - if every time you raid Floor 1 you spend 10 GP of arrows, 30 GP of healing potions, and a 4 GP 'entering the dungeon' tax, then the monsters on Floor 1 should give back maybe 30 GP worth of stuff. You can re-run this floor if you want, but each time you do it it will dig into your actual reward budget, and sooner or later you have to move on to bigger challenges if you don't want to wind up being known as those guys who sweep Floor 1 so more important adventurers don't have to waste their time and dirty their boots pushing through the Abnormally Runty Goblin Nest every time they go down the dungeon.

(But really I think the bigger thing there is you are convinced that your players will always seek to destroy the game as a mechanical system instead of engaging with the premise and actually playing the intended game, which is not something you can fix on a design level, and I think games that try to do so rather suffer as games because it means they're always worried about 'is there an exploitable way to approach this rule' instead of 'is this rule any fun.')

stoutstien
2023-02-23, 07:03 PM
Downloaded and skimmed the entire book.

From what I could tell, it was just a slightly stripped-down AD&D with tons of tables for things that I find unnecessary, and my players won't give two craps about.


If your players don't give a crap about the world then NOTHING you do will matter because, without fail trying to maintain pacing purely via mechanical leverage will hit a point where the logic or the game collapses. And not in a good way
There are entire sites who's sole reason to exist is to be dedicated to circumventing anything you do on that level.

Honestly don't waste time and just play kill sector or Mork borg. Save a ton of headache.

If you want resources to matter don't give them any and time is the biggest resource of them all

Talakeal
2023-02-23, 07:03 PM
(But really I think the bigger thing there is you are convinced that your players will always seek to destroy the game as a mechanical system instead of engaging with the premise and actually playing the intended game, which is not something you can fix on a design level, and I think games that try to do so rather suffer as games because it means they're always worried about 'is there an exploitable way to approach this rule' instead of 'is this rule any fun.')

Its more that I expect players to play smart.

As long as challenge is linked to resource attrition, then any challenge in the game is wholly illusory as long as the players can recover resources at their own pace.

Talakeal
2023-02-23, 07:09 PM
If your players don't give a crap about the world then NOTHING you do will matter because, without fail trying to maintain pacing purely via mechanical leverage will hit a point where the logic or the game collapses. And not in a good way.

I don't see any relationship between the two.

Could you please elaborate?

I really like worldbuilding, but this still comes across to me as a complete non-sequitur.


There are entire sites whose sole reason to exist is to be dedicated to circumventing anything you do on that level.

Which sites are these? Circumventing what exactly?

stoutstien
2023-02-23, 07:36 PM
I don't see any relationship between the two.

Could you please elaborate?

I really like worldbuilding, but this still comes across to me as a complete non-sequitur.

Which sites are these? Circumventing what exactly?

Pacing, attrition, tension, choice, and the other things you want to include aren't maintained by resources and recovery rates in a vacuum. Without heavy investment in the world there is no reason to push beyond the most minimal of risk because that risk has no value. You could get through 1 or a 1000 scenes and the net effects are the same. All that will happen is the party will gravitate to maximizing thier gain while minimizing risk. Why shouldn't they? Without in game ties it would be silly not to.

In a lot of ways every TTRPG game is a mega dungeon with different paint on the walls. Doesn't matter if it has a strict path or full sandbox it has walls, doors, flow, and such. Space cowboys or dwarfs in a underground cavern system. Mega dungeon or vast dessert.

The only difference is the world.

King of Nowhere
2023-02-23, 08:02 PM
The last hex-crawl I ran suffered from this problem; the PCs would go back to town after the first fight of every dungeon, and if they actually suffered any noticeable resource expenditure on the way to the dungeon, they would abort the journey entirely. More random encounters made the problem worse, not better.

In real life / narrative, you are not significantly less likely to die if you take an arrow to the chest in the first fight or the last fight, so the goal should be minimizing the number of fights total.



you can't apply real life to something that is similar to d&d. you have those characters with anime-like level of power, they are not going to die to the first arrow. and verisimilitude means that the world has to be consistent, not that it must look like real life - indeed, if a fantasy world has magic that's not exceedingly rare but looks just like real life, then it's generally done wrong.
if you want players to feel the risk, you need to have some supercritical instadeath rule. but then, this would actually lead to random death in random encounters, and nobody really wants that. or, if you don't want the players to play resource management, you have to change system with one where you recover everything at every short rest.

furthermore, you complain that your players are being too cautious, but then you complain that they would not act like that in real life. well, in real life people would be even more cautious, since their actual lives are on the line.

if you want random encounters to be dangerous because you don't want your players to take too much time, you can ramp up their lethality. use a powerful monster that can, at least potentially, kill somebody.

I was thinking of how I run some megadungeons, and whether those principles could be applied to you - because my case was high level, high power, a very different way to play. But I did use some environmental effects; in my case, it was the demiplane of a dead god, and so those hazards were justified.
So, in my case
- every minute, roll a d6. On a one, there is a storm of loose magical energy; roll a d10 for which one. And while most of them were elemental damage that could have been prevented with the right protection spells, and one result was free healing, there were two tempests of dispel magic. So, they couldn't count on long term buffs to protect them, and they would take damage.
Eventually, after a while we calculated how many mass heal they'd have to burn in an hour to compensate for the damage, and they just subtracted it from their prepared slots.
when the players started talking to deliberate, I would assume their characters also had the same conversation in real time.
- some places host specific trials. the pcs have to get there and perform some sort of tests. those have additional dangers. One of them had radiations; every minute a saving throw, if you pass the next DC is higher. when you fail you get stat damage, and the DC resets. Again, they could use healing spells to compensate, but it was draining quite fast. Another place had a mutating virus. At first I asked each player why he would not be bothered by a common flu. Each one stated a reason. Then the virus mutated, and whatever reason they stated could no longer protect them. or, if they made a saving throw, the DC would increase. Again, this sets a time limit. Another had assassins spawning, and another had assassins - but trying to kill an npc that they had to protect as part of their trial.

As I said, it's high level, and a lot of stuff only works because it was the demiplane of a god, ripe with wild energy. But maybe there's some ideas you can adapt in there. it worked very well, the players felt the danger and the urgency without it feeling forced, or too crazy. The players did eventually find some ways to rest - spending healing slots all the time, but less than they'd regain after sleeping. But as I said, if they really work for it, let them have their victory.



You must've missed "forever". The lack of savviness is the idea of trying to clear a dungeon level that cannot be cleared, like trying to kill all the monsters when new ones will always wander to the area, or trying to make a complete map of a structure that changes when you aren't looking at it. The task can literally never be finished, because the attempt is based on false assumption.


You know, unless you have some really good excuse for that, like my own "this is the demiplane of a dead god, full of wild energy, and it coalesces into random monsters spontaneously", this is quite silly and can be immersion-breaking.
I mean, whenever you leave the dungeon, new monsters are coming in so it's always full again. Why? where are they coming from? why are they all just going into the dungeon and sitting there instead of attacking each other? if they are birthed so fast that no matter how many you kill, they always refill the dungeon afterwards, why don't they just overrun civilization? what happens if you stop killing them, won't the new ones still come?
we accept that kind of stuff from some videogame because we expect it to run on a limited simulator and to be there only to provide us some combat (games with more focus on the plot don't have respawning monsters). most of us want something better from tabletop.
if you go into the savannah and kill all the lions around, surely some other group of lions will move in; but it won't happen overnight. and if the next week a new group arrives, and again you kill it, you will shortly deplete all lions from a larger area, and it will take many years for the population to recover.

gbaji
2023-02-23, 09:22 PM
I don't see any relationship between the two.

Could you please elaborate?

I really like worldbuilding, but this still comes across to me as a complete non-sequitur.


I think what he was getting at is that if the players don't have some actual interest in some sort of "goals" in the game, then the're just going through the motions, and only the most heavy handed of mechanical tools will move them forward.

If they want to go explore "the caverns of doom", because they got a map from someone and it indicates that some cool item is there, they will push on to clear said caverns and get said cool item. Better yet, if obtaining said item allows them to return in triumph to their home kingdom and be rewarded as "heroes of the realm", or something, they will do that as well. But only if they care about their characters gaining the cool item, or being declared heroes of the realm. If it's just "I'm playing this character I rolled up this week, and we're just whacking some monsters and getting random treasure", then they may not be invested in the game or outcomes of the game, and therefore have no reason to do anything other than the bare minimum to "game the system".

The players should, ideally, *want* to go explore the dungeon, and *want* to go to new areas and find new things. There should be some motivation beyond merely gaining experience and advancing their character's power level. They should have at least some interest in some sort of "story" they are telling along the way, so advancing that story should actually matter to them. If they don't, then that's a whole nother problem.

Now, to be fair, you didn't state that they weren't interested in delving into the dungeon, but you fear that they will just nibble away at it a small/safe piece at a time. And also to be fair, you are correct that if this is to be a dungeon crawl, and more about quantity than small numbers of super tough encounters (ie: resource management), then this will make the game dull and boring. And yeah, there are two ways to deal with this:

Structure the dungeon to force them to do more in each delve (lots of ways to do this). Or... just let them do it.

If they "get bored" with the super slow/safe method, what do you suppose they will do? Maybe start taking more risks. Pushing on longer in each session in the dungeon. It's kind of a self correcting problem really. I mean, they can sit there whacking one room at a time, then returning to base or something, but are you absolutely certain that after having done that a few times, they aren't going to just look at their sheets, realize they still have like 90% of their capability left, and then go "hey. Let's hit a few more rooms before heading back"? This is only a problem if they simply don't trust that the next room wont be some uber tough encounter that requires them to be at 100% to succeed. And yeah, based on your past posts, I suspect that they may very well have that concern in their heads, so who knows?

Another trick to get them to spend more time actively adventuring is to really draw out the travel stuff. Spend time describing the terrain along the way. Have NPCs come up to them and strike up conversations. Role play each and every social encounter they have while traveling to town, at each shop in town, at the inn they sleep at, and the whole way back. After a few cycles of spending 15 minutes actually running their characters in a dungeon crawl for every 2 hours of talking to NPCS, they might just get the hint. There's a "cost" in player time as well as the stuff written on the character sheets. Maybe make them realize that cost, and if they want to get that cool treasure at the end of the dungeon any time in their lifetimes, maybe they should speed up a bit.

That, obviously, depends a lot on what the players actually like to do. But assuming that you wouldn't be putting in a megadungeon if the players aren't at least significnatly interested in "kill things, take their loot" style play...

Vahnavoi
2023-02-23, 10:20 PM
A calendar only helps if the players already know everything about the scenario; how big the dungeon is, how much time they have to explore it, and what is the optimal path to whatever they need to stop to avert the clock.

You have literally never done this, have you? Because you are entirely wrong. Players don''t have to have perfect information in order for a calendar to be useful. The minimum amount of information required to create time pressure is one (1) future event. Beyond that, the player's calendar can be empty, as can be their map. They can learn more information as they, you know, explore, and then fill in the blanks themselves.

Nowhere does it follow that the players ought to be told what the optimal path is before they actually start exploring. Classically in megadungeons, pathfinding is a gameplay puzzle the the players have to solve. Finding any path that satisfies a time requirement would be an achievement. Finding the optimal path? Even the game master doesn't need to know that. They only need to know at least one possible path, given they intent for the overall scenario to be winnable.


I don't follow. What does keeping a clock or making players talk in real time have to do with pacing dungeon exploration?

Pacing is about how you use real time. You can pace your game and put time pressure on your players by putting them on a clock to plan or do what their characters would.


But what is the pressure to make the characters actually try and engage with the game?

Why not just blow all of your ammo (and other resources) in the first room and go back to town? Why ration at all? Why go deeper?

Game goals such as "keep your character alive" , "earn experience points and wealth" and "get to dungeon level 100 and kill Morgoth".

You oddly presume players are not "engaging with the game" when they are already implicitly buy into two of those three game goals. Engaging with the game is why they'd follow the basic tactic at all.

Now imagine a player who takes the third goal just as seriously.


I am going to guess by "stupid" you mean "requires thought", which is almost the opposite.

Checking die rolls and doing table look-ups to wipe your ass "requires thought", yes, but not in a way that makes the action more significant, important or interesting. That's the stupidity being referred to: wasting brain power on things that don't need it


IMO, it isn't "crunchiness" that slows down the game until the high end of player skill; for most people its an inability to remember the rules, focus, do mental math, etc.

In other words, yes, crunchiness slows down a game, and you can make a game faster by eliminating pointless crunch. Because that lessens the number of rules to remember, number of things to focus on and the amount of mental math required to begin with.


Both ends of the spectrum, of course, suffer from decision paralysis, but I don't think the system has any influence over that.

A system straightforwardly influences number of decisions a player has to make and thus whether they will suffer decision paralysis. Any user interface designer could tell you that. Any game designer could tell you that. How have you effectively written a game and still not figured this out?


Also, its really weird that you like old school dungeon crawling but hate crunchy games. That seems like such a contradiction.

Old D&D is rules light compared to your games and even it has rules that can be simplified or tossed. Again, we at conventions deliberately experiment with trimmed down rulesets to find the minimum that still delivers an old school dungeon crawling experiencd.


I have never played Angband. I have played a lot of Diablo.

Is there a timer you are fighting against? What does it mean for Morgoth to win?

It means what I just said it does. In Angband, the goal is to get to level 100 and kill Morgoth, just like in Diablo you're trying to get to the bottom of things and stop Diablo.

If a player gets stuck on a level because they're too afraid to lose their character, they never get there, which means the bad guy wins. Simple as that. As already noted, Angband does not have a timer, it's a game of infinite resources.


In virtually every RPG I have ever played, Diablo included, the optimum strategy is to grind the easy area until you cannot progress there anymore, then repeat in the next easiest area.

One, that's what I just described to you. Two, you are confusing basic safe strategies with optimal strategies. You should stop using words such as optimal or optimum when you haven't even stated what you are optimizing.


The only way to prevent this that I can find is random cheap death. In Diablo, this just means you load your save. In a game with actual stakes, it means the game is over and everyone is pissed off, especially if the random cheap death occurred as a consequence of natural play.

You are severely lacking in imagination. Especially since the obvious alternative answer has been repeated over and over again in this thread: put your players under time pressure!

Grinding in the safe area cannot remain the optimum strategy, can it now, if it eats a prohibitive amount of time. That's neither cheap nor random, because the players are in control over how much time they use for a thing.


That's great, but for a game with unlimited resources to have any challenge at all, it requires a level of skill far higher than most players are capable of.

Winning a game like Angband takes a level of skill higher than most players are capable of. Playing it and enjoying it don't. Most players have a lot of fun playing it for a few runs despite never making it to the end. I suspect you are suffering from brain rot caused by your playgroup.


What does a camp costing resources look like in practice?

Have you ever made camp in real life?

It takes time. It takes space. Shelters suffer wear and tear, firewood is burned, rations are consumed, traps need to be assembled and disassembled, and if that cannot be done, abandoned. A camp will leave traces of your passing, unless you take more time to erase those traces.

All this, while you have places to be.

Make a poor camp, or take too long making camp, and you won't get any rest. Camp too long in one spot, your enemies will find you. Make camp too often, and you'll start running out of materials that make for a good camp, meaning you will reach your destination exhausted, starved and sore... if you reach it at all.

"Camp = rest = all meaningful resources restored" is a pure game conceit that you can toss in a fire and burn. In reality, camping is a trade-off. One resource is turned into another; food, water, time and heat are turned into reserves of physical and mental energy required to continue a journey. Stop handwaving half of the equation.

Mastikator
2023-02-24, 05:02 AM
Food and water is an option as a stand in for a time limit. If you enforce a 1 long rest per 24 hours then each time they take a long rest they each use a days worth of rations and water. To make them push forward instead of going back is to put a point of no return in the mega dungeon, entice them to go through by letting them know there is some awesome treasure on the other side. For example when they loot some mooks they find a piece of parchment which tells them about some awesome treasure, that leads them into a passage that signals to them that if they go through they'll have to find another way out (otherwise they may not trust you, the DM, but with foreshadowing they'll feel it was fair, even though it was entirely contrived the entire time).
Make sure the treasure is something worth it, it may be some consumable magics but also something cool they can use, and some gold.

You can then drive them forward by putting food and water as treasure in places in the mega dungeon, but only barely enough that they don't starve to death. Pieces of maps or directions can be found from dead enemies, they can tell of where a pantry might be, or other enemies in the mega dungeon.

The reason they go into the dungeon in the first place, the monsters from the dungeon attacking the village or whatever, may even have a reference to "bring their valuables and add it to our big pile of treasure".

Satinavian
2023-02-24, 05:12 AM
In short, I am wondering how to incentivize the characters to actually push themselves in exploring it rather than falling back on the old 15 minute adventuring day routine.

Just don't try to get your players to behave in a specific way.

Basically you have two options :

1) Give your players the freedom to decide for themself and accept if they make decisions you don't like.
2) Don't give the players this freedom and decide rest intervals yourself.

Everything else doesn't work. What you are trying to do atm is fine tuning the rules that your idea about appropriate rest intervals is the only one that makes sense while still giving the players the choice. That is trying to have your cake and eat it. If you ever manage to push the players to do it your way, their choice has already become pure illusion.

ahyangyi
2023-02-24, 06:36 AM
Unfortunately, all RPGs I am familiar with use resource management as the primary, and to an extent the only, form of mechanical challenge.

This is something I don't understand. Note that the in-combat action economy is a separate thing from long term resource management. "Spending a turn to do a full attack" isn't resource management, you are going to use that turn no matter what. And you can definitely have fun combat and non-combat challenges even if the players always fight with all their spell slots available, at least in a system like 4E (where the wizard's highest level spells are not win buttons).

Also I'm not advocating to completely abandon the resource management aspect, just pointing out the possibility.

SpanielBear
2023-02-24, 06:55 AM
If you've played Diablo, or Angband, or most other games of the genre, whether on computer or tabletop, you ought to have realized that "15 minute workday" is the normal and expected tactic.

As in: the basic loop is, you go as deep as you can as quickly as you can, fill your pockets with loot, then retreat as quickly as you can back to safety, rinse and repeat. Abilities to make this easy (Town Portal, World of Recal, etc.) are staples of the genre.

If a single trip takes more than 15 minutes of real time to process, your system is slow for this kind of play. 30 to 45 minutes is still acceptable, allowing for several trips per 4-hour session

If you want to push exploration as an angle, you need to do away with basic conceits that allow this to happen. To give you some ground rules:

1) No safe retreat. Every time player characters want to rest, they have to establish a camp in detail, they have to set up watches, build traps and fortifications, etc.. It's part of gameplay and consequences follow from how they do it.

2) The goal is on the other side, AKA motive to keep moving. Give players hints for targets deep in the dungeon.

3) Rewards tied to exploring terrain, not some tangential thing. For example, the player characters could literally be paid for finding and mapping new rooms.

4) Most rooms are empty and most encounters aren't combat. This goes together with:

5) Time is a resource and is in fact the most common resource used. "15 minute workday" happens because characters have all kinds of other resource limits, but unlimited time. Turn that paradigm around. Wandering through empty hallways, clearing collapsed tunnels, disassembling traps, going around a pit, these don't consume spells or hitpoints or even equipment, but they do consume time. Put this together with 2) and 3), and efficient use of time becomes the key to progress.

6) Keep a calendar. Things inside and outside the dungeon change as days go by. Events in time will work as distant targets to encourage exploring just as well as distant targets in space. Put this together with 3) and 5) to create tasks such as "I want X pieces of ore by date Y".

There’s some really nice thoughts here I’m definitely going to adapt. Thanks for sharing these!

Vahnavoi
2023-02-24, 10:44 AM
You know, unless you have some really good excuse for that, like my own "this is the demiplane of a dead god, full of wild energy, and it coalesces into random monsters spontaneously", this is quite silly and can be immersion-breaking.

I was talking about what drives exploration. Immersion is a different aesthetic and one that wasn't relevant to the topic before you brought it up.

Nonetheless, you implicit idea of how immersion works is wrong. Angband, and video games in general, are perfectly capable of making those "good excuses", but more often that not manage to be immersive despite such silly game conceits. Immersion is achieved by becoming so accustomed with a game's assumptions that they become internalized parts of decision-making. For most kind of games (not just roleplaying games, ALL games), immersion is build up through play, it's not some fragile pre-existing thing that you have to avoid breaking.



we accept that kind of stuff from some videogame because we expect it to run on a limited simulator and to be there only to provide us some combat (games with more focus on the plot don't have respawning monsters). most of us want something better from tabletop.

Don't kid yourself. A human game master using tabletop rules is a limited simulator too. On the flipside, modern computers already allow for more detailed and more expansive simulations than many humans are capable of running. "Wanting something better from the tabletop" made sense three or four decades ago when computer games were in their infancy. Now? You ought to hope your game master has actually played some computer games, because they frequently demonstrate how certain game design principles work, reducing the need for your game master to re-invent the wheel.

GloatingSwine
2023-02-24, 11:43 AM
If you want to promote exploration in the dungeon, Diablo is the wrong frame of reference. Diablo is a game where you crunch through stuff and it gets out of your way until you reset everything and/or reach that one boss you want to farm for good drops.

Don't build a Diablo dungeon. Build a Metroid dungeon.

Focus your design on the shape of the dungeon and how everything in it interconnects, don't allow it to be "cleared" so it's always roughly as dangerous to go backwards as to go forwards, instead have encounters be a function of time spent and distance travelled, and have the interesting rewards always come from the preplaced one-off bosses. (interesting rewards include shortcuts to previous areas/opening ways out to town).

It makes the concept of "go as far as you can then bail out" irrelevant, bailing out is exactly as hard as getting there was and you don't get anything until you find and beat the next boss.

Sapphire Guard
2023-02-24, 11:43 AM
People at the town gates charge for passage.

Jay R
2023-02-24, 11:44 AM
They enter the dungeon, kill some kobolds, maybe a few orcs and ogres, and leave. That works once, maybe twice. By the third time, the kobolds have set up a bunch of traps and the ogres have an ambush ready. And 1,000 orcs are preparing to invade the town from below.

Alternatively, once the PCs have come up with treasure a couple of times, town residents have formed a half-dozen parties and are going down too. Maybe some parents come and ask the party to rescue their children who went down their to get rich "just like the heroes".

The town powers (mayor, lord, anybody with enough troops) demand that the PCs lead their people down so they can get the treasure. Or maybe just insist that the PCs stop stirring up trouble. Maybe the orcs come to the local baron and charge the PCs with murder and theft.

The point is that there is a real world here, and it reacts to what's happening. The party can go slowly, but that doesn't slow the world down; it gives the world time to prepare to fight back.

Quertus
2023-02-24, 11:51 AM
Its more that I expect players to play smart.

As long as challenge is linked to resource attrition, then any challenge in the game is wholly illusory as long as the players can recover resources at their own pace.

This sounds almost like a clear problem statement. Ok, so… how about not playing a game based on resource attrition? Play… (functionally) WoD Dark Ages characters. The Vampire can just drink blood from the monsters to power their healing and abilities, and can just keep going. The Werewolf automatically heals, and regains power every time they get mad. The Mage doesn’t really have any meaningful resources to spend… although Someone need to have a healing power, else their health is a limiting factor. Etc. Just roll your own “eternal” “classes” into 2e or 3e D&D (depending on how much fun you want to have, and how quickly you want to level), add a Wizard who runs shops inside the dungeon, and they’ve got no real reason to go back to town, like, ever.


I mean, really, the first question of order is "what does a megadungeon mean to you?" I can tell you what it means in a 1eAD&D kind of way, and what that implies about campaign structure. But without that, we can't give whys. And without the whys, the whats are kinda hard.

A megadungeon, to me, is much like a hex crawl, or Minecraft - it means that there aren’t these artificial time constraints, and we can play the game however we find to be fun.

Granted, yes, things like food and wandering monsters provide a gentle and subtle level of Time pressure (not unlike how a trivial pittance of a dungeon entry fee is a subtle and gentle encouragement to get more out of each trip), but, done right, they don’t really prevent you from going at your own pace.

——- Sample 3 - Time matters, just a little ——-

Heart of Darkness, with its 1-month long rest.

Let the Players play the game at their own pace. However, open with a (really easy, they cannot possibly fail) timed quest: a remote (human) village has caught a plague, and they are escorting an elven “ambassador” (herbalist mage) to assist.

(I’m assuming, other than their magic item, an extradimensional space that stores exactly 100 potions, they can be built as a starting character, with mild social skills, but mostly just magic to let them grow whole plants from the seeds they carry, allowing them to create whatever remedies they need at a moment’s notice.)

While the PCs are in town, monsters attack. Technically, the villagers can win the fight, even in their sickened state, if the PCs, say, choose to protect the ambassador, but it’s probably more fun of the PCs help stomp the monsters - or even beat them all by themselves. (Again, emphasis on it being easy here.)

After a bit, the ambassador figures out what brew is most helpful, and administers it to the villagers. And… probably to the PCs, unless they’ve taken really clever measures to avoid catching the plague themselves (not that it does more than a cold in the early stages).

A few things about the plague: it only affects humans, it involves real germs, and everyone is still carrying those germs. The village is put into quarantine until the plague germs can be killed.

Only… one child doesn’t recover. In fact, almost every long rest, another child suffers a relapse. And all the while, the megadungeon keeps disgorging its failures.

Behind the scenes, a Plague Demon is, every long rest, cursing one of the children. Or, rather, creating a germ demon, which goes out and infests a child, spreading the plague and preventing their immune system from fighting it. (They get a save or whatever, so it isn’t 100% every long rest that a new child “relapses” (gets possessed).)

Details… maybe the dungeon is known / obviously the source of the pathetic attacks from the beginning, or maybe the PCs piece together clues over the course of the adventure. Whatever.

The dungeon has stronger monsters the deeper you go, of course. And various clues the party can use to guess “demonic experimentation” (among other things).

Outside the top level or two, each layer has a “boss monster” (usually a demon), who is experimenting on the creatures, giving each level a theme. One of the earliest bosses is insect themed, for example; once defeated, no new insect monsters are created.


1/year (1/12 long rests), the hated by everyone ice demon comes up to the top inhabited layer, and hands out silly snow-themed items to the weakest monsters (the ones who will get disgorged if the megadungeon is full): snowman suits, snowball guns, icicle blades, whatever. It’s both a reminder of the passage of time, and an opportunity for a clever party to ambush a level boss.

But the important part is, Time is passing. Villagers get old and retire. Cursed children die (after about a year of bed rest, depending on their saving throw rolls, and how helpful the ambassador is encouraged to be (his potions could be used to help the party, or the children, or for other purposes). Seasons pass.

It’s really unlikely that the PCs will be able to save all the children, but if the plague Demon isn’t defeated, eventually there won’t be any children, and the village will eventually die off. After 120 long rests, point out that the party has been there for a decade now (and, if the plague Demon isn’t defeated yet, unless the party has pulled some miracle, probably that the streets are quiet, adults and the elderly shuffling from place to place, with no children to be seen).

If the children died off, and the plague Demon yet lives, after 360 long rests, the last shop in town closes. The PCs are on their own for even the most basic of gear.

After 600 long rests, regardless of the state of the dungeon, the PCs (If human) die of old age. Campaign over.

The Players can set their own pace, but there’s very clear consequences to taking a lifetime to clear a dungeon.

Talakeal
2023-02-24, 01:46 PM
So it looks like this game is getting pushed out the door a lot sooner than I had hoped as our regular game is going to be on hiatus for a couple of months.

Looks like I am just going to be using my own Heart of Darkness system as we don't have time to learn something new. (And my players don't really want to learn something new, which I guess should make me proud that they like my game so much? But it still seems kind of limiting.)

So I think what I am going to do based on this thread is have the dungeon restock with tougher monsters over time, but tie progression to actually pushing ahead (whether that is mapping, finding waypoints, killing "boss" monsters, or finding treasure I haven't decided yet) so that dragging your feet makes things harder, not easier.


This sounds almost like a clear problem statement. Ok, so… how about not playing a game based on resource attrition? Play… (functionally) WoD Dark Ages characters. The Vampire can just drink blood from the monsters to power their healing and abilities, and can just keep going. The Werewolf automatically heals, and regains power every time they get mad. The Mage doesn’t really have any meaningful resources to spend… although Someone need to have a healing power, else their health is a limiting factor. Etc. Just roll your own “eternal” “classes” into 2e or 3e D&D (depending on how much fun you want to have, and how quickly you want to level), add a Wizard who runs shops inside the dungeon, and they’ve got no real reason to go back to town, like, ever.

I am actually more used to White Wolf systems (or my own Heart of Darkness system) where resources aren't tied to the daily rest cycle like D&D, and it makes resource management much simpler.

(Mages use quintessence as a resource, which is on a weekly recharge btw).

Of course, in those games most of the time when there is an action heavy "adventure" it is very time sensitive.

Using those systems for a hex-crawl / megadungeon is even worse as, rather than a 15 minute work day, you are getting a 15 minute work month, and years of time will pass in setting by before the PCs actually accomplish anything.


If you want to promote exploration in the dungeon, Diablo is the wrong frame of reference. Diablo is a game where you crunch through stuff and it gets out of your way until you reset everything and/or reach that one boss you want to farm for good drops.

Don't build a Diablo dungeon. Build a Metroid dungeon.

Focus your design on the shape of the dungeon and how everything in it interconnects, don't allow it to be "cleared" so it's always roughly as dangerous to go backwards as to go forwards, instead have encounters be a function of time spent and distance travelled, and have the interesting rewards always come from the preplaced one-off bosses. (interesting rewards include shortcuts to previous areas/opening ways out to town).

It makes the concept of "go as far as you can then bail out" irrelevant, bailing out is exactly as hard as getting there was and you don't get anything until you find and beat the next boss.

I am very much going for a Metroid style over Diablo.

I actually got the urge to do a mega dungeon last year while playing Blasphemous (basically a cross between Metroid and Dark Souls) and seeing how the dungeon areas interconnected.

I don't know though, I still feel like it could backfire, as during my hex-crawl game the more wandering monsters they encountered the more often the players retreated town, and would only actualy deign to explore a dungeon or other site based adventure if they managed to get to it in more or less perfect condition, and still bailed out at the first opportunity.


People at the town gates charge for passage.

That has always come across to me as a total mood killer.

It's hard for me to take the dungeon seriously as mysterious and dangerous when people are set up outside trying to make a quick buck. It also kills any sense of danger if the guards are there to keep people out instead of keeping the monsters in (heck, if they are even capable of keeping the monsters in!) or that the PCs going in is a burden on the community rather than potentially saving their lives / homes.


Just don't try to get your players to behave in a specific way.

Basically you have two options :

1) Give your players the freedom to decide for themself and accept if they make decisions you don't like.
2) Don't give the players this freedom and decide rest intervals yourself.

Everything else doesn't work. What you are trying to do atm is fine tuning the rules that your idea about appropriate rest intervals is the only one that makes sense while still giving the players the choice. That is trying to have your cake and eat it. If you ever manage to push the players to do it your way, their choice has already become pure illusion.

You can frame it about control, but it isn't, it's just fundamental game design though. Games should reward skill and have risks and consequences.

The guy who takes 10 years to do a job that could have been done in one afternoon if they were willing to take risks is not really a hero IC, and a game that drags on without any actual excitement or need for thought is less a game and more of a chore OOC.


Food and water is an option as a stand in for a time limit. If you enforce a 1 long rest per 24 hours then each time they take a long rest they each use a days worth of rations and water. To make them push forward instead of going back is to put a point of no return in the mega dungeon, entice them to go through by letting them know there is some awesome treasure on the other side. For example when they loot some mooks they find a piece of parchment which tells them about some awesome treasure, that leads them into a passage that signals to them that if they go through they'll have to find another way out (otherwise they may not trust you, the DM, but with foreshadowing they'll feel it was fair, even though it was entirely contrived the entire time).
Make sure the treasure is something worth it, it may be some consumable magics but also something cool they can use, and some gold.

You can then drive them forward by putting food and water as treasure in places in the mega dungeon, but only barely enough that they don't starve to death. Pieces of maps or directions can be found from dead enemies, they can tell of where a pantry might be, or other enemies in the mega dungeon.

The reason they go into the dungeon in the first place, the monsters from the dungeon attacking the village or whatever, may even have a reference to "bring their valuables and add it to our big pile of treasure".

That requires some pretty serious contrivances.

Food is dirt cheap and readily available compared to most of their equipment, and this requires them to be repeatedly trapped in dungeons.

Most game systems have relatively simple magic that either conjures food or allows people to go without it.

It can be done, but it is going to require a lot of house rules and contrived situations, and I am not sure I want to go to the much work for something that is likely to just piss the players off and ruin everyone's immersion even if done really well.


This is something I don't understand. Note that the in-combat action economy is a separate thing from long term resource management. "Spending a turn to do a full attack" isn't resource management, you are going to use that turn no matter what. And you can definitely have fun combat and non-combat challenges even if the players always fight with all their spell slots available, at least in a system like 4E (where the wizard's highest level spells are not win buttons).

Also I'm not advocating to completely abandon the resource management aspect, just pointing out the possibility.

Because with infinite resources you can't actually lose combat, so you don't have to care.

I remember fights in 4E boiled down to "everyone use their daily, everyone use their encounter powers, then chip away using your utility powers until the things finally fall down, and then take a rest." It was certainly the most boring combat I have ever encountered in a game except maybe Age of Conan.

The problem is that if you make combat deadly enough that it is still a challenge with unlimited resources, then it is going to be so deadly that a little bad luck will also wipe the party even if played perfectly, especially if the players are under some form of time pressure.

BRC
2023-02-24, 02:03 PM
Is the goal to build a "Push your luck" style approach, where the PC's are encouraged to push as far as they feel comfortable before retreating to the surface and resting?


It sounds like with your system "Rests" can take weeks or months, I think you might be able to work with that.


Without reading the whole thread, my instinct is to give them some sort of incentive for going fast. Possibly using Time as a resource.

I don't know the theme of the Megadungeon, but I'm picturing a scenario by which different sections of the dungeon are set to "Unlock" over time, each unleashing a new hoard of monsters into the dungeon until that particular section has been cleared. The PC's have cleared the next section of the dungeon, it's effectively gone Dormant.

While the dungeon is Active, monsters escaping the dungeon besiege the town and prowl the nearby roads, preventing all but the most well guarded caravans from coming through, and preventing much work from getting done in the town as the besieged townsfolk need to put their efforts towards defending/repairing the town.

The faster the PC's beat down the latest threat to awaken in the megadungeon, the faster the dungeon goes Dormant. During these Dormant periods, the townsfolk can work on campaign-scale upgrades, further scout the dungeon, ect ect.


If we say, there are 3 months between each section "Awakening", then If the PC's clear the section in two weeks, they've got 2.5 months of downtime on which they and the grateful townsfolk can work on improving things. If they take a week of rest between each room and don't clear the section for 2.5 months, they've barely got two weeks of downtime to work with.

If we use weeks as timeblocks, whip up a bunch of things that each take about a week to do.

"Strip-loot cleared areas of the dungeon for extra valuables" Takes about a week, gives the PC's more gold to play with.

"Train Guards to patrol roads" Merchants are willing to send more valuable goods on caravans while the dungeon is awake, increases what the PC's can buy while the dungeon is awake.

"Upgrade the Forge" PC's can buy better weapons and armor! Takes about a week.

ect ect ect. Encourage them to get the dungeon back to sleep as fast as possible so they have as many weeks of downtime as they can get their grubby little hands on to use to improve the town.

King of Nowhere
2023-02-24, 02:10 PM
I was talking about what drives exploration. Immersion is a different aesthetic and one that wasn't relevant to the topic before you brought it up.


no, immersion is not a different topic. or rather, it is, but it is something that has to be considered.
if you are looking to restructure your house, you still have to care about structural stability; you can't knock down a load-bearing wall just because you wanted a bigger room.
so, if you want to drive exploration you have some tools to use, but those tools must make in-world sense.


Nonetheless, you implicit idea of how immersion works is wrong. Angband, and video games in general, are perfectly capable of making those "good excuses", but more often that not manage to be immersive despite such silly game conceits. Immersion is achieved by becoming so accustomed with a game's assumptions that they become internalized parts of decision-making. For most kind of games (not just roleplaying games, ALL games), immersion is build up through play, it's not some fragile pre-existing thing that you have to avoid breaking.

my idea of how immersion works is not universal, but it is important to at least a significant subsection of the population. ok, diablo-like videogames are liked by some people, but the nonsensicalness of the world with respawning monsters is the first factor driving me away from those kind of games. I can't get invested in something that doesn't even try to be consistent.
And from the way my players react to the way I always try to link game mechanics with worldbuilding concepts, changing the game mechanics where needed, I can tell that they appreciate the effort at consistence. it may not be a strict prerequisite, but it's certainly a nice thing to have.


Don't kid yourself. A human game master using tabletop rules is a limited simulator too.
as a human, I cannot project an image in high definition to let my players see their characters beat up enemies. I can't make math so fast, authomatically keep track of their inventory without them bothering to do so. When roleplaying an npc, I am limited by my lack of acting talent, while a videogame uses professional voice actors. I am a limited simulator.
What I lose there, I gain in other areas. First and foremost, flexibility. No matter how complex a videogame, there are only a certain number of plotlines that it can have codified. A certain number of options that have been coded. My npcs won't be acted or depicted as well as those of a videogame, but they can pass a turing test. the party trying to infiltrate the villain's home disguised as plumbers? never seen a game reproduce that. passing judgment on rulings? a videogame does not have rulings, only codified responses.

So, when I play with a pc I expect it to do well what a pc does well. When I play with a human, I expect it to do well what a human does well. using videogames as a goal of what you want to achieve is inherently wrong, because they are different mediums achieving different things. there are different expectations. when playing a videogame, I accept that I knock down the wall because the game has no coded option to do so. when I play with a human, I expect knocking down a wall to be a legitimate option, and I do not accept "you just can't" as an answer. On the other hand, when I play with humans I accept our hand-drawn maps and poor acting, while a videogame sporting those would be deleted immediately

Satinavian
2023-02-24, 02:23 PM
You can frame it about control, but it isn't, it's just fundamental game design though. Games should reward skill and have risks and consequences.

The guy who takes 10 years to do a job that could have been done in one afternoon if they were willing to take risks is not really a hero IC, and a game that drags on without any actual excitement or need for thought is less a game and more of a chore OOC.

As always it is about buy in.
If you actually have players who want to play an attrition based campaign in a megadungeon, then yes, balancing risk and reward for it is OK.

But if don't have players that want to take that risk, then no amount of game design will work. Either they break it (and play in a way you don't like) or they complain because they can't break it (which would be you forcing to play them a certain way.)

You have never made an attrition based campaign work. That is probably not the fault of your rules. It probably is because your players, especially Bob, are not compatible with such a game. No amount of fine tuning will salvage this.



The guy who takes 10 years to do a job that could have been done in one afternoon if they were willing to take risks is not really a hero IC, and a game that drags on without any actual excitement or need for thought is less a game and more of a chore OOC.

But if you want a game of risk vs reward, then you must your players let choose. And you must let them choose the lowest risk for lowest reward option, if that is what they want. If you don't want to run this because it is boring, then don't present it as an option. And don't pretend they get to choose when the only way you want to make viable is playing as daring adventurers who regularly take risks where they need to be smart to survive.


You have been here with a similar issue a couple of times. And i see it play out again :

- You present an attrition based system where the players have to considder how for they push with greater rewards for greater risks.
- The players take a very low risk option. Repeatedly.
- You are bored because every fight is a forgone conclusion and your interesting bosses, locations and treasures never appear.
- You fiddle with the ressource system to make your players go further. Either by lowering the rewards for the low risk option, introducing some kind of cost for time used or reduce the relevance of defeat
- Your players either complain or refuse to engage at all with the campaign or suddenly become super reckless because defeat is meaningless

If you have the same players, especially Bob, that will happen again this time around.

Talakeal
2023-02-24, 02:46 PM
...But if you want a game of risk vs reward, then you must your players let choose. And you must let them choose the lowest risk for lowest reward option...

That's the thing though, it isn't "low risk and low reward" its "zero risk and full reward". If it really were a tradeoff this wouldn't be (nearly so much of) an issue.


Is the goal to build a "Push your luck" style approach, where the PC's are encouraged to push as far as they feel comfortable before retreating to the surface and resting?

It sounds like with your system "Rests" can take weeks or months, I think you might be able to work with that.

Without reading the whole thread, my instinct is to give them some sort of incentive for going fast. Possibly using Time as a resource.

I don't know the theme of the Megadungeon, but I'm picturing a scenario by which different sections of the dungeon are set to "Unlock" over time, each unleashing a new hoard of monsters into the dungeon until that particular section has been cleared. The PC's have cleared the next section of the dungeon, it's effectively gone Dormant.

While the dungeon is Active, monsters escaping the dungeon besiege the town and prowl the nearby roads, preventing all but the most well guarded caravans from coming through, and preventing much work from getting done in the town as the besieged townsfolk need to put their efforts towards defending/repairing the town.

The faster the PC's beat down the latest threat to awaken in the megadungeon, the faster the dungeon goes Dormant. During these Dormant periods, the townsfolk can work on campaign-scale upgrades, further scout the dungeon, ect ect.

If we say, there are 3 months between each section "Awakening", then If the PC's clear the section in two weeks, they've got 2.5 months of downtime on which they and the grateful townsfolk can work on improving things. If they take a week of rest between each room and don't clear the section for 2.5 months, they've barely got two weeks of downtime to work with.

If we use weeks as timeblocks, whip up a bunch of things that each take about a week to do.

"Strip-loot cleared areas of the dungeon for extra valuables" Takes about a week, gives the PC's more gold to play with.

"Train Guards to patrol roads" Merchants are willing to send more valuable goods on caravans while the dungeon is awake, increases what the PC's can buy while the dungeon is awake.

"Upgrade the Forge" PC's can buy better weapons and armor! Takes about a week.

ect ect ect. Encourage them to get the dungeon back to sleep as fast as possible so they have as many weeks of downtime as they can get their grubby little hands on to use to improve the town.

Yeah, this is very close to what I am thinking.

GloatingSwine
2023-02-24, 04:08 PM
I am very much going for a Metroid style over Diablo.

I actually got the urge to do a mega dungeon last year while playing Blasphemous (basically a cross between Metroid and Dark Souls) and seeing how the dungeon areas interconnected.

I don't know though, I still feel like it could backfire, as during my hex-crawl game the more wandering monsters they encountered the more often the players retreated town, and would only actualy deign to explore a dungeon or other site based adventure if they managed to get to it in more or less perfect condition, and still bailed out at the first opportunity.


Everything can backfire.

It should be clear that there is no "bail out" though. There's no escape rope, if they want to leave they have to walk out and they will have the same encounter rate on the way out as they had on the way in.

The only other alternative is not to have a way out. The only way out is through.

Edit: Also make the available reward in each significant area of the dungeon plateau fast so that they cannot get anything new until they beat the next boss and get into the next area.

Talakeal
2023-02-24, 04:15 PM
Everything can backfire.

It should be clear that there is no "bail out" though. There's no escape rope, if they want to leave they have to walk out and they will have the same encounter rate on the way out as they had on the way in.

The only other alternative is not to have a way out. The only way out is through.

Oh no, no encounters on the way out!

That was basically the catalyst for the poopshow last time; they got bushwacked by a tough random encounter on the way back from the dungeon, and from that point on it was utter paranoia and refusing to take risks or push on in any context.


The only way out is through is an interesting idea, but its really hard to pull of narratively except on rare occasions.

GloatingSwine
2023-02-24, 06:14 PM
Oh no, no encounters on the way out!


Then you're doomed to them only doing one encounter and walking back. The incentive needs to be to move forward, encounters in a new area of the dungeon need to be rewarding at first but stop being so relatively quickly and there needs to be a spike of reward on the gates between each zone (which can be boss fights, difficult skill challenges, puzzles using components found in the area, whatever).

Either that or, again, no way out.

The entrance to the dungeon isn't a door, it's a portal that only goes one way. Once you step in you're there until you find an exit.

Pauly
2023-02-24, 10:20 PM
An alternative to the dungeon regenerating.

Once you clear a level it is cleared. Friendlies move in and build basic homes and fortifications. You can trade for basic supplies, but they give you half the GP that you’d get in the town for gear. The players can rest, but if they want full value for their shinies or want to buy specialized gear then they have to travel to town.

You will end up with a no man’s land of reduced danger between fully cleared levels and enemy zones so the players can travel faster and with reduced risk. However no man’s land is by no means safe and you can still stumble into significant TPK capable enemies if you aren’t careful or are unlucky.

There are other parties and if you take too long they will find the exit to the next level. The shiniest loot and biggest XP are for finding the level exit. Eventually the NPC parties will clear a level and make it safe for friendly habitation.
Some of these other parties may be hostile and will happily stab the party in the back and steal their loot if you give them the chance. Other parties may be friendly and be willing to form alliances of convenience.
Other parties may have maps, loot, information they’re willing to sell or trade.

Every so often you can make the level exits of 2 levels close together so that the party can finish the level then punch through and finish the next level in one trip. Making them feel like big gorram heroes with loads of shiny loot,

Also the monsters are getting stronger [for plot reasons]. The longer it takes to find and clear a level the more powerful the enemy on that level will become. You should only start doing this once the party have been informed by NPCs that it is happening.

Doing it this way
- reduces dead time on trips back to town.
- allows the dreary part of dungeoneering, building safe havens, finding all the monsters on a level, to be outsourced to NPCs.
- allows the players to encounter NPCs who will feed them plot relevant clues in a natural way.
- gives the players a focus - find the level exit - rather than just letting them wander around exploring all the nooks and crannies.
- the players risk losing rewards if they take too long to find an exit.
- the platers will, eventually, find the system rigged against them if they waste time.

gbaji
2023-02-24, 11:49 PM
That's the thing though, it isn't "low risk and low reward" its "zero risk and full reward". If it really were a tradeoff this wouldn't be (nearly so much of) an issue.

How is that the case though? The only way that can work (for the party) is if you, the GM, fail to have the world work in a rational way. If they just walk in, take out one room, then walk back out, expecting an easy fight and treasure from the room, then rinse and repeat over and over, then you are allowing this. Just... don't. Are the monsters in the next room just stupid or something? After the second or third "room" is wiped out, with the assailants disappearing, perhaps the residents of your megadungeon might just respond to that in some way? More traps. Collapsing tunnels so the attackers can't get to them (I mean, if you aren't also using "monsters are ranging out from the dungeon and attacking locals" as a pressure to speed up, then the NPCs have no reason to leave easy to traverse tunnels from the surface right to their doors, right)?

What would you do if you lived on a street, and three days ago, the house a few doors down was robbed and everyone within killed. Then two days ago, the house two doors down was hit in the exact same way. Then, last night, your next door neighbor's were wiped out? Would you just sit there in your house oblivious to the likelihood that your house is next? No. You wouldn't. So why are the denizens in this dungeon complex just sitting around waiting for their doom, like their entire reason for existing is to wait in a room until some PC adventurer comes along and kills them and takes their stuff?

Dungeon complexes should be extremely dangerous if not taken out quickly and quietly. It's why I suggested earlier creating "areas", that are logically/thematicallly linked, with the chambers within connected in some ecosystem sort of way. The exact layout is unimportant, but as long as you create this kind of structure, then it should force the players to have to handle an entire "neighborhood" all in one "pass". This doesn't mean that they have to fight everything at once, but they must continue through it until it's all "done" (which could mean different things, but should never mean "attack the first room; leave, then attack the second room; leave, etc"). Doing anything less will not decrease their risk, but increase it massively. Because, the next time they go to the same area, and attempt to move past the first room, they will find the entire set of denizens in that area, prepped, defending themselves, and ready for the PCs. And that should result in either a TPW, or very nearly so. You have to teach your players that the NPCs are not just waiting to die and hand over loot.

A well structured megadungeon should have different areas, with different "types" of creatures in them. And the ones in any one area should work together in some way. They live in proximity to eachother, they must have a means to live there, right? They must have food, resources, some reason not to just kill eachother, some presumed desire to protect the whole, etc. Taking out just one small subset of one of those areas, then leaving for a couple days to restock, then coming back is the *worst* and most stuplidly dangerous way for the PC's to deal with this.



The entrance to the dungeon isn't a door, it's a portal that only goes one way. Once you step in you're there until you find an exit.

Yup. That's the easy way to do this. There's a cave with 5 portals in it. You find a key, which opens one portal that transports you to another chamber with 5 portals (one of which you just came through) and one tunnel. None of your keys work on any of the portals, even the one you just came through. You are forced to travel down that tunnel which goes a ways and then enters into "dungeon 1". You will have to deal with a number of different rooms with different creatures in dungeon 1. At the farthest part, on the boss bad guy of the dungeon are two keys. One opens the portal you came through and takes you back to the starting cave. The other opens one of the other portals in that chamber, allowing you to explore dungeon number 2. You can now go back through the tunnel to the chamber, then exit out the entry portal back to the cave, and go back to town to rest and resupply. Next time you go to the cave, you again use your first key to enter the chamber. You still have your exit key, so you can leave any time you want, but now you use the key to the second portal, taking you to a room with the exit portal from there which you can't use. Once again, you are forced to travel down a long tunnel, explore "dungeon 2", find and defeat the boss, who provides two keys. One is the exit key to dungeon 2, the other the entrance key to dungeon 3. You go out, find yourself in the portal chamber, and can use the first exit key to go back to the starting cave, then travel back to town again. Riinse and repeat with dungeons 3, 4, and 5.

Then, just to make this a true "megadungeon". The last boss in dungeon 5, drops the usual dungeon exit key *and* the key to dungeon 6. That opens the second portal in the first cave, and leads to another chamber with 5 portals and a tunnel. Same deal. Repeat over and over. This very very simple design can support 25 different dungeons, all with their own isolated theme, creatures, monsters, ecosystem, etc. All requiring you to complete each dungeon in a single pass (can't leave until it's done). And, of course, the dungeons must be completed in order. And each one gets progressively more difficult. Um... This is pretty dumb layout, but is an easy way to get around "My players fight one fight and then leave" style adventuring.

You can, of course, create more complex interactions between the different dungeon areas within your "megadungeon", but the core point is to ensure that each section is "difficult, but quite possible", and that it require them to actually think about what they are doing, how they proceed, not waste time or resources, etc. You know, if that's what the goal is.

Personally, I'd probably create something that's more like a vast network of tunnels stretching all over the place, with various areas being connected sets of chambers where various denizens dwell. Probably also have some sets of creatures actively opposing others to create some additional aspects of things. That way the PCs can find paths through the tunnels (where aside from rare wandering creatures, or raiding creatures from one area to another, they're unlikely to run into much) to travel to different areas they wish to try exploring/attacking/whatever. Makes more more dramatic and "realistic" feel IMO. Also can make the underground portions *vast* (as in takes days of wandering around to find a new section, so no just skipping off back to town). Allow the players to find some "safe spaces" hidden here or there, and secret routes they may be able to use as short cuts.

But yeah. The one thing I absolutely do not allow is for PCs to play the hit and run game. Not for long. And not without some really good rationale for why their victims would allow them to get away with it. I've run very large underground dungeon adventures like this several times. And usually, it's some sort of "You need to find a way through to <some important thing you're looking for>", so "going back to town after ever fight", just isn't a viable option. Once you've had to travel a week under ground, sneak through the chamber with the poisionous sentient mushrooms, wander a few more days, then swim through an underground river tunnel thing, then negotiate for passage from a kingdom of goblins (which maybe required that you help them raid their orc enemies and steal their mcguffin back or something), travel more days, then run through the underground graveyard where the dead kept rising in infinite numbers, it's probably not really realistic for you to "go back to town to resupply" or something.

Kinda depends on what you're going for. Some adventures the players are regularly going to one town or another. But I run lots of adventures where they're wandering in the wilderness, or exploring ancient ruins, or some distant island or continent, or... vast underground realms. I've never had a problem figuring out how to "pace" the mechanical aspects of the game in terms of "making sure that the PCs are challenged". And the one common thread to all of them is having the PCs have to deal with "chunks" of content, which must be dealt with as a single whole. Maybe that involves negotiation. Maybe it involves solving riddles, or disarming traps. Maybe it's just having to defeat all the bad guys. But each has to be "solved" as a single component. And most of the time, if you initiate interaction with that content, and then leave without resolving it in some way, and then try to come back, either the thing isn't there anymore, or has become significantly more difficult to deal with. My game elements don't just sit there, statically, waiting for the PCs to take infinite time and attempts to deal with them.

ahyangyi
2023-02-25, 01:22 AM
The problem is that if you make combat deadly enough that it is still a challenge with unlimited resources, then it is going to be so deadly that a little bad luck will also wipe the party even if played perfectly, especially if the players are under some form of time pressure.

Why is that wrong though?

Doesn't the resource management thing, attrition, time pressure, whatever thing you want to add to the game, essentially do the same (create an encounter where it's possible to TPK even if played perfectly) but jumps through more hoops?

As long as you think "bad luck TPK is bad", then of course everyone is going to be super risk-averse. Aren't these two things connected?

(again, I'm not describing how I'd run a megadungeon; I'm just examining the premise)

Talakeal
2023-02-25, 11:49 AM
Why is that wrong though?

Doesn't the resource management thing, attrition, time pressure, whatever thing you want to add to the game, essentially do the same (create an encounter where it's possible to TPK even if played perfectly) but jumps through more hoops?

As long as you think "bad luck TPK is bad", then of course everyone is going to be super risk-averse. Aren't these two things connected?

(again, I'm not describing how I'd run a megadungeon; I'm just examining the premise)

I am not sure how my feelings as a GM affect my player's feelings one way or the other.

I don't really like random death in RPGs. PC death is fine if it is for a reason, but generally it requires inordinate stupidity to die outright in one of my games. I much prefer player skill to have an outcome on the rewards; playing skillfully means you get further, get more XP and treasure, and complete more storyline objectives. I also think that players are, ideally, heroes, which means putting themselves in danger.

Ideally the players would have enough sense to recognize actually being in danger and turn back once their resources are depleted rather than simply giving up at the first setback.


Honestly, I feel like it's not actually about danger, but about laziness. Players don't like to have to put thought into the game and so they take the easiest path, and then blame it on risk aversion. And at the same time, I want the players to have to put thought into the game so that playing skillfully affects the outcome.

stoutstien
2023-02-25, 12:23 PM
I am not sure how my feelings as a GM affect my player's feelings one way or the other.

I don't really like random death in RPGs. PC death is fine if it is for a reason, but generally it requires inordinate stupidity to die outright in one of my games. I much prefer player skill to have an outcome on the rewards; playing skillfully means you get further, get more XP and treasure, and complete more storyline objectives. I also think that players are, ideally, heroes, which means putting themselves in danger.

Ideally the players would have enough sense to recognize actually being in danger and turn back once their resources are depleted rather than simply giving up at the first setback.


Honestly, I feel like it's not actually about danger, but about laziness. Players don't like to have to put thought into the game and so they take the easiest path, and then blame it on risk aversion. And at the same time, I want the players to have to put thought into the game so that playing skillfully affects the outcome.

Sounds like you failed to account for player motivation as much as the characters.

By taking "death" off the table barring multiple mistakes regarding "skill" application you are promoting this playstyle. Doesn't matter how big of a carrot you use if they don't like to eat vegetables.

King of Nowhere
2023-02-25, 03:18 PM
The problem is that if you make combat deadly enough that it is still a challenge with unlimited resources, then it is going to be so deadly that a little bad luck will also wipe the party even if played perfectly, especially if the players are under some form of time pressure.

depends a lot on the setup.
i run deadly combat, but i never had a tpk, luck notwhitstanding. individual deaths, plenty; but that's the point of resurrection spells. the party being defeated and having to teleport away? happened many times. I do not pull punches; I even tried to cast dimensional anchor on them once (so rarely only because it uses up actions that the npcs generally cannot afford), but they managed to dispel.
the thing is, my players know that I run combat as a challenge, and they prepare accordingly. I make available single use spell tattoos, and I encourage everyone to get at least a dimension door as soon as they can afford it. Dispels too. So, while combat involves a high risk and bad luck or tactics can indeed result in a loss, the party has enough escape avenues that they always manage to get away.
that said, you apparently play at a lower level, with harder resurrection. not sure if you can really set up something like I did. and not sure whether your players would like it.


Ideally the players would have enough sense to recognize actually being in danger and turn back once their resources are depleted rather than simply giving up at the first setback.

isn't that what they are doing, though? at least from their perspective.
consider that they don't know what you do. you may know there is nothing but simple fights ahead, but they don't; they see that they used up some resources, they know from previous games that they can get hard random encounters, so they remove that risk by never adventuring at less than full power. it happened several times to me that I put in an easy fight as warm-up, and the players do not know it will be an easy fight and spend an hour planning for it.
seems to me like you'd like them to dance to the tune of a music they cannot hear.

also, it seems to me your frustration comes from wanting to recreate scenarios like movies or videogames. like the outmatched hero that pulls through by the barest of margins, and the party that keeps going forward until it's almost dead. but neither can work, because tabletop gaming is a different medium. in a movie you control the plot and the outcome of the actions, so you can build a situation where the hero needs to roll high and succeed. in a videogame you can decide, to keep things from getting boring, to advance while short in spells; because you can reload the game if it goes poorly.
in tabletop you have neither luxury. but you can have your players be cunning heroes planning and using their resources in the best way, something you'll never see in movies.

Quertus
2023-02-25, 04:56 PM
Oh, I know - this would be another good opportunity for the "Demigods of Adventuring", who are on paper strong enough to clear 3 or 4 levels per long rest.


Looks like I am just going to be using my own Heart of Darkness system

That's pretty terrible for a megadungeon, but at least, if you let them rest at will, you can show the townsfolk dying of old age, until the PCs do so, too.


So I think what I am going to do based on this thread is have the dungeon restock with tougher monsters over time, but tie progression to actually pushing ahead (whether that is mapping, finding waypoints, killing "boss" monsters, or finding treasure I haven't decided yet) so that dragging your feet makes things harder, not easier.

Why would you respond to your players saying "we want things to be easier" by making things harder? That's not good GMing. You should choose a different style of carrot/stick.

Also, why would the dungeon restock with tougher monsters over time? That doesn't make much sense to me.


I am actually more used to White Wolf systems (or my own Heart of Darkness system) where resources aren't tied to the daily rest cycle like D&D, and it makes resource management much simpler.

(Mages use quintessence as a resource, which is on a weekly recharge btw).

Of course, in those games most of the time when there is an action heavy "adventure" it is very time sensitive.

Using those systems for a hex-crawl / megadungeon is even worse as, rather than a 15 minute work day, you are getting a 15 minute work month, and years of time will pass in setting by before the PCs actually accomplish anything.

Yes, Mages can use Quintessence... but they don't actually need it, except to power Devices (whatever those are called (darn senility)).

But my point was, hand me a megadungeon, and let me build a Dark Ages style party that never needs to rest, and we'll finish the dungeon in 1 delve. Or, you know, could, if only someone would hold the sun out of the sky. :smalltongue:

My point is, if you remove resource attrition as a consideration, it removes the impetus to play the game in the unfun way you seem to want to avoid.


I don't know though, I still feel like it could backfire, as during my hex-crawl game the more wandering monsters they encountered the more often the players retreated town, and would only actualy deign to explore a dungeon or other site based adventure if they managed to get to it in more or less perfect condition, and still bailed out at the first opportunity.

Uh, yeah, more and more powerful wandering monsters has the logical consequence of the PCs doing less per run, not more. If you want to encourage the PCs to do more per run, you want fewer and weaker random encounters, or to remove such altogether.


That has always come across to me as a total mood killer.

It's hard for me to take the dungeon seriously as mysterious and dangerous when people are set up outside trying to make a quick buck. It also kills any sense of danger if the guards are there to keep people out instead of keeping the monsters in (heck, if they are even capable of keeping the monsters in!) or that the PCs going in is a burden on the community rather than potentially saving their lives / homes.

But you're not playing the game, your players are. So it's their mood you need to focus on. And their mood might well be encouraged towards "doing more with each run" - you know, that thing you inexplicably seem to want - if you place guards charging for entrance to the dungeon at the doors.


You can frame it about control, but it isn't, it's just fundamental game design though. Games should reward skill and have risks and consequences.

The guy who takes 10 years to do a job that could have been done in one afternoon if they were willing to take risks is not really a hero IC, and a game that drags on without any actual excitement or need for thought is less a game and more of a chore OOC.

If that risk is "destruction of the world", then the moron who didn't take 10 years, and destroyed the world in an afternoon, is the true villain. Unless the world is terrible, and ought to be destroyed, of course.

And... you should probably have an OOC conversation with your players, and ask them how they feel about this, and what would best motivate them to play the game in a fun way. Personally, with all the horrible deaths your parties have suffered, I think, if I were a player at your table, I'd vote for "the only way out of the dungeon is to die", so that, every session, the PCs adventure until they hit a TPK. That would help everyone get an accurate understanding of the danger levels involved.

If your table had slightly more sane individuals, I think I'd vote for "we have the power to reset each level of the dungeon." So we try to clear the first level, fail, retreat, and reset the level, try again next long rest. This makes each layer a puzzle (even if a trivial one) of how to use resources efficiently to defeat the level in 1 run. Perhaps a temple of Time or something, where the actual mechanic is, each level automatically resets each night, caught in an endless loop, and we're going level by level, finding the nexus to undo the curse or something.


That requires some pretty serious contrivances.

Food is dirt cheap and readily available compared to most of their equipment, and this requires them to be repeatedly trapped in dungeons.

Most game systems have relatively simple magic that either conjures food or allows people to go without it.

It can be done, but it is going to require a lot of house rules and contrived situations, and I am not sure I want to go to the much work for something that is likely to just piss the players off and ruin everyone's immersion even if done really well.

Paying for food and lodging and dungeon entrance, as I present it, isn't supposed to be important, it's just a subtle nudge to make the players want to do as much as possible on each run. It's getting them to grow their own carrots. If they want.


Because with infinite resources you can't actually lose combat, so you don't have to care.

Sure you can. Timmy can get pushed down a well, the village can be burned to the ground, whatever.


I remember fights in 4E boiled down to "everyone use their daily, everyone use their encounter powers, then chip away using your utility powers until the things finally fall down, and then take a rest." It was certainly the most boring combat I have ever encountered in a game except maybe Age of Conan.

The problem is that if you make combat deadly enough that it is still a challenge with unlimited resources, then it is going to be so deadly that a little bad luck will also wipe the party even if played perfectly, especially if the players are under some form of time pressure.

Don't make it deadly - make it losable. And then let them reset time after they've lost, and try again next session.


That's the thing though, it isn't "low risk and low reward" its "zero risk and full reward". If it really were a tradeoff this wouldn't be (nearly so much of) an issue.

OK, and? What's your hangup with risk? IF my doctor told me there were two operations, one of which was high risk, high reward, the other of which carried no risk and offered the same reward, which do you think I'd choose?


Oh no, no encounters on the way out!

That was basically the catalyst for the poopshow last time; they got bushwacked by a tough random encounter on the way back from the dungeon, and from that point on it was utter paranoia and refusing to take risks or push on in any context.


The only way out is through is an interesting idea, but its really hard to pull of narratively except on rare occasions.

The dungeon is in a time loop, and resets every sunrise / sunset / moonrise / whatever? Disable each time nexus to finally put to rest an area? Still allows retreats, but requires a big push to clear.

Oh, it's inverse Re:Zero, the Megadungeon. :smallamused:


Why is that wrong though?

Doesn't the resource management thing, attrition, time pressure, whatever thing you want to add to the game, essentially do the same (create an encounter where it's possible to TPK even if played perfectly) but jumps through more hoops?

As long as you think "bad luck TPK is bad", then of course everyone is going to be super risk-averse. Aren't these two things connected?

(again, I'm not describing how I'd run a megadungeon; I'm just examining the premise)

Yeah, that's why I'd suggest carrots / sticks that don't involve increased risk of TPK, like paying guards entrance fees, or time-looped dungeons. Also, ones that are more "carrot seeds" that plant the seeds that might grow into carrot-shaped motivations inside the players, rather than being a direct external factor. "I want to explore more so that the guards take less of a percentage of my profits" rather than "the GM is hitting me upside the head with this stick".


Honestly, I feel like it's not actually about danger, but about laziness. Players don't like to have to put thought into the game and so they take the easiest path, and then blame it on risk aversion. And at the same time, I want the players to have to put thought into the game so that playing skillfully affects the outcome.

Um, I'm not sure what to tell you here. I think that this is very important, yes, that how smartly the PCs / players approach things should definitely have an impact. But... with your players? You've almost got to calibrate it to my "backstabbing idiots vs the bees" example for CaW vs CaS as the default victory condition, and let them have better victories for showing the survival instincts of a lemming, let alone the brainpower of a 7-year-old, or actual adventurer competence.

Build the game for the players you have, not the players that exist outside Bizarro World.

I mean, I wasn't thinking about your table when I made that example (I've had more than my fair share of terrible players (and terrible GMs) in my time), but maybe you should. Maybe you should build a game that can be beaten without TPK by the idiots in that example, and design your game with "degrees of success", such that more intelligent action is rewarded - not by success or survival, but by even better rewards.

Like... hmmm... the party should, if played competently (ie, to your usual metrics) be able to clear 2 layers, fix 2 time loop nexus points. Fixing 1 stops that level / area from looping and resetting, yes, but each nexus provides a number of Quintessence equal to the number of nexuses that have been fixed tonight. So the 1st nexus gives 1, the second in 1 run gives 2, the 3rd gives 3, etc. Start a new run, and the next Nexus only provides 1 Quintessence.

Make the Quintessence tied, not to their power, but to... something different. Like, they get to spend it to upgrade the town, or to make changes to your system (adding classes / schools of magic / weapon styles, whatever) for future games.

King of Nowhere
2023-02-25, 07:48 PM
But you're not playing the game, your players are. So it's their mood you need to focus on.
I have to stop for a tangent here to heartily disagree.
as a dm, I play the game too. nobody is paying me, I'm there to have fun, same like everyone else at the table. So how I want to play matters as much as how the players want to play; more, because I am also putting in all the extra effort. The dm is not supposed to sacrifice his wishes to the players.
unless they are actually paying him, that is.



That requires some pretty serious contrivances.


I missed the irony of that earlier, but I can point it out now.
so there is some huge underground structure, and it was somehow abandoned and never resettled, and it somehow got filled with monsters, and somehow it is filled with treasure that nobody else took before, and the monsters are casually all just strong enough to be level-appropriate for the level the characters happen to be at.
Once you accept that premise, how can you complain about contrived coincidences?

Vahnavoi
2023-02-26, 07:10 AM
Why would you respond to your players saying "we want things to be easier" by making things harder? That's not good GMing. You should choose a different style of carrot/stick.

Making a particular strategy less viable is not the same as making a game harder overall. Even if the goal is to just get players to switch from one easy approach to another, the old easy strategy must be removed from the table or players will keep using it simply due to familiarity.

Also? Appealing to worst instincts of players is not a great move. Talakeal's players suck and giving them what they say they want means they will continue to suck. Talakeal most likely should stop caving in, to the extent of stopping playing with them entirely.


Also, why would the dungeon restock with tougher monsters over time? That doesn't make much sense to me.

No-one has a reason to care whether it makes sense to you, but inventing reasons why (enemy reinforcements, adaptive opponents, curse of undeath etc.) is not hard. They just aren't very relevant. A character might not know why the sun rises, the important part is that it does.

Talakeal
2023-02-26, 11:34 AM
So, we had the first session, it actually went pretty great.

There was a lot of good RP, and though the characters all kind of red-flagged me at first, they ended up working together pretty well.

We swapped out two of the players from the usual group, and the new makeup is a lot less risk averse. They pushed on pretty well, then got swarmed and almost beaten down by kobolds (by kobolds! It was amazing!) and decided to pull out for the night, but they actually debated whether they should continue, and I actually came down on the side of withdrawing as it was getting late and the kobolds had hurt them badly (not that it was my decision to make, I just gave my opinion to them while they were on the fence).

I did explain that the dungeon is going to get more dangerous over time, and Bob grumbled as he always does, but so far so good!

I will right up a session log and post it sometime later today.

TLDR: Talakeal starts new campaign, no horror story found!


I missed the irony of that earlier, but I can point it out now.
so there is some huge underground structure, and it was somehow abandoned and never resettled, and it somehow got filled with monsters, and somehow it is filled with treasure that nobody else took before, and the monsters are casually all just strong enough to be level-appropriate for the level the characters happen to be at.
Once you accept that premise, how can you complain about contrived coincidences?

It is, yeah.

But I have gone to great lengths to explain why the dungeon is as it is to minimize contrivances; but its an exceptional situation and the PCs just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

I don't want to go into too great a detail here, but essentially it was sealed for centuries, and it is now being colonized from underneath, pushing a stable (if dangerous) ecosystem ever upward toward the surface and the people who live there.

Quertus
2023-02-26, 12:30 PM
I have to stop for a tangent here to heartily disagree.
as a dm, I play the game too. nobody is paying me, I'm there to have fun, same like everyone else at the table. So how I want to play matters as much as how the players want to play; more, because I am also putting in all the extra effort. The dm is not supposed to sacrifice his wishes to the players.
unless they are actually paying him, that is.

Anyone who thinks that their fun is worth ruining the experience for everyone at the table should be shown the door. Doubly so if that person is the GM.

The GM will almost invariably make content that is fun for themselves; they should always be asking, “what will be fun for the table?”, and be willing so sacrifice some of their fun for the health of the game.


Making a particular strategy less viable is not the same as making a game harder overall. Even if the goal is to just get players to switch from one easy approach to another, the old easy strategy must be removed from the table or players will keep using it simply due to familiarity.

Eh, maybe. When your players’ most common complaint is “it’s too hard”, removing their means of making things easier - by which I mean, specifically contriving the scenario to prevent that particular tech - isn’t exactly a productive strategy conducive to improving the situation, any more than screaming “be smarter, you idiots!” at the players every session would be.

But, yes, there are ways to encourage new “easy mode” strategies that you believe will be more fun for the group - communicating with the players about this new idea and getting buy-in for it is generally a good approach, IME.


No-one has a reason to care whether it makes sense to you, but inventing reasons why (enemy reinforcements, adaptive opponents, curse of undeath etc.) is not hard. They just aren't very relevant. A character might not know why the sun rises, the important part is that it does.

I don't want to go into too great a detail here, but essentially it was sealed for centuries, and it is now being colonized from underneath, pushing a stable (if dangerous) ecosystem ever upward toward the surface and the people who live there.

It has to make sense… to the GM, and their evil overlord mandated 5-year-old advisor. If the players pour a volcano down the hatch of the megadungeon, they’ll see different results from “overpopulation”, “magical spawn areas”, “time loop”, or “they’re running away”. And those results should inform their understanding of the megadungeon. The sun rising should be understandable to someone sufficiently knowledgeable who studies it.

Not that Talakeal’s players are historically likely to understand things, including things they have already figured out. :smallsigh:

Vahnavoi
2023-02-26, 12:50 PM
@Quertus: Talakeal's players saying something is "too hard" should be given same credibility as children saying it is "too hard" for them to put on a proper hat when going outside during winter.

As for the other thing, "this thing works so in a game because I need it to serve that game aesthetic", is all it takes for a thing to "make sense" for a game master. You are vastly overstating necessity of knowing "why" in in-character terms, and the sun analogy should've made that clear. After all, it took thousands of years before anyone properly understood "why" sun rises. Not only have most humans throughout history not understood the why, for majority of them, it was impossible. So no, it does not follow any curious character "should" be able to get accurate information of such things.

King of Nowhere
2023-02-26, 10:07 PM
Anyone who thinks that their fun is worth ruining the experience for everyone at the table should be shown the door. Doubly so if that person is the GM.

The GM will almost invariably make content that is fun for themselves; they should always be asking, “what will be fun for the table?”, and be willing so sacrifice some of their fun for the health of the game.

I can accept it worded this way. the way you worded it the first time - and a few other times in various posts - made it seem like claiming that the dm should do stuff that's unfun to him if the players like it.

Satinavian
2023-02-27, 02:56 AM
The GM will almost invariably make content that is fun for themselves; And the players only play content that is fun. So every table is full of people having fun, right ?

No. Sometimes people have less fun than they imagined they would have when they joined/started a group. But as a long running group activity, there is always some sense of obligation that makes leaving harder. Doubly so for the GM because the campaign ends when the GM quits.

You can't just assume that the GM will automatically have fun anyway and that it thus is only worth to talk about player fun.


Everyone at a table should consider the fun of the others and try to find ways that are fun for the whole group. And everyone should be honest about their wishes. The GM is not special here.

Talakeal
2023-02-27, 11:59 AM
Write up of the first session and a half here:


https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654504-Gateway-to-the-Dreamscapes-Megadungeon-Campaign-Log&p=25718877#post25718877 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654504-Gateway-to-the-Dreamscapes-Megadungeon-Campaign-Log&p=25718877#post25718877)

Long story short; it went great and, at least so far, my fears were for nothing.

I told them at the outset that their advancement is linked to accomplishing things in the dungeon, but the dungeon gets more dangerous over (in setting) time. Bob grumbled at this (but then again, he always does) but everyone got the picture that the optimal strategy was to intended to be for them to stretch their resources as far as they reasonably could before turning back and played accordingly.

gbaji
2023-02-27, 03:58 PM
We swapped out two of the players from the usual group, and the new makeup is a lot less risk averse. They pushed on pretty well, then got swarmed and almost beaten down by kobolds (by kobolds! It was amazing!) and decided to pull out for the night, but they actually debated whether they should continue, and I actually came down on the side of withdrawing as it was getting late and the kobolds had hurt them badly (not that it was my decision to make, I just gave my opinion to them while they were on the fence).

Noticed this. Are you actually enforcing in-game stops with on-table stops? Just seemed so by your statement there that it was "getting late". I just stop the game session when it's time to stop. Heck. I've on occasion stopped in the middle of a battle (don't like to, but sometimes it becomes apparent that the fight is going to go on another 4 or 5 rounds, and it's like 11PM on a Sunday night and folks need to go to work in the morning). A game session need not completely encapsulate an adventure. You can just stop after a fight, and with the characters standing around in the room wondering what to do next.

I find that actually works better, because it gives the players time between sessions to make a better decision as to what to do next. It's not uncommon at all for us to break the session right when they first run into some new "thing" that requires a hard decision for just this reason. Dunno. I could be wrong in interpreting what you said though.

Talakeal
2023-02-27, 04:19 PM
Noticed this. Are you actually enforcing in-game stops with on-table stops? Just seemed so by your statement there that it was "getting late". I just stop the game session when it's time to stop. Heck. I've on occasion stopped in the middle of a battle (don't like to, but sometimes it becomes apparent that the fight is going to go on another 4 or 5 rounds, and it's like 11PM on a Sunday night and folks need to go to work in the morning). A game session need not completely encapsulate an adventure. You can just stop after a fight, and with the characters standing around in the room wondering what to do next.

I find that actually works better, because it gives the players time between sessions to make a better decision as to what to do next. It's not uncommon at all for us to break the session right when they first run into some new "thing" that requires a hard decision for just this reason. Dunno. I could be wrong in interpreting what you said though.

We generally do one adventure equals one session, but it isn’t a hard rule. Especially when doing a more sandbox campaign like this.

In this game I thought about using a real time calendar like the DMs of old, but decided against it. In the future I expect to run multiple expeditions per game session.

gbaji
2023-02-27, 06:19 PM
We generally do one adventure equals one session, but it isn’t a hard rule. Especially when doing a more sandbox campaign like this.

In this game I thought about using a real time calendar like the DMs of old, but decided against it. In the future I expect to run multiple expeditions per game session.

How long are your game sessions? My games usually run the opposite, with 3-4 game sessions per expedition. We usually play once a week for maybe 4 or 5 hours though. That's often just enough time to have some plot discussions, planning, in-character interaction between PCS and/or NPCs, then <something happens>, and maybe a short combat or two. It's not uncommon for something "simple" like clearing out a small fort with maybe 2 or 3 combats, to take a session getting to the fort, and maybe two sessions clearing it out. Then we pick up the week after that to go over stuff they found, then RP the next step in the adventure, and then move on. I never use a "real time" calendar. Game time passes in game, based on what they do in game. Period. A session could take 15 minutes of game time, or could cover 6 weeks. Doesn't matter.

Medium length adventures could literallly go 4-6 months of weekly game sessions, with the entire thing being the adventurers "out in the wilderness doing stuff". Heck. One of our GMs ran just one small part of his adventure, which was us exploring an ancient Ziggurat, and just that one bit took a couple months to clear though. That was after travelling to nationA, learning about <bad stuff> (and encountering some bad guys), then sailing down a river to <nationB>, and learning more stuff (and fighting some more bad guys there), then hopping on a ship and traveling to <continentC>, then wandering inland some distance, finding said ancient ziggurat and exploring it (and finding some info we were after), then finding some other ancient portal thingie and using the info to travel to <planeD>, then wandering around there dealing with more bad guys and gaining some mcguffin we needed, returning to our home plane, then travelling back to <nationA>, meeting up with some allies, then traveling far inland there and having a big climatic battle with the final end boss bad guy. The whole adventure took us most of a year to go through.

So yeah. I'm just confused at your players having this "leashed to town" mentality going on. They should be perfectly willing and able to travel for long distances and time "in the wilderness". And should have the tools and abilities to defend themselves while doing so. Finding a "safe place to camp" is somewhat of an important skill to develop. And sure, a "megadungeon" set up near a town may have some "return to town to sell loot and buy potions/whatever" aspect to it, but I'm still finding it strange that they are so hesitant to just jump the heck in and do the dungeon thing.

Talakeal
2023-02-27, 07:07 PM
How long are your game sessions? My games usually run the opposite, with 3-4 game sessions per expedition. We usually play once a week for maybe 4 or 5 hours though. That's often just enough time to have some plot discussions, planning, in-character interaction between PCS and/or NPCs, then <something happens>, and maybe a short combat or two. It's not uncommon for something "simple" like clearing out a small fort with maybe 2 or 3 combats, to take a session getting to the fort, and maybe two sessions clearing it out. Then we pick up the week after that to go over stuff they found, then RP the next step in the adventure, and then move on. I never use a "real time" calendar. Game time passes in game, based on what they do in game. Period. A session could take 15 minutes of game time, or could cover 6 weeks. Doesn't matter.

Medium length adventures could literallly go 4-6 months of weekly game sessions, with the entire thing being the adventurers "out in the wilderness doing stuff". Heck. One of our GMs ran just one small part of his adventure, which was us exploring an ancient Ziggurat, and just that one bit took a couple months to clear though. That was after travelling to nationA, learning about <bad stuff> (and encountering some bad guys), then sailing down a river to <nationB>, and learning more stuff (and fighting some more bad guys there), then hopping on a ship and traveling to <continentC>, then wandering inland some distance, finding said ancient ziggurat and exploring it (and finding some info we were after), then finding some other ancient portal thingie and using the info to travel to <planeD>, then wandering around there dealing with more bad guys and gaining some mcguffin we needed, returning to our home plane, then travelling back to <nationA>, meeting up with some allies, then traveling far inland there and having a big climatic battle with the final end boss bad guy. The whole adventure took us most of a year to go through.

So yeah. I'm just confused at your players having this "leashed to town" mentality going on. They should be perfectly willing and able to travel for long distances and time "in the wilderness". And should have the tools and abilities to defend themselves while doing so. Finding a "safe place to camp" is somewhat of an important skill to develop. And sure, a "megadungeon" set up near a town may have some "return to town to sell loot and buy potions/whatever" aspect to it, but I'm still finding it strange that they are so hesitant to just jump the heck in and do the dungeon thing.

We generally play ~8 hours every two weeks, although sometimes our sessions run really long because nobody can focus and we just spend several hours talking about video games.

It sounds like your definition of adventure and mine are a bit different. What you are calling an "adventure" I would call an "arc".

I am used to playing games where resource recovery is slow, mostly White Wolf Games were it is on the scale of weeks or months rather than hours or days, although as Quertus pointed out vampires can probably keep going indefinitely as long as there is a steady supply of mortals for them to chomp down on, as well as Games Workshop's narrative skirmish games where you alternate between battle phases and recovery phases, and my Heart of Darkness system plays like a fusion of those.

A typical "adventure" in my system plays like an "adventuring day" in D&D, with 4-8 encounters per, and then a downtime phase after.

My understanding is that the "15 MWD" is originally a problem in D&D, where the game assumes 4-8 encounters per day, but players decide to sleep and recover all of their spells after each. This is certainly the mentality I always used in D&D video games when it was allowed, and I see a lot of people having problems where the casters outshine the marshals and wilderness encounters are tedious and pointless as a result.

My last hex-crawl required an extended rest in town to recover spells, and as a result the players went back there every time because they realized the odds of dying to the first encounter after a rest were negligible, but the odds of dying on subsequent encounters went up, so they did everything possible to ensure that every encounter was their fist.

I am just hoping that attitude doesn't carry forward to this campaign.

Satinavian
2023-02-28, 02:23 AM
My understanding is that the "15 MWD" is originally a problem in D&D, where the game assumes 4-8 encounters per day, but players decide to sleep and recover all of their spells after each. This is certainly the mentality I always used in D&D video games when it was allowed, and I see a lot of people having problems where the casters outshine the marshals and wilderness encounters are tedious and pointless as a result.I would say the main problem was balancing the system around 4-8 combat encounters a day in the first place. That is not really how it works in most kinds of fantasy fiction.

DrMartin
2023-02-28, 02:53 AM
there are way to address the issue in-game and out of game. as far as i understand your table's dynamic, the answer has to be strictly in game and reflected by the game mechanics and setting, right?

maybe the megadungeon has its own rules, enforced by its own infrastructure. Access to deeper parts of the dungeon has to be earned through a series of feats, tasks, checkpoints, etc, and the "access rights" are reset every time you exit the environment. So you can enter, do one encounter, blow all your resources, and exit, but when you re-enter you will probably have to face the same encounter or trap again. Only now you know how, and can do it in a more resource-savvy way - this way your players, who apparently like to play "optimally", get rewarded.

If there are some abilities you don't want the players to use, you can use the dungeon's safeguard system to account for that, in-game. Maybe there's a cold themed area in your megadungeon. with a central hyper-cold core that your characters need to reach. But the dungeon has a safe-guard that won't grant access to the hyper-cold core to anyone carrying or using fire - so in this delve your players will have to navigate through the cold area and its fire-susceptible denizens without using fire spells

Once you reach certain milestones in the dungeon you might get permanent access right to some areas, to allow for direct navigation past early areas and save table play time. Once the characters have reached certain levels they might be able to bypass some of the dungeons restrictions entirely - passwalls, etherealness, teleport, etc - I would say this can also be fine, if your players embrace this newfound freedom of exploration and become able to find and reach parts of the dungeon that have been so far completely out of reach - not just from them, but from other parties as well. The early areas that every other party in town has to navigate through to get a bit deeper might be very well mapped, the middle strata might have some information that can be obtained for coin or favors, but now you can suddenly dig straight through the dungeon's structure to areas where nobody has ever been - I'd say that is something to be encouraged rather than forbidden with a blanket "teleportation doesn't work here".

All I am saying can be boiled down to - a megadungeon is its own environment, with its own laws of physics and internal logic. As long as you keep that logic consistent and you telegraph it clearly to your players, almost anything goes.

King of Nowhere
2023-02-28, 04:27 AM
I would say the main problem was balancing the system around 4-8 combat encounters a day in the first place. That is not really how it works in most kinds of fantasy fiction.
+1
I don't like the model of multiple combats. Starting from the fact that you are supposed to have to keep a certain (innatural) pace, down to the fact that the first few combats are very easy and feel kinda pointless, ending with it being hard to justify that the opponents will stand and fight to the death to drain the party resources instead of running or surrendering.

The whole model, to be believable, requires many special circumstances. I prefer to balance around a single fight, and mitigate caster supremacy in other ways

stoutstien
2023-02-28, 08:08 AM
I would say the main problem was balancing the system around 4-8 combat encounters a day in the first place. That is not really how it works in most kinds of fantasy fiction.

They didn't? They put a warning sign before the sharp curves not a minimum speed limit.

Satinavian
2023-02-28, 08:17 AM
They didn't? They put a warning sign before the sharp curves not a minimum speed limit.
I don't get that metaphor at all, sorry.

GameMaster_Phil
2023-02-28, 10:49 AM
My next campaign is going to be an old school mega-dungeon.

In short, I am wondering how to incentivize the characters to actually push themselves in exploring it rather than falling back on the old 15 minute adventuring day routine.

I have never had much success with this in the past. The last time I tried to run a hex-crawl game everything I did, from wandering encounters to non-lethal death just made the problem worse.

The dungeon is directly under the town, Diablo style, so long journeys and expensive supplies are going to be tough to justify.

Likewise, tying resting to a RL clock is annoying and honestly more of a punishment for me as the DM than it is for the players.

Any ideas?

Maybe tweaking XP based on time since a rest? Random encounters getting more lethal over time?

Here is what I did. 5 Years of monthly megadungeon sessions here.

There are 2 crucial parts. Communicate these and their intentions clearly to your players, before game start.

The first important part is to not grant XP for killing stuff. Exploration or 1 point of XP for each gp worth of loot brought back to town is a good choice. Make your wandering monsters medium dangerous, but, on average, poor (as in, no loot whatsoever). So if they go into the dungeon and retreat after the first fight, let them. The first few times, there might still be some loot to find (and XP to gain), but the well-explored parts of the dungeon will run dry of loot (and thus, xp), pretty quickly. My players loitered on the first level for a number of sessions, and their leveling slowed significantly over time. The game was "easy" at this time for my players, because they were (PF 1e) Level 3-4 characters on level 1, but I didn't mind. Eventually, they found info for greater threats and rewards deeper down, and went for that when they felt ready. Have patience.

The second important part is to encourage resting in town and strongly discourage resting in the dungeon. XP are granted only in town. Wandering monsters should really sting if someone tries to stay 8 hours in the dungeon. I even implemented stuff like haunts and demonic possession attempts on resting characters, and warned them about it IC and OOC. Have a reason for at least several ingame days passing between game sessions. This justifies restocking.


For time tracking in the dungeon, look up AngryDMs Tension Pool mechanic and use that. It works pretty well. Go no more granular than that. Knowing your players from your posts, do a full review with all of them of this house rule and get them on board.

For restocking: A megadungeon needs to restock. I roll a d20 for each "explored" room when restocking happens (usually roughly every 10 days). Between sessions, 2d6 days pass. There is 15% chance for an encounter without extra treasure, and a 10% chance for an encounter with (additional) treasure. And again, not all encounters have intrinsic treasure (like an NPC with gear). And a 5% chance for new treasure without an encounter. That means, the monsters will restock faster than the treasure. The treasure and encounter difficulty should not scale with player level, but with dungeon depth or rather, danger. The lower you go, the higher the danger and the better the loot. D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder have nice loot tables for this.

You can also mine the recruitment post in the OOC link in my sig for more information. Feel free to ask me about it.

Talakeal
2023-02-28, 11:10 AM
I would say the main problem was balancing the system around 4-8 combat encounters a day in the first place. That is not really how it works in most kinds of fantasy fiction.

Maybe I am reading the wrong kind of fiction then.

Half a dozen or so fights per adventure seems pretty normal to me.

Satinavian
2023-02-28, 11:22 AM
Per adventure or per day ?
Most of the fantasy stuff i read has has weeks or months between most fights and often not more than one or two in total for whole story arcs. There are exceptions but those are, well, exceptions.

It might work for your megadungeon setup. But i found that regularly playing D&D makes it a struggle to hit such numbers without contrievances. Which is why many groups probably get far less encounters per rest even without the players particularly trying to do so.

BRC
2023-02-28, 11:30 AM
It's a matter of the table-time experience.

In a fantasy story, action scenes and non-action scenes can move the plot forward at similar paces from a reader's perspective.

In a TTRPG, while action scenes can be fun, they heavily decompress time from the audience perspective. If you do six fights in an adventuring Day, that's a TON of table time for fairly little story advancement or actual achievement. It can also lead to grinder fights, which exist to do nothing but sap PC resources to make later fights more challenging and are not particularly fun to play through.

A fight can easily be 2 hours of play time, so six fights can mean 12 hours of table time covering maybe five minutes of time in-story. Sure there are scenarios where that can work and still feel good, but if you try to make that a constant pace things will be very sluggish, as you can reach a point where your players have to wait months for any real plot advancement.

stoutstien
2023-02-28, 11:39 AM
I don't get that metaphor at all, sorry.

The entire 4-8 encounters a day angle doesn't exist as a goal or system standard. It's solely a reference point for DMs who use daily exp budget. It's a warning when they *might* start seeing strain due to volume or intensity. It's cautionary not obligatory.

Vahnavoi
2023-02-28, 01:07 PM
The entire 4-8 encounters a day angle doesn't exist as a goal or system standard. It's solely a reference point for DMs who use daily exp budget. It's a warning when they *might* start seeing strain due to volume or intensity. It's cautionary not obligatory.

Yup. In 3.x., it was originally an average of what the actual guideline was. Amount of encounters was meant to vary both in quantity and challenge rating, from masses of weaker enemies to just one overpowering enemy. The extreme ends weren't even supposed to yield experience points, either because the enemies were so much weaker than the player characters, or because they were so much stronger that a purposeful victory was not considered possible. In total, these extreme ends covered 10% to 15% of all encounters.

But, in any case, balancing a game system around any given number of daily encounters is madness, because it is way too constraining for scenario design. It is much better to explain how to vary both frequency and intensity of encounters to match desired gameplay and difficulty.

Talakeal
2023-02-28, 01:54 PM
Maybe I am reading the wrong kind of fiction then.

Half a dozen or so fights per adventure seems pretty normal to me.

Per adventure, which might be per day or it might not.

Which is why its, imo, really dumb to pace the game around resource attrition and daily rests when an action heavy dungeon crawl might have ten fights in a day and an overland travel game might have one fight a month.


Looking at Tolkien's works, the ur example of a modern fantasy story, it seems like they have a rhythm of one random combat encounter, one dangerous plot relevant encounter, resting at an allies home, repeat.

kyoryu
2023-02-28, 02:03 PM
The problem is, like many other things, that D&D has gone significant drift of how it is played.

In megadungeon play, attrition makes sense (with some of the things mentioned in this thread). The goal is to get in and get as much out as you can - and retreating after any attrition is not a great tactic. Combat is to be avoided. Getting treasure is the point. There aren't "expected" combats. Trivializing an encounter doesn't break the game. There's a lot of "press your luck" involved, so long-term attrition made sense as a central mechanic. You figure out how to use your resources efficiently to get as far as you can. There's a lot of cool gameplay involved there. And the GM didn't plan a number of encounters, the players decided what they wanted to deal with and when they wanted to turn around.

When the game was moved out of the dungeon, that assumption broke down. But, it's what the game does, so that's what we have. I'd absolutely argue that, for most D&D games, a long-term attrition-based model based upon days in the game world doesn't make a lot of sense, and the fifteen minute workday is the first and most obvious symptom of this.

[QUOTE=Talakeal;25719847]
Which is why its, imo, really dumb to pace the game around resource attrition and daily rests when an action heavy dungeon crawl might have ten fights in a day and an overland travel game might have one fight a month.[/quote[

Well, yes. Or, more like "it's dumb to pace a game around daily resource attrition when the game does not scope things so that they actually occur on that schedule."

Vahnavoi
2023-02-28, 02:24 PM
Again, the "fifteen minute workday" is just basic tactics. Outside tabletop roleplaying games, it would just be called shock hit-and-run. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_tactics)

Players engaging in this is not a symptom of a game not working. It is them adapting to a specific tactical and strategic environment. Even within confines of modern D&D, it isn't hard to craft a scenario where such basic tactics are no longer sufficient. If different play is desired, the spotlight ought to be on the scenario designer.

gbaji
2023-02-28, 02:26 PM
It sounds like your definition of adventure and mine are a bit different. What you are calling an "adventure" I would call an "arc".

Ok. Fair enough.


I am used to playing games where resource recovery is slow, mostly White Wolf Games were it is on the scale of weeks or months rather than hours or days, although as Quertus pointed out vampires can probably keep going indefinitely as long as there is a steady supply of mortals for them to chomp down on, as well as Games Workshop's narrative skirmish games where you alternate between battle phases and recovery phases, and my Heart of Darkness system plays like a fusion of those.

I play in a game with mixed resource recovery rates. There are "short term" resources (magic points basically), that recover constantly at a set rate over time. So while travelling, they're regaining this stuff. This allows them to cast basic spells in the game. There are "long term" resources, which take the form of more powerful and faster casting spells, but they basically require spending time at a temple/shrine/whatever praying to recover the spells from your deity. Which takes a day per point of spell. A typical priest might head off on an adventure with say 20-30 points (or a lot more depending on how long the person has been adventuring). So recovery takes "weeks" of sitting around in specific locations. Not something you can do on the move, or even just resting some random location.

We also have various items/artifacts/whatever that may have x/day uses of various spell effects.

The point is that there's resources spent during a series of encounters in a single day. That's a management in terms of "can we run through this series of encounters, and perhaps multiple combats without running out of our short term stuff?". A lot of adventuring may be wandering around, travelling, exploring, investigating, but then time somewhat compresses when they're delving into a dungeon, or assaulting some bad guy lair. And those can often involve a fairly large number of encounters in a relatively short amount of time. That's where we can literally spend 8 or 10 sessions just in a single day of game time (or just a few hours), as the PCs are managing short term resources trying to work their way through something difficult.

And in many cases, they may also expend long term resources along the way doing that (they're more powerful spells, and basically "get out of pickle" kind of things). But they have to consider whether they're going to be albe to spend the time getting those back, or whether they're going to have to head from where they are to some new thing and deal with that. I don't have to deal with the "go home and rest after every fight thing", since the short term stuff recovers automatically, and the long term stuff isn't going to recover from one nights rest "at hom". There's literall no value in "going home", unless they plan on spending several weeks there. All my adventures are done in a way that they must complete the thing in front of them in one go, or they will fail. And, often, having done that one thing, they now have to head off immediately to some other location to do something else in a story arc, or they will (again) fail. You don't just smash the bbeg's minions in lairA, find out the secret location to lairB where they're <doing something evil> and then sit around for a month recovering spells. That's not going to work.

Now, while they are on longer adventures, there may be natural break points. They're in a city along the way, nothing is immediately pressing, and they can decide to spend a week or two getting long term spells back. Maybe they're waiting for a ship to take them to some distant land they need to get to. Or there's some other event/contact they need to encounter/meet and have some time. That's usually a component of the adventure they are in. I don't tend to just let them do things on their own time scale. The PCs are almost always reacting to something else going on, and that "plot" is being driven by the bad guys and their time line.


My last hex-crawl required an extended rest in town to recover spells, and as a result the players went back there every time because they realized the odds of dying to the first encounter after a rest were negligible, but the odds of dying on subsequent encounters went up, so they did everything possible to ensure that every encounter was their fist.

I am just hoping that attitude doesn't carry forward to this campaign.

Yeah. Not a huge fan of hex crawls in general. But I do get that if you're doing that, you're are basically engaged in "exploration", and it's not so much about story arcs, and NPC driven adventuring. Again, not my cup of tea, but that does mean that I don't run into the kinds of timid timing use that you are seeing.

I balance the adventure timeline to the PCs ability to manage it. The PCS then have to actually do the managing to make that work though. If they dawdle there are consequences. If they waste resources, there are also consequences. It's pretty natural feeling IMO. Just works.

A megadungeon presents additional challenges. But I still suggest thinking in terms of single "chunks" of content that must all be managed in one go. There are a number of ways to make this work, but you really need to do this, otherwise they will just chip away at the content if you let them.

kyoryu
2023-02-28, 02:46 PM
Again, the "fifteen minute workday" is just basic tactics. Outside tabletop roleplaying games, it would just be called shock hit-and-run. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_tactics)

Players engaging in this is not a symptom of a game not working. It is them adapting to a specific tactical and strategic environment. Even within confines of modern D&D, it isn't hard to craft a scenario where such basic tactics are no longer sufficient. If different play is desired, the spotlight ought to be on the scenario designer.

Except the fact that D&D isn't reality. It was designed, and the rules are there for a reason. They're there to create pressure on pushing progress, trying to find efficiencies, etc.

The game hasn't really been played that way in years, but it still echoes today.

And, yes, you can handle that with scenario design... but in a lot of ways, you shouldn't have to.

Vahnavoi
2023-02-28, 03:20 PM
I disagree with that last part. To be played, a roleplaying game needs a scenario, and since tactical and strategic environment depends on that, it is the scenario designer who should handle. The obvious follow-up is that if a game master wants to make their own scenarios, at no point can they credibly say they "shouldn't have to" handle this.

Worth noting is that I don't disagree with your statement about how the way people play has drifted. As an observation, it is valid and true. I just wouldn't draw far-reaching conclusions about the quality of the game from that.

gbaji
2023-02-28, 03:54 PM
I disagree with that last part. To be played, a roleplaying game needs a scenario, and since tactical and strategic environment depends on that, it is the scenario designer who should handle. The obvious follow-up is that if a game master wants to make their own scenarios, at no point can they credibly say they "shouldn't have to" handle this.

I agree, er, with your disagreement. While you certainly can just toss monsters and treasure somewhat randomly at the PCs (and given that we're talking about a megadungeon, that's a distinct possibility), that doesn't mean that's how you *should* do things, and certainly not necessarily "by design". Most scenarios are just that: A scenario. There is an objective that the PCs are trying to achieve beyond just "kill monsters and take their stuff".

And yeah, it's absolutely up to the GM to write that scenario and present it to the players such that the pace of the game flows in whatever way is desired. I've found that the only case in which the players have such control over the pace that they can just "kill a single room of monsters and then retreat back to town to recover" is when the GM has created absolutely no "objective" to the game other than "clear out these monsters" (and even then has somehow structured the monsters such that they don't communicate with eachother or seem to notice that the room full of their neighbors has been previously attacked or take any action in response). I always structure any section of an adventure as an interlocking set of elements. You can't interact with one of them, without being noticed by others (at least to some degree). A lot of the time, this means that once you do one thing significant (like kill a bunch of creatures) you have to continue on while you still have the element of surprise on your side. Going home for a day or so and coming back later is a really horrifically bad idea (again, if there's any structure to the area at all).

I would argue that it's relatively easy to put those objectives into the game *and* that GMs really should do so. It makes the game so much more interesting to the players if they have a reason to be doing what they are doing. To put it in OotS terms. It took exactly 13 strips for Rich to decide he needed to have a reason for his characters to be in the dungeon other than "kill monsters and take their loot". I find that it's somewhat the same thing with actual tables of players. They will have no interest in the characters or the game setting if you, the GM, don't fill in this sort of stuff.

Talakeal
2023-02-28, 04:28 PM
Again, the "fifteen minute workday" is just basic tactics. Outside tabletop roleplaying games, it would just be called shock hit-and-run. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit-and-run_tactics)

I think I mentioned already, the big difference between real life / narrative and game rules / hit points is that a single arrow through the chest is potentially deadly or debilitating, while in game it is just something you can sleep off.

This makes hit and run tactics a lot more effective in most RPGs than they would ordinarily be.

ahyangyi
2023-02-28, 07:24 PM
I think I mentioned already, the big difference between real life / narrative and game rules / hit points is that a single arrow through the chest is potentially deadly or debilitating, while in game it is just something you can sleep off.

This makes hit and run tactics a lot more effective in most RPGs than they would ordinarily be.

The "hit and run tactics" in real life can be successful, and has little to do with healing speed.

But furthermore, I fail to see the relevance of this comparison. I thought your question was to avoid overly cautious player behavior? Then what's the purpose of complaining about "healing too fast" in games?

Talakeal
2023-02-28, 07:31 PM
The "hit and run tactics" in real life can be successful, and has little to do with healing speed.

But furthermore, I fail to see the relevance of this comparison. I thought your question was to avoid overly cautious player behavior? Then what's the purpose of complaining about "healing too fast" in games?

I didn't say they couldn't be successful, just that they aren't wholly safe like in an RPG with HP.

In real life, if I get into a gun fight, there is a good chance I will die, regardless of whether or not it is the first gunfight of the day.

In an RPG that uses D&D style HP, that risk is basically zero unless I happen to have several fights in a row without being able to rest between, which creates a dissonance between the rules and the narrative.


A tactic like "turn around and go back after every encounter, and only actually explore the dungeon if you manage to avoid wilderness encounters on the journey" would be much MORE dangerous in real life, whereas in game it is much less dangerous. Which is why "I am just using smart tactics" doesn't hold water because you are exploiting the mechanics to produce a result that it out of sync with the narrative.

ahyangyi
2023-02-28, 07:34 PM
Yep, so the natural solution in real life is


Bring enough gun bullets so that resource consumption is less a concern
And retreat for your life after you are wounded, because you can't heal your wound in the dungeon


And if you try to modify the situation further, then the natural solution in real life would be, "adventuring is stupid, go home".

Talakeal
2023-02-28, 07:41 PM
Yep, so the natural solution in real life is


Bring enough gun bullets so that resource consumption is less a concern
And retreat for your life after you are wounded, because you can't heal your wound in the dungeon


And if you try to modify the situation further, then the natural solution in real life would be, "adventuring is stupid, go home".

Exactly. Risk averse people would be better off not going on adventures in the first place. That's why there are piles of unclaimed gold out there in the dungeons, because normal people aren't suicidal enough to go after them.

People whose only priority is safety would never be adventurers, and would never be the protagonists of the "high combat action and adventure" games that the players claim to want to play.


Edit: This got me thinking, does anyone know how real life combat units, say military special forces, make the call on when to give up on a mission? How many casualties are acceptable before its sop to pull out?

ahyangyi
2023-02-28, 07:44 PM
Given enough loot, the dungeons will still visited by higher powered groups (such as kingdom armies).

It's just the "four men adventure team" thing will falter if you remove all healing and expect them to delve into the dungeon.

Note that this isn't an argument about being risk-averse, but just about logistics of healing. In the real-world-like setting, an army would be able to set up battlefield hospitals, the four-man band is out of luck.

BTW: the real life combat units can transport wounded troops back, receiving reinforcements simultaneously, while not abandoning the mission at all; something you can't mimic in a four-man band.

Satinavian
2023-03-01, 02:22 AM
A tactic like "turn around and go back after every encounter, and only actually explore the dungeon if you manage to avoid wilderness encounters on the journey" would be much MORE dangerous in real life, whereas in game it is much less dangerous. Which is why "I am just using smart tactics" doesn't hold water because you are exploiting the mechanics to produce a result that it out of sync with the narrative.
First, what you describe would be "trying to wear down a superior force with guerilla tactics", which people regularly do IRL. Not that often successfully, because it is hard but is is the smart option compared to open field battle.

Second, even in game it needs a couple of additional assumptions to be actually OP.

- That you always can safely retreat (which should be really questionable in any halfway believable conflict)
- That all the damage you get is superficial but all the damage the enemy gets is not ( that is a rule issue) Usually the side that controls the battlefield in the end should have an easier time limiting their losses.

Vahnavoi
2023-03-01, 03:57 AM
I think I mentioned already, the big difference between real life / narrative and game rules / hit points is that a single arrow through the chest is potentially deadly or debilitating, while in game it is just something you can sleep off.

This makes hit and run tactics a lot more effective in most RPGs than they would ordinarily be.

Heavily game and scenario dependent. For example, most editions of D&D have lethal risks in most combats, from surprise volley or fireball to the face, to save-or-die spells and instant kill traps. Long term ability damage, negative levels, disease and insanity are also options. Yes yes, hitpoints will protect you from a single arrow to the chest, but so would good armor in real life. Point being, if player characters can just sleep off any losses they incur, the scenario designer is already sparing them from a lot what their game system allows.



Edit: This got me thinking, does anyone know how real life combat units, say military special forces, make the call on when to give up on a mission? How many casualties are acceptable before its sop to pull out?

The rule of the thumb, which I have codified into morale rules in my games, is:

Unit is considered incapacitated upon suffering 20% casualties. "Incapacitated" roughly meaning it can no longer achieve strategic goals it set out for.

Unit is considered destroyed upon suffering 50% of casualties. "Destroyed" roughly meaning it is beyond recovery and has to be disbanded.

These are strategic-level considerations. An unit may be able to squeeze a battlefield, tactical level victory even after meeting these tresholds, these are about what happens after any given engangement.

If the tresholds seem low, remember that the Pareto principle, or law of the vital few, applies to military units. 80% of work is done by 20 % of individuals. If this sounds counter-intuitive, consider a four-man party of specialists: a locksmith, an IT personnel, a cook and a bodyguard. They come to a locked door. The work positions of the IT personnel and the cook are behind the door. They need the locksmith to get to their jobs, but once the locksmith has opened the door, they can pretty much go home. Meanwhile, the bodyguard is there mostly in case something goes wrong. If all goes fine, the bodyguard won't be doing anything related to their own area of expertise. Of the cook and the IT personnel, one is likely there to act as support for the other: either the IT person is there to fix cooking equipment, or the cook is there to make lunch for the IT person. Whichever it is, only one of them is likely to do majority of actual productive work that pays all their bills.

But, what happens if the locksmith gets injured and cannot make it? Now the actual productive members cannot get in and do their jobs. Loss of one person out of four incapacitates the other three.

All of the above applies to parties of "adventurers", or, more accurarely, small groups of military or paramilitary operatives engaging in guerilla warfare. Suppose you have classic four-man band of fighter, thief, cleric, magic-user. If the thief is killed, now the band has to retreat far enough for the cleric to revivify them, since without the thief, the next trap or locked door might stop the band in its tracks. If both the thief and the cleric are killed, the fighter and the magic-user might as well call it quits and go looking for a new group, since their ability to recover the lost members and achieve their mission goal has dropped to near zero. So on and so forth.

kyoryu
2023-03-01, 08:10 AM
First, what you describe would be "trying to wear down a superior force with guerilla tactics", which people regularly do IRL. Not that often successfully, because it is hard but is is the smart option compared to open field battle.

Wearing down the opponent is rarely the goal. The goal is usually to capture strategic objectives or disrupt supply lines so that the enemy cannot continue fighting.

Blowing up a tank is good. Blowing up a fuel depot that supplies 100 tanks is better.


- That you always can safely retreat (which should be really questionable in any halfway believable conflict)

Why would that be questionable? In the majority of cases that's the goal. You don't need to kill the other side, you need to take the objective - and that's always easier if you can get the other side to leave. Trapping the opponent and forcing them to fight to the last man will just incur more casualties on your side, and the objective is where the value is anyway.

Note that this is far more true in the real world where you don't have ablative hit points, and even one last solider can kill multiple of yours if they've got good position.

Will it always be safe to retreat? Of course not. But in most cases it will be, and it's kinda smart (in the real world) to give your opponents a way to retreat for the reasons I described above.

Satinavian
2023-03-01, 09:49 AM
Why would that be questionable? Because being wounded, unconscious or having various status effects can severely hamper mobility. That is why retreating forces often have to leave wounded behind.

And whether the enemy lets you retreat depends a lot on what the enemy wants. For any long running conflict, it might be quite preferable to not let enemies retreat to fight another day. Especially as people who decide to retreat are often weaker, particularly vulnerable (not entrenched) and on low morale (which means you might even provoke a rout). If your side can afford it and you expect further engagements, there is hardly a better situation to strike.
Sure, you might want to encourage a retreat if the enemy has to give up a good defensible or important position to do so. But that is not the standard scenario nor particularly relevant here as we are talking about attackers safely retreating after they have done enough damage (to likely attack later at another place and time of their choosing). That is not something you would want to allow.

Talakeal
2023-03-01, 11:15 AM
Given enough loot, the dungeons will still visited by higher powered groups (such as kingdom armies).

It's just the "four men adventure team" thing will falter if you remove all healing and expect them to delve into the dungeon.

Note that this isn't an argument about being risk-averse, but just about logistics of healing. In the real-world-like setting, an army would be able to set up battlefield hospitals, the four-man band is out of luck.

BTW: the real life combat units can transport wounded troops back, receiving reinforcements simultaneously, while not abandoning the mission at all; something you can't mimic in a four-man band.

That's all true, but highly situational.

For example, trying to steal the grave goods out of a tomb inhabited by wraiths and wights is a relatively simple straightforward adventure for PCs, but would be a nightmare for an army.

Vahnavoi
2023-03-01, 11:25 AM
For any long running conflict, it might be quite preferable to not let enemies retreat to fight another day.

In real life, where wounds heal slowly or never, it's actually accepted that crippling enemy soldiers can be better than killing them. Injured soldiers cannot fight, but still tie up logistics to treat and keep alive. Depending on how much ahead the winning side is, it may even be preferable to let the losing side recover their wounded. The losing side's slow but (seemingly) safe retreat can be less risky to the winning side, than a desperate last stand in reaction to pursuit.

Also, Pareto principle applies here as well. Since only 20% of the enemy might need to be incapacitated to reduce their effectiveness by 80%, good use of resources means 80% of the work is done with 20% of effort. That last 20%, takes 80% of effort. Which is another reason to not pursue extermination when incapacatitation would suffice

kyoryu
2023-03-01, 12:00 PM
In real life, where wounds heal slowly or never, it's actually accepted that crippling enemy soldiers can be better than killing them. Injured soldiers cannot fight, but still tie up logistics to treat and keep alive. Depending on how much ahead the winning side is, it may even be preferable to let the losing side recover their wounded. The losing side's slow but (seemingly) safe retreat can be less risky to the winning side, than a desperate last stand in reaction to pursuit.

There's a reason there's lots of saying about "fighitng like a cornered rat" or the like.

At the end of the day, the goal of a military is to achieve their objectives while minimizing losses. Unless the objective inherently requires killing the enemy soldiers, it's less important.

If you have achieved your objective, trying to kill additional soldiers at risk to your own is a losing proposition. And depending on the losses you take, can jeopardize your actual objective (by weakening the force you have to hold the objective).

Sure, there are exceptions, but "killing the opponents" is generally not the mission.

Talakeal
2023-03-01, 12:01 PM
So I talked to some of my coworkers who are Afghanistan veterans, and their response was that every mission has its own parameters and risk assessment is a huge part of military planning, but as a general rule of thumb you need 1 person to carry an injured person and 1 person to cover the pair, so pulling out at 1/3rd casualties is standard procedure.

kyoryu
2023-03-01, 12:06 PM
So I talked to some of my coworkers who are Afghanistan veterans, and their response was that every mission has its own parameters and risk assessment is a huge part of military planning, but as a general rule of thumb you need 1 person to carry an injured person and 1 person to cover the pair, so pulling out at 1/3rd casualties is standard procedure.

I'd also bet dollars that "pull out when the objective can't be achieved" is also part of standard procedure. That may require orders from above.

Throwing people at a fight you know you can't win is just stupid, and yet it is SOP in TTRPGs.

Talakeal
2023-03-01, 12:52 PM
Throwing people at a fight you know you can't win is just stupid, and yet it is SOP in TTRPGs.

Are you talking about the villains sending mooks at the PCs?

If so, generally, in fiction the villains are overconfident and the PCs are plucky underdogs, and it seems like a good trade to send out minions in hopes of getting a lucky shot in or tiring out the PCs before putting oneself at risk of the same. And, of course, on a more gamist level depleting HP and spell slots is before engaging yourself is always useful.


If we are talking about monsters not retreating, well mostly is just isn't fun. Dealing with prisoners or having to execute people who are fleeing or surrendered is not something most players enjoy.
Likewise, my players can never tell why the enemies are running (I am sure this is partly my fault and now I work very hard to communicate it better) and will always chase them down and execute them for fear of a sneak attack later. This results in either A: the players getting beaten up or killed by cornering a wounded animal in its den, or B: the players feel like I am making them feel bad when I don't roll it out and just tell them they kill the helpless foes, especially if there are wives or children in said lair.

Also, modern games aren't balanced around morale. As an example / tangent, people suggested The Monsters Know What They Are Doing blog for tactics to make the game more challenging, but one thing I noticed is that his monsters always run away fairly early in the fight, and I am pretty sure that as a result they are less effective than your standard big dumb bag o' HP who charges in and full attacks until dead. I get around this by simply declaring HP to be morale and stamina as well as meat and say they run when out of HP, but then this can make the situation much worse if the PCs decide to finish them off and corner a wounded animal in its den as above.

Vahnavoi
2023-03-01, 03:02 PM
"Modern games aren't balanced around morale" might be true as an observation, but it's not binding in any way on any individual game master's game design. In many cases, lack of morale considerations is just an omission, not an improvement. Ditto for dealing with surrendered enemies. I don't find much veracity in the argument that it's not "fun". For most players, it's just unfamiliar. There isn't much of a reason to believe that it cannot be gamified in a way that's interesting. You could take cues from Pokemon or Shin Megami Tensei, where most enemies are also potential allies.

In any case, paranoia is not a good plan, and in cases like your players getting mauled by a cornered animal, the joke's on them.

gbaji
2023-03-01, 05:00 PM
And whether the enemy lets you retreat depends a lot on what the enemy wants. For any long running conflict, it might be quite preferable to not let enemies retreat to fight another day. Especially as people who decide to retreat are often weaker, particularly vulnerable (not entrenched) and on low morale (which means you might even provoke a rout). If your side can afford it and you expect further engagements, there is hardly a better situation to strike.

Even when the objective actually is "defeat the enemy's army", allowing them to retreat when "defeated" is usually a better option. History is chock full of military engagements where cornered/trapped (and significantly outnumbered) forces more or less curbstomped the attacking enemy. This goes to the morale factor that has been mentioned a few times, and which is often completely ignored in fantasy fiction and RPGs based on such. Soldiers who have no hope to retreat and no choice but to fight or die will tend to fight incredibly hard. They literally have no choice. And if your facing those (essentially "100% morale" forces) with soldiers who do have an option to retreat, or may be thinking "we've got this in the bag, so no point in me risking my own neck overly much", that's a recipe for disaster.


Sure, you might want to encourage a retreat if the enemy has to give up a good defensible or important position to do so. But that is not the standard scenario nor particularly relevant here as we are talking about attackers safely retreating after they have done enough damage (to likely attack later at another place and time of their choosing). That is not something you would want to allow.

Correct. When you are the one attacking, hit and run tactics can be very valuable. Again though, you should probably have an actual objective. Sometimes, just "whittling down the enemy" or "keep them guessing as to where were really are, and what strength we have" is sufficient, especially when dealing with larger scale engagements. But small level stuff (like an adventuring party), you should usually have some achievable objective that is the target of the raid, or you're just advertising your presense.


If so, generally, in fiction the villains are overconfident and the PCs are plucky underdogs, and it seems like a good trade to send out minions in hopes of getting a lucky shot in or tiring out the PCs before putting oneself at risk of the same. And, of course, on a more gamist level depleting HP and spell slots is before engaging yourself is always useful.

Eh. There's a bit of a disconnect there though. Why are the villains overconfident? They either live in a world where plucky adventurers foiling villainous plans is the norm, or they don't. And in either case, while the big boss may view his minions as expendable resources to use "whittling down" the resources of the plucky adventurers, that's not going to explain the actual minions choosing to do this. No one's actually willing to die just to "take away the first 20% of the hero's hps" or something. This sort of encounter should literally only happen *once*. The first time the party attacks a group of minions, the minions get wiped out. Ok. So someone knows that minion squad A got wiped out. They're going to prepare other minion squads for this, and put measures in place to figure out who is attacking them. So the second groups orders are "see who's attacking and get that information to us". Nothing else. Third encounter should be a massive amount of minions and leader types prepped up, spelled up, geared up, and ready to wipe out a powerful adventuring party.

No one would send their forces in at the adventurers in small discrete sets designed to not be enough to defeat them. That's not overconfidence, that's stupidity. We have to assume that the big bad became the big bad by having at least a basic grasp of tactics and common sense. Obviously, the specifics of what the big bad is doing, and how his minions are getting killed may affect the response, but there should be some sort of change of plans at some point here. I think that a key point, if there's a "big boss" situation, is to know what the big bosses actual objective is. If the purpose of the minions is "pack and move my illegal trade goods", then "defeating the PCs" isn't the goal. Said big boss should respond appropriately.



If we are talking about monsters not retreating, well mostly is just isn't fun. Dealing with prisoners or having to execute people who are fleeing or surrendered is not something most players enjoy.

I suppose this depends on the size of the monster group. A lot of times, it's a small group, and there just isn't much opportunity to flee (and yeah, I can see it being annying to players if everything they fight runs away in the first round). Um... But in some situations, the enemies should be able to flee, and should be able to do so in situations where the PCs can't reasonably stop all of them. I guess this is game system dependent, but most games should have some sort of "you can either full move, or half move and attack", which should always allow someone runnning away to just... run away. Doubly so if the PCs are still actively engaged with other opponents.


Likewise, my players can never tell why the enemies are running (I am sure this is partly my fault and now I work very hard to communicate it better) and will always chase them down and execute them for fear of a sneak attack later. This results in either A: the players getting beaten up or killed by cornering a wounded animal in its den, or B: the players feel like I am making them feel bad when I don't roll it out and just tell them they kill the helpless foes, especially if there are wives or children in said lair.

Which may point to an odd set of behavior by your own players though. Yeah. Fear of a "sneak attack later" is always a thing. But that danger is massively increased if they do exactly what you are saying they do (attacking one group, then retreating and resting to full strength before continuing). Um... Of course that's going to happen. But if you follow up your first attack with a second, and a third, then the retreating folks don't matter much. Or, at the very least, you can advance through a few more groups of bad guys before having to deal with any sort of counterattack. But then, they've moved somewhere else. The responding folks aren't sure where they are. The alternative is that the bad guys have 100% of their remaining forces, and all the time in the world to locate the PCs and plan an attack on them. It's always better to keep moving (for the PCs) in that situation.

I think also there's maybe a bit of an odd world situation going on here. I don't tend to make whole communities of "bad guys". That orc tribe in the hills? It's just a tribe of people, who happen to be orcs. The orc raiders who are attacking wandering merchants and farmlands nearby? They are no different than human raiders would be. They are just as much outlaws. Would you take out a group of human bandits, realize a few of them ran away, and then track them to their homes in a nearby village, and then muder their families? You might want to set some more realistic expectations for "bad guys", and how they fit into a larger social dynamic in your world. Even if they are fighting on a more regional raiding sort of model, and maybe the folks in their home villiage know they "go raiding" or whatever, that usually doesn't devolve into wiping out the whole village. You take the win for decimating the raiders, maybe report it to the local law enforcement, and then let them handle the situation from there. It's not on the PCs to be judge, jury, and executioner for the whole world.

And if this creates a moral problem for your players, then just have the bad guys operate out of a "base of operations" where there are no women and children (they're back in the actual village). Problem solved. Similarly, the minions of the evil dark lord also leave their families at home while serving as guards in the dark lords fortress of doom or whatever. Or, baring that sort of thing, make it really apparent when people are non-combatants. Again. If this is a problem you and your players don't want to deal with.

But if you are going to do this sort of thing, then you have to be consistent with it. You can't have some NPCs identified as non-combatants later turn up and "surprise" the PCs by actually being a super death squad coming to kill them all in revenge or something. If you do this sort of thing, you are training your players to adopt a "scorched earth" model of dealing with enemies.


Also, modern games aren't balanced around morale. As an example / tangent, people suggested The Monsters Know What They Are Doing blog for tactics to make the game more challenging, but one thing I noticed is that his monsters always run away fairly early in the fight, and I am pretty sure that as a result they are less effective than your standard big dumb bag o' HP who charges in and full attacks until dead. I get around this by simply declaring HP to be morale and stamina as well as meat and say they run when out of HP, but then this can make the situation much worse if the PCs decide to finish them off and corner a wounded animal in its den as above.

Eh. I think you get into some odd problems and edge cases if you try to abstract in that manner. Yeah. Sometimes some monsters are monsters, and will attack full on until dead. Some (usually the more intelligent and social ones) are more cautious. As long as you are consistent with how they act, it shouldn't be a problem. And a lot of this can be resolved by (again) determining what the NPC actually wants. Some NPCs (animal type monsters) are just "hungry" or "angry", and will kill anything that comes near, and will usually have to be killed. Others have goals like "feed my family and not get killed". So they may threaten a group wandering through their lands, whatever, but are more interested in "getting the PCs to leave us alone" than actually killing them, right? Play that out. Pretty much the only time you should have intelligent foes actually attacking the PCs is if they are part of some organized group structured to do exactly that (with "the PCs" perhaps within the range of "things we will attack", of course). And that should always be itself based on some larger goal (we're stealing stuff from people, or fighting for our "side", working on a secret evil plot and you're getting too close, etc). And those goals should provide for how they actually act.

King of Nowhere
2023-03-01, 05:04 PM
You may also notice that modern military does engage in something similarly equivalent to the 15 minutes adventuring day. not when looking at a single day, but when looking on the large scale of resource management.
for example, you don't shoot artillery as soon as the new shells arrive. you stockpile them for an offensive. then, when it's the time - or when it's the enemy that attacks - you fire your artilllery, all the shells you carefully stockpiled, you fire as hard and as fast as you can to win the battle. then you go back to sporadic fire and stockpiling.
this is very much equivalent to a wizard using all his spells - that takes 24 hours to recharge - in a few minutes.
you tend to have big offensive rushes with one side trying to break the front on multiple sides - using resources stockpiled over months, fresh troops kept in reserve - and you get months of low intensity fighting; sure, people are still shooting on the front lines, but nobody is engaging the big expensive stuff. just like a party taking a big fight and then resting.

the key point is the same: you store up resources over time, and then you use them all in a big blow. this way, in that short time you can deliver a lot more power than you normally can, and you try to break the enemy this way. the adventuring party does it on a daily bases because its resources recharge daily. concentrating your power as much as possible is just effective.


Are you talking about the villains sending mooks at the PCs?

If so, generally, in fiction the villains are overconfident and the PCs are plucky underdogs


in fiction, people can die to a stray arrow. not in d&d.
and the same applies to fiction where people can't die to a stray arrow. I'm not an expert here, but I am pretty sure that nobody tried to send mooks one at a time against superman, because those mooks would be totally uneffective.
as a general point, I see you keep referring to fiction for reference. "movies and books do it like this, so this is what it should like"
but the world of d&d is different. it is a world where a man can stand confidently in front of an army. a high level caster can rewrite reality. so those story tropes really make no sense in this context.
I embraced this difference to make my own story. I justify the power of high level characters by them being openly superhumans - because the standard "they are normal, just extraordinarily skilled" doesn't hold at all then you look in detail. they can punch through walls. they can move supernaturally fast. swords and arrows bounce over their skin leaving shallow wounds - unless they are also wielded by someone equally strong.
people know those things, and they act accordingly. in this narrative, sending a few mooks doesn't work. the villain know fully well that those mooks stand no chance. worse, the mooks themselves know it, so they'd never accept to fight; they'd rather run or surrender. the dragon does not act arrogant and mighty towards those puny humans, because he knows there are some puny humans who can easily kill him. sure, they are rare, but if just one mosquito in 1000 was filled with a powerful explosive that would kill you and tear down your house, you wouldn't slap at any of them, just in case.
overconfidence is a thing, but it can only be pushed that much. when the other guy has a magic sword with glowing runes and an aura of flame, and a magic armor that distorts the air around it, you don't need a fancy knowledge check to know how badly outmatched you are.



Likewise, my players can never tell why the enemies are running (I am sure this is partly my fault and now I work very hard to communicate it better) and will always chase them down and execute them for fear of a sneak attack later.

strange that they can't understand fear and morale.
but understandable that they want to kill them regardless.
they have no way of knowing if those enemies will keep running and tell their mates to also run, or if they will return to their units and come back to fight.
I'd say, to treat this realistically, both those things should happen. if your players execute all the prisoners and chase those who escape, the enemies should fight harder. if the players encourage surrendering by sparing those who flee, it should be easier to rout the enemies - but some of them will try ambushes and stuff.



Also, modern games aren't balanced around morale. As an example / tangent, people suggested The Monsters Know What They Are Doing blog for tactics to make the game more challenging, but one thing I noticed is that his monsters always run away fairly early in the fight, and I am pretty sure that as a result they are less effective than your standard big dumb bag o' HP who charges in and full attacks until dead.
Depends. If that monster runs and is never seen again, then yes, of course he could deal more damage if it just kept attacking.
but if the monster realizes he has no chance, he runs before even fighting. and he tries to get reinforces. so instead of fighting your dungeon one room at a time - never seen that as realistic, unless you can justify it; won't the guards realize someone is storming their place? shouldn't they try to rush the invader instead of remaining in small groups in their rooms waiting to be picked off one by one? Instead of fighting one room at a time, you'll have everyone in the dungeon rushing you simultaneously. and blocking your retreat as first thing.

My villains are always equipped with emergency teleportation. and hey, I get to use the same npc for three or four fights! it vastly simplifies the work of statting enemies

Talakeal
2023-03-01, 07:00 PM
I wrote out a longer reply to Gbaji, but the forum ate it.

In short, I don't recall ever having had villains feign surrender or disguise combatants as civilians, but because of the below, my players still assume that I am going to do it, and then they invariably feel that I tricked them and guilt tripped them when they slaughter all the civilians expecting a betrayal that never came.

I even lost a player once because after massacring a tribe's warriors, he wanted to track them back to their village and finish off the rest. I told him he is welcome to do that, but they are just civilians and cripples left, and I am just going to fade to black rather than rolling it out. He then quit the game because I wasn't "making him feel like a hero."

Of course, this is the same player who now tells people I raped his character because I faded to black when he told me he was going to seduce an NPC, so maybe there is something more going on there...


Eh. I think you get into some odd problems and edge cases if you try to abstract in that manner. Yeah. Sometimes some monsters are monsters, and will attack full on until dead. Some (usually the more intelligent and social ones) are more cautious. As long as you are consistent with how they act, it shouldn't be a problem. And a lot of this can be resolved by (again) determining what the NPC actually wants. Some NPCs (animal type monsters) are just "hungry" or "angry", and will kill anything that comes near, and will usually have to be killed. Others have goals like "feed my family and not get killed". So they may threaten a group wandering through their lands, whatever, but are more interested in "getting the PCs to leave us alone" than actually killing them, right? Play that out. Pretty much the only time you should have intelligent foes actually attacking the PCs is if they are part of some organized group structured to do exactly that (with "the PCs" perhaps within the range of "things we will attack", of course). And that should always be itself based on some larger goal (we're stealing stuff from people, or fighting for our "side", working on a secret evil plot and you're getting too close, etc). And those goals should provide for how they actually act.

I don't generally have beaten down enemies retreat and come back later.

Sometimes I will have a recurring villain who loses the fight and then survives to fight another day months or years later, but in the short case most of the time it is either monsters who set out to do legit hit and run tactics (and I don't mean just fighting normally, running away, and healing to full after the fight!), or the PCs render a monster temporarily unable to hurt them (usually through a short duration spell) and then the monster falls back and waits for the spell to expire before continuing their initial assault.

The problem is that because of the above, the players are convinced that every retreat is one of the above, even if its just a hungry alligator who decides a meal isn't worth its life or some bandits who don't want to die for gold after realizing that the PCs were a lot tougher than anticipated or losing motivation to fight after their leader is dead.


strange that they can't understand fear and morale.
but understandable that they want to kill them regardless.
they have no way of knowing if those enemies will keep running and tell their mates to also run, or if they will return to their units and come back to fight.
I'd say, to treat this realistically, both those things should happen. if your players execute all the prisoners and chase those who escape, the enemies should fight harder. if the players encourage surrendering by sparing those who flee, it should be easier to rout the enemies - but some of them will try ambushes and stuff.

Depends. If that monster runs and is never seen again, then yes, of course he could deal more damage if it just kept attacking.
but if the monster realizes he has no chance, he runs before even fighting. and he tries to get reinforces. so instead of fighting your dungeon one room at a time - never seen that as realistic, unless you can justify it; won't the guards realize someone is storming their place? shouldn't they try to rush the invader instead of remaining in small groups in their rooms waiting to be picked off one by one? Instead of fighting one room at a time, you'll have everyone in the dungeon rushing you simultaneously. and blocking your retreat as first thing.

My villains are always equipped with emergency teleportation. and hey, I get to use the same npc for three or four fights! it vastly simplifies the work of statting enemies

Yeah. I try and play it naturally. The above is why my PCs are so paranoid and kill happy.


in fiction, people can die to a stray arrow. not in d&d.
and the same applies to fiction where people can't die to a stray arrow. I'm not an expert here, but I am pretty sure that nobody tried to send mooks one at a time against superman, because those mooks would be totally uneffective.

as a general point, I see you keep referring to fiction for reference. "movies and books do it like this, so this is what it should like"

but the world of d&d is different. it is a world where a man can stand confidently in front of an army. a high level caster can rewrite reality. so those story tropes really make no sense in this context.
I embraced this difference to make my own story. I justify the power of high level characters by them being openly superhumans - because the standard "they are normal, just extraordinarily skilled" doesn't hold at all then you look in detail. they can punch through walls. they can move supernaturally fast. swords and arrows bounce over their skin leaving shallow wounds - unless they are also wielded by someone equally strong.

people know those things, and they act accordingly. in this narrative, sending a few mooks doesn't work. the villain know fully well that those mooks stand no chance. worse, the mooks themselves know it, so they'd never accept to fight; they'd rather run or surrender. the dragon does not act arrogant and mighty towards those puny humans, because he knows there are some puny humans who can easily kill him. sure, they are rare, but if just one mosquito in 1000 was filled with a powerful explosive that would kill you and tear down your house, you wouldn't slap at any of them, just in case.

overconfidence is a thing, but it can only be pushed that much. when the other guy has a magic sword with glowing runes and an aura of flame, and a magic armor that distorts the air around it, you don't need a fancy knowledge check to know how badly outmatched you are.

There are a lot of assumptions here.

As a rule, I don't give a flying fork what movies and books do. When I say fiction, I am talking about the underlying reality of the game's setting. The "simulationist" aspect of the world of the game we are running.

First, I would like to point out that this really only ever applies to certain characters at certain levels in certain editions of D&D.

HP is a super gamist and super abstract mess that can be interpreted in a lot of ways, none of which really make sense. For example, large animals can survive "falls from orbit" and "being immersed in lava" just as well as high level PCs. Reading it as everyone is Superman past low level is one way to read it (although it still has a lot of holes); but that isn't how Gygax and Arneson ever described it, it isn't how I describe it, and I don't think I have ever seen a piece of fluff in a rule book or a novel based on D&D that went that route.

In most editions of D&D, a relatively modest squad of mooks can take out even a high level PC. The idea that they can't possibly win doesn't hold water mechanically most of the time, and even if you are looking at mechanics, they can wear the PCs down, which is what they are intended to do.

The idea of a mook rebellion is an interesting one, but it makes a lot of assumptions about how much choice they have in the matter and exactly how aware they are off the PCs capabilities. I imagine there is a lot of brain washing and intimidation going on for your average soldier of the dark lord.*


For the record, I am not playing D&D, not playing at high level, and tend to run HP as "survivor bias".


*: One of the few good things about the Dark Tower movie is the scene where one of the mooks tells the Man in Black that they will stop the Gunslinger for him. He just looks at his minions for a sec, and then says "Bye!". It is great at illustrating that your average mook has no idea what they are truly up against.

gbaji
2023-03-01, 07:53 PM
I think it's also important, when deciding how to play NPCs and their reactions to PC actions, that you are able to make a clear distinction between "NPCs acting intelligently based on what they know", and "Me the GM having the NPCs act based on what I think would be cool, interesting, challenging to the PCs, etc". The former works well. The latter will only annoy your players. The players have to trust that you are going to play the NPCs "well", but not abuse your knowledge and position as GM to do so.

I've played at some tables where I could literally (ok, figuratively, sheesh!) see the wheels turning in the GMs head, to be followed by some NPC action that made zero sense at all for the NPCs to take, but that just happened to be exactly the action that would cause problems for our current plan or situation. That is not a good thing.

And unfortunately, what follows when this sort of GM style is in play is that the players stop trusting the GM, and will start playing "against the GM" and not the NPCs in the game world. Symptoms of this are players who will not tell the GM what they are doing, what their plans are, or how they expect their plans to work. They've learned that if they do this ahead of time, the GM will magically have his NPCs do things that thwart them, so they have to "trick the GM" in some way. This is a terrible table environment to play in, not the least reason is that if there is trust between the players and the GM, then they can tell the GM their plans ahead of time, and the GM can actually clue them in if some parts of the plan maybe aren't such great ideas (GM is always the final arbiter as to how climbable that wall is, or how a spell works in relation to something else, or well... anything in the game world, so this is actually very important). If they don't, then this communication does not happen, and the players will constantly be surprised and upset when things they didn't think of happen, and will still blame the GM for this, thinking the GM manipulated things after the fact, or didn't fully communicate everything in the game world around them (which, having been a GM for a very long time, I can attest is absolutely impossible to do).

At a healthy table, the players should feel absolutely free to bounce their proposed plans off the GM, knowing that if there's some flaw that they the players maybe didn't notice, but that the GM determines their characters perhaps really should, that the GM will provide them good feedback so as to avoid "gotcha" situations (while still keeping actual NPC stuff hidden, of course). It's a balancing act that GMs really need to learn how to do, and when they do it correctly, will build trust and result in a friendly harmonous table environment.

If there's one bit of advice I always try to give GMs it's "play the NPCs, not yourself". You should not be trying to think of ways to thwart the players. You should be thinking about what the NPCs would try to do in any given situation. You are not playing a game "against the players". And yeah. It can be really tempting to do this one little tweak, or change this one little detail, thinking it'll make things "better" or "more interesting". Don't do it. Even when done with the best of intentions, players pick up on this, and it changes that trust dymamic. The players start playing "you" instead of the game. And yeah, as mentioned above, this will spiral into badness.

King of Nowhere
2023-03-01, 08:29 PM
Yeah. I try and play it naturally. The above is why my PCs are so paranoid and kill happy.


yes, they are your players. I wasn't expecting them to be rational about things.




For the record, I am not playing D&D, not playing at high level, and tend to run HP as "survivor bias".


I don't know the power level of your games, but since your players have to do stuff like walk to the dungeon the traditional way instead of teleporting there, I can tell it's not very high.

When I was playing low level, I also tried to have hp as skill. as the party progressed, i found the illusion gradually more difficult to maintain, and i gradually switched to the superhuman model. We are happy with it; it may have a few issues (never considered the elephant falling damage, but I ascribe it to the square cube law failing to be accounted for in the falling damage; I mean, an ant should die from falling, so this is clearly a problem with the falling mechanics, not the hp), but nowhere near as much as the other options.

anyway, the mook may be dumb, but the evil overlord generally isn't. leaving them a bunch in every room and let the heroes defeat them conveniently is not particularly effective, so the villain is likely to have some other plan. what I would do realizing those guys after me are high level - when appropriately high level opponents are not available - is to swarm the pcs with everything I have, try to cut their retreat and overwhelm them. because if they are allowed to kill some, heal, return tomorrow, i'll soon find myself with no mooks. if the strategy fails, the villain is likely to surrender or escape.

Satinavian
2023-03-02, 01:38 AM
Even when the objective actually is "defeat the enemy's army", allowing them to retreat when "defeated" is usually a better option. History is chock full of military engagements where cornered/trapped (and significantly outnumbered) forces more or less curbstomped the attacking enemy. This goes to the morale factor that has been mentioned a few times, and which is often completely ignored in fantasy fiction and RPGs based on such. Soldiers who have no hope to retreat and no choice but to fight or die will tend to fight incredibly hard. They literally have no choice. And if your facing those (essentially "100% morale" forces) with soldiers who do have an option to retreat, or may be thinking "we've got this in the bag, so no point in me risking my own neck overly much", that's a recipe for disaster.History is long. Do you really want to count the cases where inferior forces that couldn't safely retreat surrendered instead? That is the far more common outcome. And we have oh so many examples of the majority of losses of a battle only caused by a rout.

Correct. When you are the one attacking, hit and run tactics can be very valuable. Again though, you should probably have an actual objective. Sometimes, just "whittling down the enemy" or "keep them guessing as to where were really are, and what strength we have" is sufficient, especially when dealing with larger scale engagements. But small level stuff (like an adventuring party), you should usually have some achievable objective that is the target of the raid, or you're just advertising your presense.But we were (originally) discussing the strategical options of the target of the hit-and-run strategy. And if your enemy does hit-and-run and you can prevent the "run" part and thus end the cycle, that is pretty much what you will try to do.

Vahnavoi
2023-03-02, 05:03 AM
History is long. Do you really want to count the cases where inferior forces that couldn't safely retreat surrendered instead? That is the far more common outcome.
It's the more common outcome because the surrendering troops had at least hope of being spared that way. For contrast, in places where surrender was regularly denied or met with execution or other atrocities aimed at the surrendering party, warfare tended to become harsher and bloodier on both sides, with less quarter given. This was, for example, a difference between western and eastern fronts of the second world war.


And we have oh so many examples of the majority of losses of a battle only caused by a rout.

Yes, but we also have examples of generals deliberately feigning retreat to lure enemies into pursuit, then turning around and smashing the overextending enemy. And in Sunzi's Art of War, we have both an example of a general deliberately leaving an apparent escape route for the enemy, so that the enemy will flee and then will be easier to destroy in an ambush set on their escape rout, and an example of a general deliberately placing their own troops in a bad position with no way out, so that they will fight like cornered beasts. In Art of War, these examples are talked about as examples of using basic knowledge to build more advanced strategies, with the point being that a choice that might seem bad in isolation can still be valid as part of a multi-step plan.

So yes, majority of casualties happen in a rout. But we have to keep in mind what allows a rout to happen in the first place.

---

EDIT: going back to this for a bit:


Also, modern games aren't balanced around morale. As an example / tangent, people suggested The Monsters Know What They Are Doing blog for tactics to make the game more challenging, but one thing I noticed is that his monsters always run away fairly early in the fight, and I am pretty sure that as a result they are less effective than your standard big dumb bag o' HP who charges in and full attacks until dead.

Less effective for what?

The point of monsters running away early is that they're trying to live to fight another day - the same reason the players would engage in hit-and-run tactics and "15 minute workday".

What gbaji says about objectives applies equally to players and their opponents: both should have goals that extend beyond "kill everyone" or "reduce enemy resources by X%". Basically, think less like a game designer trying to hit a quota for player success, and more like an actual enemy strategist.

Lacco
2023-03-02, 07:42 AM
Less effective for what?

The point of monsters running away early is that they're trying to live to fight another day - the same reason the players would engage in hit-and-run tactics and "15 minute workday".

What gbaji says about objectives applies equally to players and their opponents: both should have goals that extend beyond "kill everyone" or "reduce enemy resources by X%". Basically, think less like a game designer trying to hit a quota for player success, and more like an actual enemy strategist.

Maybe that would be the way: if players insist on 15 minute adventuring day, the monsters should insist on survival and run away all the time. Thus either the players venture deeper or don't get the rewards they expect.

I wonder how that would play at a table (or at bizarro world).

Talakeal
2023-03-02, 01:31 PM
The point of monsters running away early is that they're trying to live to fight another day - the same reason the players would engage in hit-and-run tactics and "15 minute workday".

What gbaji says about objectives applies equally to players and their opponents: both should have goals that extend beyond "kill everyone" or "reduce enemy resources by X%". Basically, think less like a game designer trying to hit a quota for player success, and more like an actual enemy strategist.

Only in the very broadest sense, and if their only goal was to live and fight another day, they would have avoided combat in the first place.

Players do the 15 MWD so they can cast all of their spells, ensuring they win the fight without any casualties, get treasure and XP, and then fall back.

(Most) Monsters don't have spells. Monsters don't get XP. Monsters don't get treasure from losing a fight.

Thinking like an actual enemy strategist doesn't work because the game mechanics are stacked in the PC's favor.

Although, for the record, I place a very high value on verisimilitude in my games. One of the recurring problems in my group is that I don't think of it as a game and rather like a real setting. For example, I generally have a reason why the local NPCs haven't already killed the monster, which means that a lot of my PCs tactics which require the monster to be an idiot and wander into a trap won't work because if they did there would be no need for PCs in the first place. Commoners are just as capable of shooting a caged owlbear as PCs after all. The only way I could go further in this way would be meta-game on the monsters behalf in an effort to kill PCs and avoid harm.

I frequently get told on the forums to stop worrying about verisimilitude and instead worry about player fun, I really am not sure how doing the opposite would be helpful.


Maybe that would be the way: if players insist on 15 minute adventuring day, the monsters should insist on survival and run away all the time. Thus either the players venture deeper or don't get the rewards they expect.

I wonder how that would play at a table (or at bizarro world).

The players would demand XP for the defeated monsters and keep farming them.

One of my oldest horror stories involved the PCs invading a wizard's toward, and the wizard would periodically pop in, summon some minions, cast a few spells, and then teleport to a different floor. When the PCs finally killed him, they demanded full XP for each time he teleported away, because by 3.5 RAW you get full XP for enemies who run away.

Vahnavoi
2023-03-02, 03:13 PM
Only in the very broadest sense, and if their only goal was to live and fight another day, they would have avoided combat in the first place.

Players do the 15 MWD so they can cast all of their spells, ensuring they win the fight without any casualties, get treasure and XP, and then fall back.

(Most) Monsters don't have spells. Monsters don't get XP. Monsters don't get treasure from losing a fight.

Please think more than one step ahead. Or in case of the first paragraph, one step behind. It's not given the monsters are instigators of violence. They might have opted to avoid combat, but players have brought combat to them. Don't presume infinite agency to pursue a goal.

In case of players, all those actions serve the purpose of living to fight another day. In the most literal sense possible, because they are amassing experience points and treasure in order to boost their chances in future fights.

The latter is a matter of game design. Many games, including all versions of D&D, allow for great degree of symmetry. The monsters can have all the same resources as player characters, meaning all the same considerations apply. Also, while they might not get treasure or experience from a lost fight, they can get treasure and experience from future fights, provided they survive. So, again, their motives can be much the same as the players'. If there's a great degree of asymmetry, you need to look in the mirror, because you are most likely the one causing it.


Thinking like an actual enemy strategist doesn't work because the game mechanics are stacked in the PC's favor.

If you're using your own system, why are you stacking the deck so much in players' favor? Additionally, what in your mechanics is supposed yo cause this? Simply having the deck stacked against you doesn't stop strategizing. Is the mechanical advantage supposed to be unknown to non-player characters, or what?


Although, for the record, I place a very high value on verisimilitude in my games. One of the recurring problems in my group is that I don't think of it as a game and rather like a real setting. For example, I generally have a reason why the local NPCs haven't already killed the monster, which means that a lot of my PCs tactics which require the monster to be an idiot and wander into a trap won't work because if they did there would be no need for PCs in the first place. Commoners are just as capable of shooting a caged owlbear as PCs after all. The only way I could go further in this way would be meta-game on the monsters behalf in an effort to kill PCs and avoid harm.

So you functionally already prefer to think like an enemy strategist. Why would bother to argue against the practice then?


I frequently get told on the forums to stop worrying about verisimilitude and instead worry about player fun, I really am not sure how doing the opposite would be helpful.

Remember who you are talking to. I am not an amorphous blob representing common forum arguments. I've outright told you that the verisimilitude you should ignore is that of your players, not your own. Remember also who you are talking about. Your players aren't average people with average sense of "fun". It's not given their preference of aesthetics is something you should bend over backwards to serve. I've outright told you to tell your players to suck it up or stop playing games designed and hosted by you.

But, there's another dimension to this, which is that your ideas of verisimilitudous strategy and actually good strategy don't necessarily match. It might be an eye-opening experience for you to go back to actual treatises on warfare (such as Art of War) or, more specific to games, actual game theory.


The players would demand XP for the defeated monsters and keep farming them.

You must have read this from me before: stop appealing to your players' worst instinct. This something you can shut down as a matter of rules (f.ex. "sorry, you only get XP for doing a thing the first time") or by calibrating monster recovery and XP rates so that it doesn't matter even if they try this.

To tie this to above discussion of morale, incapacitation and destruction: if enemy morale fails at 20% casualties (incapacitation) and they flee or surrender, that yields 80% of the XP possible for that enemy group. Further engagements can only yield fractions of the remaining 20% until the enemy has fully recovered, which can take days, weeks, months, years, whatever feels appropriate. And once the enemy is fully recovered, well, it's not given the fight will go the same way next time. Their morale might not fail at 20% this time, leading to a longer and costlier fight. And, of course, should it ever happen that the enemies stand to the last drop of blood or the players kill them all for some other reason, the farming stops.

If you want to be mean, you can then slap Angband-style double diminishing returns on top, meaning at some point the XP gain from fighting the same enemy over and over again does not even make the next encounter less risky.

Overall, it's quite easy to set a game so that this farming thing just isn't an issue.


One of my oldest horror stories involved the PCs invading a wizard's toward, and the wizard would periodically pop in, summon some minions, cast a few spells, and then teleport to a different floor. When the PCs finally killed him, they demanded full XP for each time he teleported away, because by 3.5 RAW you get full XP for enemies who run away.

What about this is a horror story? Sounds like a simple calibration error since, equally by D&D 3.x rules as written, player characters do not get experience points for enemies with a challenge rating that's sufficiently above their effective level. Indeed, what about this is even relevant, since you aren't using 3.x D&D rules?

Sapphire Guard
2023-03-02, 06:01 PM
At some point, there's going to have to be a jumping off point from reality. Your average adventuring party isn't equipped to take and look after prisoners, and gameplay wise it would be annoying for a party member to have to sit out the adventure because they have to guard them.

Realistic tactics tend to be annoying to deal with, because they're designed to work, while gameplay tactics are designed to give the players at least a fighting chance.

A realistic gang of bandits are probably not interested in fighting at all, they want to get the maximum profit from the least risk, so they'd do things like 'I'll draw their attention, you grab a sack of flour and run, if they follow, kill the horse.' If a party of armed adventurers passed by, they probably wouldn't attack at all.

The players here are exploiting gameplay mechanics, in the knowledge that their enemies will not. But if you do a mechanical fix that makes that less effective, they will probably just double down and be even more cautious.

What we're trying to do is incentivise them to explore, but in doing that take risks. But you have to get the balance exactly right every session or they will one day actually push too far and get squashed. As of Day one, most of the party was taken out, you had one survivor to heal everyone else if I understand the journal correctly. Hard to make that happen every day.

The way to spoil the over cautious approach if you wanted to would end up being like WW1 era defence in depth, where you have a weak vanguard with strong defences that the party has to expend resources taking down, and then when they have shot their bolt hit them hard with the reserves... but that would be super annoying, because it might work.

Talakeal
2023-03-02, 06:44 PM
If you're using your own system, why are you stacking the deck so much in players' favor? Additionally, what in your mechanics is supposed you cause this? Simply having the deck stacked against you doesn't stop strategizing. Is the mechanical advantage supposed to be unknown to non-player characters, or what?

Because players like to feel special.
Because it is tedious to track and have to whittle down meta resources and HP bloat from enemies who don't exist when they are off camera.
Because the game is unfulfilling for everyone involved if it ends suddenly without resolution.

The players tend to have an unusual concentration of supernatural abilities. That is known.

The rest of it is stuff handled on a mechanical level and mostly represents survivor bias, this is not something that is known to anyone in setting except for those few wizards who can read people's destinies.


The latter is a matter of game design. Many games, including all versions of D&D, allow for great degree of symmetry. The monsters can have all the same resources as player characters, meaning all the same considerations apply. Also, while they might not get treasure or experience from a lost fight, they can get treasure and experience from future fights, provided they survive. So, again, their motives can be much the same as the players'. If there's a great degree of asymmetry, you need to look in the mirror, because you are most likely the one causing it.

Only if you greatly restrict yourself. I would wager less than 5% of the monster manual has spells that recharge on a per day rest. And I would wager that those monsters who do are already balanced around going nova and casting their most powerful spells every fight.

Functionally, a monster that attacks, casts its most powerful spells, and then runs away and repeats the same day, is just a slightly easier version of having two encounters against two seperate monsters.

Also, monsters can't have the same access to magic items as player characters because then the power curve becomes exponential and unsustainable as every victory doubles the player's loot.



And yeah, I guess you could say I am causing the asymmetry in my system, but that's because I am trying to create a fantasy world with a variety and mythical monsters rather than just a collection of homicidal wizards.


So you functionally already prefer to think like an enemy strategist. Why would bother to argue against the practice then?

When I am playing the monsters I am thinking like a strategist.

When I am setting up the scenario, I am looking for one that will result in a fun adventure; not one where the PCs are murdered in their sleep without a chance to fight back or where the local militia has already killed all the monsters and tells the PCs to keep walking.

Monsters that run away are guaranteed to be a pain in the butt for everyone involved. The PCs will chase them down and kill them, and will not have fun doing it. It doesn't actually gain the monsters anything, they are still dead, all it did was save the PCs some resources in exchange for wasting time. (Honestly.... this sounds a lot like the 15MWD itself).

Now, obviously, this assumes a normal scenario. I have had several situations where it made tactical sense for the monsters to fall back and regroup for a future attack, and these few occasions are what the players always point to when they justify their genocidal take no prisoners scorched earth tactics.


Remember who you are talking to. I am not an amorphous blob representing common forum arguments.

No, of course not. It's just jarring to hear advice so opposite to what I am normally told.


What about this is a horror story? Sounds like a simple calibration error since, equally by D&D 3.x rules as written, player characters do not get experience points for enemies with a challenge rating that's sufficiently above their effective level. Indeed, what about this is even relevant, since you aren't using 3.x D&D rules?

It isn't especially relevant, although it is one of the reasons I don't get XP for kills anymore.

Why do you assume it shouldn't have been worth XP?

The wizard was two or three levels above the party, it's just that because they "defeated" him half a dozen times they demanded a ludicrous amount of XP for an enemy who was two or three levels above them.


To tie this to above discussion of morale, incapacitation and destruction: if enemy morale fails at 20% casualties (incapacitation) and they flee or surrender, that yields 80% of the XP possible for that enemy group. Further engagements can only yield fractions of the remaining 20% until the enemy has fully recovered, which can take days, weeks, months, years, whatever feels appropriate. And once the enemy is fully recovered, well, it's not given the fight will go the same way next time. Their morale might not fail at 20% this time, leading to a longer and costlier fight. And, of course, should it ever happen that the enemies stand to the last drop of blood or the players kill them all for some other reason, the farming stops.

If you want to be mean, you can then slap Angband-style double diminishing returns on top, meaning at some point the XP gain from fighting the same enemy over and over again does not even make the next encounter less risky.

Overall, it's quite easy to set a game so that this farming thing just isn't an issue.

Honestly, my system does do XP kills as a rule, so it's mostly academic, although for the purposes of a hex-crawl / mega dungeon campaign I am willing to entertain the idea.

I am curious what this would actually look like in practice though, especially how it would actually work to pace the game. To me it just seems like slower easier fights that give less XP and require more bookkeeping, so I am probably missing something.


At some point, there's going to have to be a jumping off point from reality. Your average adventuring party isn't equipped to take and look after prisoners, and gameplay wise it would be annoying for a party member to have to sit out the adventure because they have to guard them.

Realistic tactics tend to be annoying to deal with, because they're designed to work, while gameplay tactics are designed to give the players at least a fighting chance.

A realistic gang of bandits are probably not interested in fighting at all, they want to get the maximum profit from the least risk, so they'd do things like 'I'll draw their attention, you grab a sack of flour and run, if they follow, kill the horse.' If a party of armed adventurers passed by, they probably wouldn't attack at all.

The players here are exploiting gameplay mechanics, in the knowledge that their enemies will not.

All of this, yes.


But if you do a mechanical fix that makes that less effective, they will probably just double down and be even more cautious.

That has been my experience in the past, yes.

I need to figure out some method of actually making the reward consummate with the risk.


What we're trying to do is incentivize them to explore, but in doing that take risks. But you have to get the balance exactly right every session or they will one day actually push too far and get squashed. As of Day one, most of the party was taken out, you had one survivor to heal everyone else if I understand the journal correctly. Hard to make that happen every day.

Starting PCs are pretty fragile. They actually had a lot of resources left, they were just all beaten up and didn't have a way to translate those other resources into more vitality. I don't expect it to ever turn out quite like that again.

I don't imagine the PCs will ever get squashed; TPK's are all but unheard of at my table. Worst case scenario one of them dies and the others flee, they have to break into their massive potion trove, or they swallow their pride and surrender. Of course, they may be too stubborn to do that.



The way to spoil the over cautious approach if you wanted to would end up being like WW1 era defence in depth, where you have a weak vanguard with strong defences that the party has to expend resources taking down, and then when they have shot their bolt hit them hard with the reserves... but that would be super annoying, because it might work.

Interesting.

I did think of a system where the first encounter is worth 1/4 XP, the second 1/3, the third 1/2, the fourth 3/4, and then the fith and beyond give full XP. That might produce similar results.

King of Nowhere
2023-03-02, 07:40 PM
Although, for the record, I place a very high value on verisimilitude in my games.


I also place a very high value on verisimilitude, and we do tend to come to different conclusions on what that would result. My opinion is that your idea of "verisimilitude" focuses too much on either the real world or stories, and neither of those is a good fit for the game mechanics. this alters what would be good strategical thinking.

I'm not going to make in-depths argument because it would take too long, but suffice to say, if the villains' tactics always result in the villain getting destroyed with no real risk for the players, then the villain is not using good tactics. if nothing else, if the villain has no chances to stop the party with his resources, he should try to flee. with as much loot as he can. so that could actually be an incentive to players in the right circumstances?
"you break the door to the central room of the complex. it is empty.
turns out, when you broke into the lair, you first faced some easy guards. you killed them easily, but their disappearance was noted, so the villain sent his best minions to kill you. you dispatched those too. then you went back to rest. the villain figured that if you slew his strongest minions easily enough, then he alone with his remaining minions doesn't have many chances, so he took everything and he ran."

As for dumb monsters, those cannot have much of a strategy, so no problem here. they rarely end up being dangerous, no matter how physically powerful, specifically because they can be outthinked and outmaneuvered easily. there's a reason man with his brain jumped to the top of the food chain despite a lot of animals much bigger and stronger than we are, and it's not just our capacity to craft pointy sticks.



I frequently get told on the forums to stop worrying about verisimilitude and instead worry about player fun, I really am not sure how doing the opposite would be helpful.



the forum is made of many people with different opinions. You are probably thinking of quertus here. but many other people tell you that you should apply more verisimilitude instead - namely, the kind of verisimilitude that would let enemies be more effective. basically, the same point vahnavoi makes here


But, there's another dimension to this, which is that your ideas of verisimilitudous strategy and actually good strategy don't necessarily match.


regarding xp, if there is a rule for assigning them, then that rule can be exploited. it doesn't matter how well the rule is designed. that's why i prefer informal ways of giving xp.
then again, I do have good players who are not trying to cheat the system and who do not accuse me of shortchanging them. maybe at your table it would not work. or maybe giving story milestones (you gain a level when you open the way to the lower floor of the dungeon) could be acceptable to them.

If they farm xp, you can also counter that if they are not in any real risk, then they should not get any xp.
on the other hand, this may encourage the players to intentionally be dumb to maximize risk and xp gain. which is not something I want to encourage. "I stab myself to give the monster a sporting chance, this will give me more xp" is not something I'd want to accidentally enable.


I did think of a system where the first encounter is worth 1/4 XP, the second 1/3, the third 1/2, the fourth 3/4, and then the fith and beyond give full XP. That might produce similar results.
This I don't like. it's just a completely arbitrary system to punish them for resting. it also encourages exploting it, trying to find some easy encounter first - you get almost no xp for the first encounter, so you may as well start with something that would not have given many xp in any case.
Yeah, it's like I said. Make a hard rule for xp, and players will try to exploit it. and the results will break verisimilitude anyway.

Talakeal
2023-03-02, 09:11 PM
Busy now, but I am actually curious about how this playing NPCs differently plays out. Will post a longer story with questions and examples latrer.


I also place a very high value on verisimilitude, and we do tend to come to different conclusions on what that would result. My opinion is that your idea of "verisimilitude" focuses too much on either the real world or stories, and neither of those is a good fit for the game mechanics. This alters what would be good strategical thinking.

Some you are advocating for a "games rules as physics" approach lit-RPG style? If so, then yes, Quertus is just about the only person who advises me to have more "verisimilitude".

I really wish you would stop saying I really on stories, that isn't true. Narrative gaming blows screaming chunks to the moon, and story structure is the last thing in the world on my mind when designing a scenario or a ruleset. Now, I may use a story or a real-life anecdote when trying to illustrate a point, but my goal is never to recreate a dramatic experiance.


I'm not going to make in-depths argument because it would take too long, but suffice to say, if the villains' tactics always result in the villain getting destroyed with no real risk for the players, then the villain is not using good tactics. if nothing else, if the villain has no chances to stop the party with his resources, he should try to flee. with as much loot as he can. so that could actually be an incentive to players in the right circumstances?
"you break the door to the central room of the complex. it is empty.
turns out, when you broke into the lair, you first faced some easy guards. you killed them easily, but their disappearance was noted, so the villain sent his best minions to kill you. you dispatched those too. then you went back to rest. the villain figured that if you slew his strongest minions easily enough, then he alone with his remaining minions doesn't have many chances, so he took everything and he ran."

Is this fun for anyone?

Its not fun for me as a DM because I don't get to run the material I worked hard to come up with. It isn't fun for the players because they don't get to play the game or get any rewards.

Heck, it isn't even fun in character as the players haven't stopped the villain and the villain had to waste a buttload of time and money abandoning a perfectly good fortress to run away.



This I don't like. it's just a completely arbitrary system to punish them for resting. it also encourages exploiting it, trying to find some easy encounter first - you get almost no xp for the first encounter, so you may as well start with something that would not have given many xp in any case.
Yeah, it's like I said. Make a hard rule for XP, and players will try to exploit it. and the results will break verisimilitude anyway.

XP is always a completely arbitrary system that has little to nothing to do with verisimilitude.

Why is fighting a giant dragon worth more than a goblin?

If the answer is about challenge or danger or pushing oneself, why would it not also apply to the adventure as a whole?

Also, that assumes that:

A: The encounters are worth different amounts of XP.
B: That the order they are encountered in is the same order the multipliers are applied.
C: The players have the foreknowledge of what they will encounter and the ability to choose what order it is encountered in.


it's just a completely arbitrary system to punish them for resting

That is a very good point. I completely forgot about the last thread.

I should have said the first fight is worth normal XP, the second fight is worth double, the third triple, the fourth quadruple, and the fifth plus five times, that way you are rewarding pushing on instead of punishing resting.


the forum is made of many people with different opinions. You are probably thinking of quertus here. but many other people tell you that you should apply more verisimilitude instead - namely, the kind of verisimilitude that would let enemies be more effective. basically, the same point vahnavoi makes here

Ok, so serious question here: What makes you think that my enemies are ineffective?

Most of the advice in this thread is about enemies running away, which isn't more effective, just more annoying, and doesn't really solve the actual problems I am having with dealing with pacing and risk vs. reward in a sandbox game.

My players are certainly convinced that my games are too hard, and most threads the general impression I am getting from the forum community is that I need to town the challenge way down.

King of Nowhere
2023-03-03, 08:27 AM
I really wish you would stop saying I really on stories, that isn't true. Narrative gaming blows screaming chunks to the moon, and story structure is the last thing in the world on my mind when designing a scenario or a ruleset. Now, I may use a story or a real-life anecdote when trying to illustrate a point, but my goal is never to recreate a dramatic experiance.


well, the concept of "dramatic experience" and other stuff you said about "heroes defying danger" really screams "movie tropes" to me - while encouraging the players to rest as little as possible look like a speedrun. if you say you're not doing that I trust you, but from the way you describe what you want to achieve it's easy to come to those conclusions.




Is this fun for anyone?

Its not fun for me as a DM because I don't get to run the material I worked hard to come up with. It isn't fun for the players because they don't get to play the game or get any rewards.

Heck, it isn't even fun in character as the players haven't stopped the villain and the villain had to waste a buttload of time and money abandoning a perfectly good fortress to run away.


It is fun for me, because I could have my villain do something smart.
Now, the villain has lost his powerbase, so he won't be able to return for a while. and by then the players will have leveled and the villain will be irrelevant, so he's still defeated in a way. either that, or the villain will ally himself with someone stronger, and i'll get to reuse his stats.
None of those is a very strong reason, yet somehow the more I think of it, the more I like this outcome. I never pulled this specific scenario at the table, but villains giving up because they realize they can't win? I had plenty of those. generally they either try to ally with the players in exchange to keep their freedom and some measure of power, or they surrender (ok, they'd never do that with your players, knowing their "kill everyone" policy), or they team up with some other villain to stand a chance. In one extreme case of idealistic villains, they challenged the party to a duel they couldn't possibly win as a form of suicide by cop - trying, in defeat, to salvage as much of their honor as possible.

perhaps I like this scenario because it is the only rational thing to do when it's clear the villain can't win, and I hate to have my villains look like fools (except those who are supposed to be fools, of course).
And I absolutely hate playing the "overconfident" card: nothing screams "dunbass" and destroys the image of a clever mastermind more than a "muahaha I'm so powerful, you puny adventurers can't stop me" attitude - followed by a crushing defeat. the villain doesn't just die, he dies looking like a moron. If I introduce a villain with this attitude, I am setting him up to be utterly humiliated. And this is something important for my fun; as a player I want to win by overcoming the obstacles. As a dm, my villains are supposed to lose; but I want them (the serious ones) to at least look really cool while doing it.



That is a very good point. I completely forgot about the last thread.

I should have said the first fight is worth normal XP, the second fight is worth double, the third triple, the fourth quadruple, and the fifth plus five times, that way you are rewarding pushing on instead of punishing resting.

it's the same thing. although you may be able to fool people into thinking it isn't :smallsmile:


Ok, so serious question here: What makes you think that my enemies are ineffective?

Most of the advice in this thread is about enemies running away, which isn't more effective, just more annoying, and doesn't really solve the actual problems I am having with dealing with pacing and risk vs. reward in a sandbox game.

My players are certainly convinced that my games are too hard, and most threads the general impression I am getting from the forum community is that I need to town the challenge way down.
Serious answer: it's an impression I got over the course of the thread - following various tangents.

let's see if I can reconstruct how we got there.

you are indeed right, remembering other threads of yours, there are many narrations of dead pcs implyig the fighting to be difficult, potentially deadly.

however, there are many other indications pointing the other way:
- most such accidents are caused by reckless stupidity by your players - weird that you are trying for them to be less reckless on one hand, and more reckless on the other
- even when such accidents happen, and are caused by the players being bloody stupid, they seem to be protected from lasting consequence. here I may be misinterpreting/misremembering
most important for this thread, though, are
- mentions of farming xp imply that the players feel safe in facing some fights, with no risk whatsoever.
- your arguments about depletion of resources and the realistic danger of an arrow on the first or last encounter strongly imply that the first few encounters are not dangerous.
- you wanting your players to take more risks strongly implies that they are not in actual danger.

So, while all of this is admittedly based on inferences, the natural conclusion is that as long as they rest frequently and only fight when fresh, your players are in no danger whatsoever and they can easily breeze the whole dungeon this way.
this concept also tied into the idea of playing the monsters differently to try and adapt to this strategy from the pcs - something, admittedly, that only works for sapient enemies.

MrSandman
2023-03-03, 11:56 AM
Ok, so serious question here: What makes you think that my enemies are ineffective?

Most of the advice in this thread is about enemies running away, which isn't more effective, just more annoying, and doesn't really solve the actual problems I am having with dealing with pacing and risk vs. reward in a sandbox game.


Whether running away is more effective or not, really depends on the context. If the goal of the players is to reach place X before event Y, and the goal of the enemies is to acquire a powerful artefact, then fighting as a distraction while one thug steals the artefact and kills their horses i a whole lot more effective than fighting to the death then looting the characters. It is also interesting for people who see the game as more than a series of combats.

From what I remember, your players' ideal game is wave after wave of minions that can be easily dispatched. And if this is still the case, maybe the best way to avoid 15-minute adventuring days would be to have their resources repleted after every encounter. If all their spells were available at the beginning of every encounter, for example, they wouldn't feel the need to rest.

Now, the previous paragraph might seem facetious or disingenuous. But if it's the game that people want to play, it's a valid way of doing it. Honestly, in your situation, I'd just talk to the other players and say: "Hey, we're running this mega-dungeon, but I'd like it not to turn into a 15-MAD. What can we do to prevent that? What would make you happily forgo those rests?"

Talakeal
2023-03-03, 03:07 PM
well, the concept of "dramatic experience" and other stuff you said about "heroes defying danger" really screams "movie tropes" to me - while encouraging the players to rest as little as possible look like a speed run. if you say you're not doing that I trust you, but from the way you describe what you want to achieve it's easy to come to those conclusions.

Adventuring is a dangerous business. Cowards don't become adventurers, and idiots don't survive being adventurers.

People on the forum, Quertus primarily, equate being cowardly with being smart, and I am trying to explain that, by definition, a successful adventurer is going to have to be both cunning AND brave.

Resting has nothing to do with narrative or speed-running; its merely gaming the system as most RPGs are built around attrition and don't have a built-in cost for wasting time. In real life spending months of your life traipsing through enemy territory would be absolute suicide, but in an attrition-based RPG that is the safest way to play, it is purely a mechanical exploit that also happens to create a disconnect between the game rules and the underlying fiction of the setting.



It is fun for me, because I could have my villain do something smart.
Now, the villain has lost his powerbase, so he won't be able to return for a while. and by then the players will have leveled and the villain will be irrelevant, so he's still defeated in a way. either that, or the villain will ally himself with someone stronger, and i'll get to reuse his stats.

None of those is a very strong reason, yet somehow the more I think of it, the more I like this outcome. I never pulled this specific scenario at the table, but villains giving up because they realize they can't win? I had plenty of those. generally they either try to ally with the players in exchange to keep their freedom and some measure of power, or they surrender (ok, they'd never do that with your players, knowing their "kill everyone" policy), or they team up with some other villain to stand a chance. In one extreme case of idealistic villains, they challenged the party to a duel they couldn't possibly win as a form of suicide by cop - trying, in defeat, to salvage as much of their honor as possible.

perhaps I like this scenario because it is the only rational thing to do when it's clear the villain can't win, and I hate to have my villains look like fools (except those who are supposed to be fools, of course).

And I absolutely hate playing the "overconfident" card: nothing screams "dunbass" and destroys the image of a clever mastermind more than a "muahaha I'm so powerful, you puny adventurers can't stop me" attitude - followed by a crushing defeat. the villain doesn't just die, he dies looking like a moron. If I introduce a villain with this attitude, I am setting him up to be utterly humiliated. And this is something important for my fun; as a player I want to win by overcoming the obstacles. As a dm, my villains are supposed to lose; but I want them (the serious ones) to at least look really cool while doing it.

I don't think I have ever had that problem.

My players are always convinced they are in way worse shape than they actually are, so it seldom makes the villain look bad.

Typically, a final showdown has high stakes. I am not sure if it is really "moronic" to play your hand if there is a big enough prize on the line and / or a big enough cost for giving up.

Besides, the players don't normally let the villains escape or surrender, so it's not like fighting and hoping to pull of a victory actually increases their odds of survival.


I tend to run games so that the players mechanical edges are on the meta-game level rather than the fiction level. Whether it be buckets o' HP, rerolls, will points, rounding in the players favor, hero points, etc. I generally run them as some combination of survivor bias, a divine plan, or deep reserves of grit that can be called upon when the chips are down, not something that a villain, or anyone else in setting, can actually use to make tactical calculations on. Mostly I do this because I don't like bullies, which is what OP characters, both protagonists and antagonists, invariably become.

I will post later a more in-depth explanation of what this means with some examples from my games.


it's the same thing. although you may be able to fool people into thinking it isn't :smallsmile:

I know.

My last thread was about how my haggling system felt terrible because it used wholesale rather than retail as the baseline, which made players feel like they were getting punished rather than being rewarded despite paying the exact same amount for the exact same goods.

E.g. If a sword costs 5 gold to make and sells for 15 gold, and the haggle results in paying 10g for it; it feels like a punishment if you call that "double cost" but a reward if you call it "2/3 retail" despite being the exact same thing.

Rested XP in the World of Warcraft beta is a great example of this sort of nonsense. In short, as a pacing mechanism you got half XP if you played for too long in one stretch. People hated it, so they instead doubled the XP required and ley players earn XP for the first few hours after logging on.


Serious answer: it's an impression I got over the course of the thread - following various tangents.

let's see if I can reconstruct how we got there.

you are indeed right, remembering other threads of yours, there are many narrations of dead pcs implyig the fighting to be difficult, potentially deadly.

however, there are many other indications pointing the other way:
- most such accidents are caused by reckless stupidity by your players - weird that you are trying for them to be less reckless on one hand, and more reckless on the other
- even when such accidents happen, and are caused by the players being bloody stupid, they seem to be protected from lasting consequence. here I may be misinterpreting/misremembering
most important for this thread, though, are
- mentions of farming xp imply that the players feel safe in facing some fights, with no risk whatsoever.
- your arguments about depletion of resources and the realistic danger of an arrow on the first or last encounter strongly imply that the first few encounters are not dangerous.
- you wanting your players to take more risks strongly implies that they are not in actual danger.

So, while all of this is admittedly based on inferences, the natural conclusion is that as long as they rest frequently and only fight when fresh, your players are in no danger whatsoever and they can easily breeze the whole dungeon this way.
this concept also tied into the idea of playing the monsters differently to try and adapt to this strategy from the pcs - something, admittedly, that only works for sapient enemies.

Yes. It's true that players in my game generally only die when they do something stupid.

I have had very few casualties (typically 1-2 a campaign) and very few PC losses (93% of missions are successes, and they win 99.5% of fights), with about 1/3 sessions has a close call. Most people consider this a very hard campaign, although it still seems like a cake walk to me basses on RL sport's statistics or even fictional superheroes.

I personally don't like the idea of random pointless death as it disrupts the characters story* and isn't really fun for the player and I am not sure if that would improve the game for anyone; but I do agree that it is the threat of random pointless death that stops people from doing the 15 MWD so maybe that is a solution; its just one that I would prefer to save for a last resort.


*And I mean this in the emergent way, not in the narrative story structure way.


Whether running away is more effective or not, really depends on the context. If the goal of the players is to reach place X before event Y, and the goal of the enemies is to acquire a powerful artefact, then fighting as a distraction while one thug steals the artefact and kills their horses i a whole lot more effective than fighting to the death then looting the characters. It is also interesting for people who see the game as more than a series of combats.

From what I remember, your players' ideal game is wave after wave of minions that can be easily dispatched. And if this is still the case, maybe the best way to avoid 15-minute adventuring days would be to have their resources repleted after every encounter. If all their spells were available at the beginning of every encounter, for example, they wouldn't feel the need to rest.

Now, the previous paragraph might seem facetious or disingenuous. But if it's the game that people want to play, it's a valid way of doing it. Honestly, in your situation, I'd just talk to the other players and say: "Hey, we're running this mega-dungeon, but I'd like it not to turn into a 15-MAD. What can we do to prevent that? What would make you happily forgo those rests?"

My normal games are objective based and using either my own system or White Wolf's Storyteller and we don't have these issues.

Its only when I try and branch out into a more sandbox style that they come up. And, AFAICT, it comes up in other systems as well given the amount of complaining about the 15 MWD or caster balance or trying to squeeze in the recommended six encounters per adventuring day on the D&D forums.

Now, one of my players, Bob, is a "submission" gamer and relaxes by grinding. He hates challenge, and beating up people who are weaker than him boosts his ego. This is boring for me and the other players, and as I said above, I don't really like bullying.

The problem with doing just a single big battle each day is that it takes a tremendous amount of effort, and is less like an RPG than a game of Warhammer. It is fine sometimes, but it should be rare. Now, I could just use fewer stronger enemies, but that often strains belief, that there are entire squads of high-level characters or packs of huge monsters out there just waiting to be mooks to the PCs and doesn't always fit organically into the world.

Its much easier to have, say, six groups of goblin raiders thane one group of goblin paragons.

gbaji
2023-03-03, 06:31 PM
Only in the very broadest sense, and if their only goal was to live and fight another day, they would have avoided combat in the first place.

Players do the 15 MWD so they can cast all of their spells, ensuring they win the fight without any casualties, get treasure and XP, and then fall back.

(Most) Monsters don't have spells. Monsters don't get XP. Monsters don't get treasure from losing a fight.

Thinking like an actual enemy strategist doesn't work because the game mechanics are stacked in the PC's favor.

Then don't stack them? Do the PCs only ever encounter "monsters"? Isn't the world also full of evil sentient NPCs, who presumably have access to the same class/level/spells/items that the PCs have access to? This sounds like a contrivance in the game system you are playing. Treat the NPCs in your game setting as though they are actual real beings trying to do whatever it is that they are trying to do. The rest should just flow from that.


One of my oldest horror stories involved the PCs invading a wizard's toward, and the wizard would periodically pop in, summon some minions, cast a few spells, and then teleport to a different floor. When the PCs finally killed him, they demanded full XP for each time he teleported away, because by 3.5 RAW you get full XP for enemies who run away.

The experience is gained for "defeating the enemy". If a pack of wild animals attacks your camp late at night, and you kill some and drive the rest off, you get experience for "defating the pack of animals". Period. If a group of bandits attacks you while you are on the road, and you kill some and drive others off, then continue on your way unmolested from that point on, then you get experirence for "defeating the bandits". This is what can be broadly thought of as "experience from the encounter". And yeah, in some cases, merely surviving said encounter gets the party some experience (how much should be up to you).

Um... If the wizard is engaging in hit and run tactics against the party, summoning things, tossing them at the party, and then teleporting away and that is his tactic for attack the party has not actually "defeated the wizard" at any point. You might give them a small amount of experience for surviving any given attack, but nowhere near the full exp for actually defeating the wizard, you know, cause they didn't actually do that. This comes back to the concept mentioned earlier "what is the objective of each side"? In your example, the PCs are trying to drive the wizard from his tower (and hopeuflly kill him in the process). The wizard is trying to prevent that from happening. Each side is going to use various tactics to try to achieve the objective. But you don't get experience for "defeating the wizard" until you get to the top of his tower and actually defeat him there. You only get experience for surviving various attacks and/or summong critters along the way.

The PCs objective isn't "kill some summoned monsters and survive an attack by the wizard", right? So there may be *some* experience for that, but the "full exp" comes when they achieve their objective (defeat the wizard). It's not really that complicated IMO.


A realistic gang of bandits are probably not interested in fighting at all, they want to get the maximum profit from the least risk, so they'd do things like 'I'll draw their attention, you grab a sack of flour and run, if they follow, kill the horse.' If a party of armed adventurers passed by, they probably wouldn't attack at all.

Yup. If you were a group of bandits which would you attack:

1. A group of 2 or 3 wagons traveling along with a fat merchant fellow with a floppy hat on, and 2 or 3 bored looking renta-guards walking along side, or...
2. A group of 6-8 people, no wagons, some on horseback, all wearing high quality cloths, shiny armor, fancy wizard robes, with wands staves, etc, glowing weapons, gleaming armor, etc.

You'd just let the second group walk right on by, wouldn't you?

I mean, there was the whole "Haley explaining why banditry isn't worth it to the bandits in the woods" story arc, but she was also acting on the assumption that the bandits would (somewhat foolishly) rob anyone and everyone who travelled through the woods, and that most of these people would be adventurers like the order. But banditry works really well if you ignore the hard targets and focus entirely on big fat wagons of trade goods travelling along. Plenty of wealth to be gained, and most of the time, you probably don't even need to fight (pop up, bows pointed at folks on the road, take their stuff, and let them continue on their way). Again, we ask the question: "What is the objective of the bandits?". Is it to "gain levels and magic items", or "steal money and stay alive doing it"? If they're trying to gain levels and magic items, then they have to (as Haley said) attack increasingly higher level and more powerful opponents in order to support their numbers until they can't do so anymore. If they're just trying to gain wealth, then they should be avoiding anything that grants them much or any experience, and just focusing on getting money.

Er. But at least part of that was a joke about the WBL rules in D&D. So there is that.

In most cases, though, the PCs objectives actually are "defeat some evil bad guys", and "gaining exp and levels" is a secondary goal and methodology along the way to that. That aspect of any game system is part of the abstraction designed to create PC advancement, but I think that GMs should not lose sight of the fact that PCs are the exception and not the rule. Most people do not become more powerful and wealthy by wandering around getting into life or death fights over and over. They just don't. They study their respective professions. They employ those skills to make money. And over time, they become better at those things, even if they've never once had their lives threatend along the way.

I'd make a stock comment about class/level based game systems, but that's yet another topic.



People on the forum, Quertus primarily, equate being cowardly with being smart, and I am trying to explain that, by definition, a successful adventurer is going to have to be both cunning AND brave.

No. Being smart is being smart. If the best way to defeat a huge dungeon full of enemies is to advance into one room, clear it using maiximal abilities/spells/whatever, then retreat back to a safe space, regain expended resources, then advance to the next room and repeat until the dungeon is cleared then that is the smart way to do this. It has nothing to do with cowardice. It has everything to do with "The GM has constructed an environment, and we are using the smartest way to navigate it".

Don't make that the "smart" way to clear the dungeon. It's really that simple. If you want your players to do more than "clear and retreat" tactics, then you have to make that *not* be the smartest way to do things. I've listed about a dozen or so methods to do this just in a "megadungeon" format already. Use one of those methods (or come up with your own). And yeah, the most prominent way to do this is to just have whatever/whomever is living in the dungeon *not* act like complete idiots who serve no purpose other than to sit in their individual rooms and wait to be killed so the PCs can gain loot and exp.


Resting has nothing to do with narrative or speed-running; its merely gaming the system as most RPGs are built around attrition and don't have a built-in cost for wasting time. In real life spending months of your life traipsing through enemy territory would be absolute suicide, but in an attrition-based RPG that is the safest way to play, it is purely a mechanical exploit that also happens to create a disconnect between the game rules and the underlying fiction of the setting.

The game system doesn't put those costs in. You do when designing your dungeon. You decide how the NPCs react to the PCs actions. If you decide that they just sit there in their own rooms and wait for their turn to die, then yeah, you are creating the conditions the players are taking advantage of.

Just don't do that. Why exactly is it that "In real life spending months of your life traipsing through enemy territory would be absolute suicide"? It's because the enemies would notice you both attacking some of their friends and "traipsing around their territory" and will organize some means to track you down and kill you, right? So just do that in your dungeon. Apply real life rules to your NPCs.



Typically, a final showdown has high stakes. I am not sure if it is really "moronic" to play your hand if there is a big enough prize on the line and / or a big enough cost for giving up.

Besides, the players don't normally let the villains escape or surrender, so it's not like fighting and hoping to pull of a victory actually increases their odds of survival.

Well. Usually, when we're talking about some kind of "final showdown" situation, the villian has some stakes involved in some major way (he's pushed all his chips in on whatever evil thing he's doing), and can't just escape. Prior to that point, yeah, he can teleport away from any minor skirmish. But when he's at his center of power, in his fortress of Doom(tm), and has gathered the mystical components needed for his super ritual to his patron demon lord or whatever, and the moon is in the right phase, sacrifices ready, etc, and the PCs burst in to break the whole thing up, he's pretty darn committed at that point.

But yeah, in a lot of cases, you can justify some enemies escaping various encounters if it makes sense for them to do so, and they are physically able to. I do tend to avoid using this too much for anything other than top tier bad guys though. Having every random bandit leader teleport away, and every random pirate captain do the same, and every random slaver, orc chieftan, etc is going to be very frustrating for your players. Save that stuff for the really epic big bads (and honestly, they should rarely be encountered prior to the "final showdown" scenario anyway, right?). Then again, I play in a game system where teleport is extremely rare and only accessible to very wealthy/powerful people. There's simply no such thing as "buy a X use dimension door amulet" kind of things. Just doesn't exist. Only certain deities grant teleportaion spells, and they don't share them outside their worshipers (and those teleports only act as short range line of sight sort of things or long range (go back to your temple) sort of things). Powerful wizards can gain access to teleportation, but it doesn't work like D&D teleport. You must spend power enchanting a target portal, and may later use the spell to teleport to it (or any other portals you have access to and knowledge of). So teleporting out of a dungeon is something that could be done, maybe, if you have a powerful wizard or a priest of the right deity with a heck of a lot of points in teleport (like an absurd amount). But then you have "gone home". Like back to your home town, home (or wherever the adventurers are from). You can't use these spells to go back to somewhere quickly or easily.

Honestly? Teleportation is one of the dumbest things D&D includes in the game (especially how it's implemented), and is probably the one thing most game designers should *not* replicate in their own games. Yet, oddly, many do anyway. Heck. There's a reason Rich intentionally made V specialize such that teleportation wasn't available. It literally breaks settings.


My last thread was about how my haggling system felt terrible because it used wholesale rather than retail as the baseline, which made players feel like they were getting punished rather than being rewarded despite paying the exact same amount for the exact same goods.

E.g. If a sword costs 5 gold to make and sells for 15 gold, and the haggle results in paying 10g for it; it feels like a punishment if you call that "double cost" but a reward if you call it "2/3 retail" despite being the exact same thing.

Uh. Have you ever actually haggled before? You're always haggling over the retail price, because that's what the seller is trying to get from the buyer, and what the buyer is trying to spend the least on (you are "buying" something, right?). The only way "wholesale price" comes in, is that this should be a floor at which the seller should never breach (ie: under virtually all conditions, you're never going to let someone haggle you down below the price you actually spent for it, and proably not down that low anyway). It's something you as the GM may consider when establishing the sellers initial desired price and "floor", but the actual haggle skill should be based on the degree to which the PC can get the NPC to come down from that price (or will get suckered into paying more if they do particularly poorly).

Yeah. I would also argue that any haggling rules that used declared wholesale price as a starting point would be problematic. The PCs don't actually need to know what the NPC paid for something. That's hidden information. Just decide what the NPC would think is a "fair price", then have the PCs roll their skill (perhaps in an opposed check against the NPC, depending on the system), and then adjust that initially desired price accordingly, but never below the floor. Then tell the PCs the price they can buy the thing for after haggling. It's not that difficult.


I personally don't like the idea of random pointless death as it disrupts the characters story* and isn't really fun for the player and I am not sure if that would improve the game for anyone; but I do agree that it is the threat of random pointless death that stops people from doing the 15 MWD so maybe that is a solution; its just one that I would prefer to save for a last resort.

Eh. I think it's "random encounters behind random doors" that pushes that thinking. If the PCs are engaging with a vibrant, dynamic, and realistic (within the constraints of the game) environment, then this should not be the case. They should have a feel for what lies ahead, and how much risk they are taking, and how many resources they have left to manage those things. This is why I said earlier to think of larger adventure components as "chunks" of content that have to be dealt with as a single thing. The players should be aware when an encounter is just a random thing they ran into along the way versus part of something bigger. And usually that's exactly because the encounter will suggest it like: "hey. We wandered into this swamp, and ran into a group of lizard men hunting, and they tossed javelins at us, and then ran/swam off deeper into the swamp, this probably means that there's some unkown sized lizard man tribe living here". Same deal with "entered a large dungeon, ran into a wandering group of goblins, then later encountered some posts with heads on them and some goblin symbols that look like territorial markers on them, so maybe we're entering a part of the dungeon controlled by these goblins". In these cases, the players should employ some stealth, scrying, or other intelligence gathering skills to figure out what they are getting into before proceeding.

If the party responds to those clues by just moving to the first room/encounter, killing them, and then retreating a distance to "rest up", that's probably going to result in the entire tribe/gang/whatever gathering together, using their own stealth/scrying/intelligence-gathering skills to find the party, and then either eliminate them, or set some really really nasty ambushes for them if they return.

The same applies to "in town" adventures. You discover that there's an evil temple operating in town, kidnapping people and sacrificing them (or whatever). The party decides to investigate and finds out that the temple is hidden under an old abandoned "haunted" house that everyone in town avoids (convenient, right?). You would investigate the cult members, try to figure out how many there are, and maybe who they are, and then launch an attack. What you wouldn't do? Walk into the basement of the house, kill the first set of temple guards, then exit, go back to the Inn, and rest up to continue attacking the temple the next day. Why treat a dungeon any differently? They are all "connected content". Treat it that way, and it will really nip that mentality in the bud.


Its only when I try and branch out into a more sandbox style that they come up. And, AFAICT, it comes up in other systems as well given the amount of complaining about the 15 MWD or caster balance or trying to squeeze in the recommended six encounters per adventuring day on the D&D forums.

Sure. That's the nature of many "sandbox" style games (and I'm not reallly a fan of that for a number of reasons anyway). They very much are "hand the PCs a speciic amount of content at a specific rate, based on established rules for doing this". Yeah. That's terrible. If all you are doing as a GM is rolling up a specific numerical amount of "level appropriate encounters" designed to match the correct number for a party that size, then you're really just phoning in the job of GM. I mean, there are computer games that can generate that random content just fine. If I want that kind of game, I don't need to go to your table to play it.

I expect a GM to actually write content.


Now, one of my players, Bob, is a "submission" gamer and relaxes by grinding. He hates challenge, and beating up people who are weaker than him boosts his ego. This is boring for me and the other players, and as I said above, I don't really like bullying.

The problem with doing just a single big battle each day is that it takes a tremendous amount of effort, and is less like an RPG than a game of Warhammer. It is fine sometimes, but it should be rare. Now, I could just use fewer stronger enemies, but that often strains belief, that there are entire squads of high-level characters or packs of huge monsters out there just waiting to be mooks to the PCs and doesn't always fit organically into the world.

Its much easier to have, say, six groups of goblin raiders thane one group of goblin paragons.

I think you are still thinking in terms of "X encounters of Y difficulty based on level/size of group". Stop doing that. Think in terms of "what would be here?". If the answer is "A vast lizard man tribe consisting of 10,000 members, complete with powerful shamans for spell support, and the ability to track and trap the entire swamp the PCs want to travel through", then that's what's there. The PCs had better figure out a way to get through the swamp that isn't just "kill off the swamp denizens one patch ground at a time", right? That's where "take the time to learn the environment" comes into play. And yes, where you as the GM can shine by also creating some things that these NPCs might want in return for passage through their territory.

Now maybe it's "small group of bandits in the hills", or "20 or so cultists operating under the haunted house", or even "small orc war band". Those are things the PCs should be able to handle in a single "chunk". And yeah, you can do some math in terms of how tough that chunk of enemies should be. But I never think in terms of size/number of encounters for the PCs. I think in terms of numbers/resources the NPCs have, and then how those would reasonably be deployed at any given time. And then adjust those based on changes, especially based on PC actions. Which means that if the PCs are reasonably smart, they can burn through the bandits, or cultists, or orcs, taking them out in reasonably bite sized pieces. But if they are dumb, they will face much more difficult situations. But I'm not determining that ahead of time. I'm just determining what is there, and letting the decisions of the PCs determine how they engage with those things.

And yeah. This means that sometimes players will bite off far more than they can actually chew. You're free as the GM to warn them ("um... maybe you should find out how many lizard men are in this swamp before you just start killing them", or "um... maybe attacking this one thieves guild safe house in this big city is going to result in a whole lot of other folks being mad at you"). But if they foolishly do things like this, you have to let them suffer the consequences. That's how they learn. And yeah, you can be a "nice GM" and find ways to give them outs when/if they do stuff like this, but again that's a learning experience for the players and will make your game better over time.

If the players learn to expect that they will never ever encounter anything that is beyond their ability to defeat, then yeah, the only way they can ever "lose" is if they attempt to have more encounters per day than they should. So you should not be surprised that their way of dealing with this risk is to avoid having any more encounters per day than necessary. If, instead, literally anything they encounter could turn out to be far far more than they can possibly handle, then they'll learn to think and ask questions first instead of just treating everything as an enemy to be defeated for exp/loot. The "caution" comes in learning what is in front of them first. Then deciding if they can handle it. And then having to handle "all of it" (or risk response/retribution/reprisal/whatever), which may/should involve multiple encounters between rests.

Talakeal
2023-03-03, 07:44 PM
Then don't stack them? Do the PCs only ever encounter "monsters"? Isn't the world also full of evil sentient NPCs, who presumably have access to the same class/level/spells/items that the PCs have access to? This sounds like a contrivance in the game system you are playing. Treat the NPCs in your game setting as though they are actual real beings trying to do whatever it is that they are trying to do. The rest should just flow from that.

Yes, every RPG I have ever played includes contrivances in the PCs favor.

In D&D, characters need buckets of magic items to keep up. If all the opponents have buckets of magic items, then the game goes into an insane monte haul wealth spiral.

In White Wolf games, if you give the NPC's full PC resources, then every fight takes two hours and the players whine incessantly about having to ration out their resources while the enemies can burn through a month of resources in a single combat. (Heck, my players whine about the monsters being at full HP when encountered).

Its also extremely boring for the PCs to encounter NPCs over and over again and a pain in the butt for the DM to have to make an NPC party for each encounter, which is why, imo, modern games no longer even attempt PC NPC symmetry.


No. Being smart is being smart. If the best way to defeat a huge dungeon full of enemies is to advance into one room, clear it using maximal abilities/spells/whatever, then retreat back to a safe space, regain expended resources, then advance to the next room and repeat until the dungeon is cleared then that is the smart way to do this. It has nothing to do with cowardice. It has everything to do with "The GM has constructed an environment, and we are using the smartest way to navigate it".

Don't make that the "smart" way to clear the dungeon. It's really that simple. If you want your players to do more than "clear and retreat" tactics, then you have to make that *not* be the smartest way to do things. I've listed about a dozen or so methods to do this just in a "mega-dungeon" format already. Use one of those methods (or come up with your own). And yeah, the most prominent way to do this is to just have whatever/whomever is living in the dungeon *not* act like complete idiots who serve no purpose other than to sit in their individual rooms and wait to be killed so the PCs can gain loot and exp.

Optimal play =/= smart characters.

As a quick example, in most video games players will jump off cliffs because it is faster than waiting for the elevator / taking the stairs. Their character will then take damage, and heal up. And if the player misjudges the fall and the character dies, they just load their saved game.

Does this mean that, in the fiction, smart people are always risking pain, dismemberment, and death jumping off cliffs to avoid waiting for the elevator?

For a more direct example, most RPGs have some sort of luck mechanic to save player's lives. Fate points in WHFRP or Lord of the Rings, Destiny in my system, inflated HP totals in D&D, Light Side points in Star Wars, etc. These exist on the meta level, and serve to save the player's lives. The characters don't know that they have these things (in most systems), from their perspective the first goblin's sword hurts just as much and is just as likely to strike a fatal blow as the tenth goblin's sword, and so it is stupid to expose yourself to more risks as a result. And heck, even if you were aware that PCs are extra lucky, are you really going to test that theory when it is also equally possible that you just happened to survive through random chance so far?

Exploiting mechanics that exist at the meta-level is not the same thing as playing smart, anymore that it is smart to bring loaded dice to the table or peak at the GM's notes while he is in the bathroom.

A lot of the "15 MWD" problem comes from that. Players don't experience their character's pain, hunger, boredom, fear, discomfort, etc. They don't feel the character's lives slip away as they spend months walking the same road and eating the same stale iron rations over and over again. They don't care that every day they dally the evil overlord conquers another kingdom dooming its people to torture and slavery and being eaten by monsters. They don't miss their loved ones back in town and feel anxious over the terrible things that might happen to them (or already be happening to them) should they take too long.


But, in short, I do agree with you. If the game is designed well, there shouldn't be this big divide between smart OOC tactics and smart IC tactics, which is why I still create threads like these rather than simply listening to the most common advice which is something along the lines of "The problem is the player's attitude, not the mechanics."


Yeah. I would also argue that any haggling rules that used declared wholesale price as a starting point would be problematic. The PCs don't actually need to know what the NPC paid for something. That's hidden information. Just decide what the NPC would think is a "fair price", then have the PCs roll their skill (perhaps in an opposed check against the NPC, depending on the system), and then adjust that initially desired price accordingly, but never below the floor. Then tell the PCs the price they can buy the thing for after haggling. It's not that difficult.

That is exactly how the system does work.

The problem is that in real life the "floor" is hidden information, but in the game the players can look in the book and see what said "floor" is, and will thus always feel ripped off if they pay more than it.

Stores will try and get as much as they think they can get away with, retail price is just an illusion to make people feel better about their purchases. Like, literally today I bought a bottle of wine in a liquor store at their 12.99 sticker price. Then I went into the grocery store next door and saw the same bottle of wine with a sticker price of 19.99 "on sale" for 12.99.


The game system doesn't put those costs in. You do when designing your dungeon. You decide how the NPCs react to the PCs actions. If you decide that they just sit there in their own rooms and wait for their turn to die, then yeah, you are creating the conditions the players are taking advantage of.

Just don't do that. Why exactly is it that "In real life spending months of your life traipsing through enemy territory would be absolute suicide"? It's because the enemies would notice you both attacking some of their friends and "traipsing around their territory" and will organize some means to track you down and kill you, right? So just do that in your dungeon. Apply real life rules to your NPCs.

It doesn't have to be, no.

As I said upthread, in real life your first gun fight of the day is as likely to see you dead as your tenth. In RPGs you have mechanics that save your life.

In real life, if you could choose between 6 shootouts in one day, or one shootout a day for three months, the first one is a much safer bet. In an RPG, go with the latter every time. This is the disconnect.

In my last campaign they were trekking across a wilderness that is roughly as dangerous as Skull Island from King Kong, not an active enemy war-zone. The things they fought were primarily big monsters and environmental hazards rather than organized enemy armies. The idea was the PCs would hear about a treasure in the wilderness, get to it expending as few resources as possible, and then pull back. What the players did instead was retreat to town after every random encounter and only go for the treasure if they made a near flawless run. So, they ended up having far MORE combats, but because every combat was their first combat of the day, they had zero potentially lethal combats.


I think you are still thinking in terms of "X encounters of Y difficulty based on level/size of group". Stop doing that. Think in terms of "what would be here?". If the answer is "A vast lizard man tribe consisting of 10,000 members, complete with powerful shamans for spell support, and the ability to track and trap the entire swamp the PCs want to travel through", then that's what's there. The PCs had better figure out a way to get through the swamp that isn't just "kill off the swamp denizens one patch ground at a time", right? That's where "take the time to learn the environment" comes into play. And yes, where you as the GM can shine by also creating some things that these NPCs might want in return for passage through their territory.

Now maybe it's "small group of bandits in the hills", or "20 or so cultists operating under the haunted house", or even "small orc war band". Those are things the PCs should be able to handle in a single "chunk". And yeah, you can do some math in terms of how tough that chunk of enemies should be. But I never think in terms of size/number of encounters for the PCs. I think in terms of numbers/resources the NPCs have, and then how those would reasonably be deployed at any given time. And then adjust those based on changes, especially based on PC actions. Which means that if the PCs are reasonably smart, they can burn through the bandits, or cultists, or orcs, taking them out in reasonably bite sized pieces. But if they are dumb, they will face much more difficult situations. But I'm not determining that ahead of time. I'm just determining what is there, and letting the decisions of the PCs determine how they engage with those things.

And yeah. This means that sometimes players will bite off far more than they can actually chew. You're free as the GM to warn them ("um... maybe you should find out how many lizard men are in this swamp before you just start killing them", or "um... maybe attacking this one thieves guild safe house in this big city is going to result in a whole lot of other folks being mad at you"). But if they foolishly do things like this, you have to let them suffer the consequences. That's how they learn. And yeah, you can be a "nice GM" and find ways to give them outs when/if they do stuff like this, but again that's a learning experience for the players and will make your game better over time.

If the players learn to expect that they will never ever encounter anything that is beyond their ability to defeat, then yeah, the only way they can ever "lose" is if they attempt to have more encounters per day than they should. So you should not be surprised that their way of dealing with this risk is to avoid having any more encounters per day than necessary. If, instead, literally anything they encounter could turn out to be far far more than they can possibly handle, then they'll learn to think and ask questions first instead of just treating everything as an enemy to be defeated for exp/loot. The "caution" comes in learning what is in front of them first. Then deciding if they can handle it. And then having to handle "all of it" (or risk response/retribution/reprisal/whatever), which may/should involve multiple encounters between rests.

That would be really great.

But in my experiance, balance is everything.

I have never sat at a table that would allow it.

The players I have played with have always been obsessed with balance, and would consider the above to be the equivalent of showing up to poker night with marked cards.

It would be the last game, and for years to come they would tell stories of what a horrible dirty cheater I was.

ahyangyi
2023-03-04, 01:30 AM
That would be really great.

But in my experiance, balance is everything.

I have never sat at a table that would allow it.

The players I have played with have always been obsessed with balance, and would consider the above to be the equivalent of showing up to poker night with marked cards.

It would be the last game, and for years to come they would tell stories of what a horrible dirty cheater I was.

Well, decisions should have consequences. If we destroy that kind of causal relationship in the name of balance, then the world no longer has causal relationships.

Vahnavoi
2023-03-04, 05:59 AM
At some point, there's going to have to be a jumping off point from reality. Your average adventuring party isn't equipped to take and look after prisoners, and gameplay wise it would be annoying for a party member to have to sit out the adventure because they have to guard them.

Great, so employ a gameplay conceit that doesn't require a player to sit out the adventure for that reason. Such as a Pokeball or, you know, restraints that allow dragging the prisoner with them.

Put differently, these types of arguments are based on only considering "average adventurer" of past games, and only one format of dealing with aftermath of combat. They aren't compelling. Mostly, they just show lack of imagination.


Realistic tactics tend to be annoying to deal with, because they're designed to work, while gameplay tactics are designed to give the players at least a fighting chance.

Both halves of this are just truisms. Realistic tactics and players having a fighting chance are not mutually exclusive - just make a scenario where players have a realistic fighting chance.

The argument seems to be based on the idea that "tactics that work" means "enemies win, players lose". This is horse hockey. That's not what realism means. To wit, realism means attempt to present reality as it is, without romance, idealization or abstraction. Tactics, means doing what you can with what you have, in pursuit of objectives set by strategy. Put together, "realistic tactics" means enemies doing what they think would be best for their goals, given their actual position, knowledge and resources. Nowhere is it guaranteed that this doesn't give players a fighting chance. It's only annoying to deal with, in the same sense as dealing with an actual intelligent opponent in a real scenario would be. Case in point:


A realistic gang of bandits are probably not interested in fighting at all, they want to get the maximum profit from the least risk, so they'd do things like 'I'll draw their attention, you grab a sack of flour and run, if they follow, kill the horse.' If a party of armed adventurers passed by, they probably wouldn't attack at all.

And what about this is supposed to be so annoying to deal with? The bandits won't attack visibly armed strangers? This is great news! Now, even a party that would be weak in a fight can dress up in fake armor and even carry fake weapons to lower their chance of being attacked. A stronger party, maybe one that has been hired to capture the bandits, can instead dress up like civilians to lure them out of hiding. A savvy negotiator might be be able to convince the bandit to give up banditry altogether, by explaining that joining the party as retainers will net them a share of treasure while lowering risks for all involved.

Part of that is straight out of Art of War, by the way. "All warfare is based on deception" and "When you are weak, act strong, when you are strong, act weak." This is what realist tactics actually does: allows players to use non-game resources and ordinary strategic reasoning to come up with valid plans.

Of course, we can presume a prospecting bandit leader may have read Art of War or its equivalent. Which means they're now aware not all "armed adventurers" can defend themselves, and not all civilians are what they seem. Which means they no longer have a single safe tactic. Barring further information, there's a rock-paper-scissors like dynamic, where whatever he does, there's a chance his mark chose the superior tactic, and he's going to lose.

Or, maybe a realist bandit is not that smart. Maybe they're a desperate, illiterate commoner who can't think far enough to spot a deception and will walk into a trap every time. But whichever it is, nowhere does it follow that the players don't have a fighting chance against the bandits.


The players here are exploiting gameplay mechanics, in the knowledge that their enemies will not. But if you do a mechanical fix that makes that less effective, they will probably just double down and be even more cautious.

This depends on the specific fix, and whether players are smart enough to realize what are efficient tactics in the first place. Again, there's a rock-paper-scissors type dynamic here. Double down when the fix makes your cautious strategy worse? Bam, you lose. Savvy player, at this point, will re-evaluate their approach. Less savvy players double down further, and lose harder.

---


1) Because players like to feel special.
2) Because it is tedious to track and have to whittle down meta resources and HP bloat from enemies who don't exist when they are off camera.
3) Because the game is unfulfilling for everyone involved if it ends suddenly without resolution.

These are all bad reasons to withhold from thinking like an enemy strategist and considering what their goals and objectives are. I added in numbering so I don't have to chop the quote blocks so small. Let's go through with them in order:

1) this is not mutually exclusive with strategy. If anything, thinking like an enemy strategist can directly contribute to this feeling. If specialness of player characters is known? Now they are worthy of special consideration. If specialness of player characters is not known? Now they get to enjoy being the unexpected factor that was not considered in the enemy's plan. This ties to this statement of yours: "The players tend to have an unusual concentration of supernatural abilities. That is known." Known to who? You don't need a system level statement about whether these abilities are known to enemies. You can, and likely should, vary it from enemy to enemy.

2) You are your game's designer, how tedious tracking offscreen enemies is, is on you. There are lot of ways to make this fast and simple. For example, I've talked of keeping calendar before. One of the faster way to track enemy recovery is to jot down the date when they are first fought. Then, if the enemy force survives, you estimate how much time it takes for them to recover, and jot down that future date. Then? You just don't worry about it much. You only need to check their state when they are actually encountered again - if it's before recovery date, they are at the strength players left them at, if it's after, they fully recovered. Thinking like an enemy strategist, considering what objectives they have and how they are pursuing them, does not actually require tracking everything they do in the same detail as the player characters. Furthermore, where mechanics and goals are symmetric, you can literally use what your players do as a model for what the enemies do. When you do this, players, with their own actions throughout normal gameplay, supply you with details for how enemy troops would also act.

3) Thinking like an enemy strategist does not lead to games ending suddenly or without resolution as any kind of general rule, so what are you even on about? What kind of goals and objectives are you implicitly assuming, for this to happen? Remember, the context is explicitly looking past simply killing the player characters or reducing their resources by some quota.


The rest of it is stuff handled on a mechanical level and mostly represents survivor bias, this is not something that is known to anyone in setting except for those few wizards who can read people's destinies.

Which means, you can ignore it when strategizing from the enemy's viewpoint. All that means is that the player characters win a bit more often than they should based on what the enemy knows, but this is of no concern, because that is what you want.


Only if you greatly restrict yourself. I would wager less than 5% of the monster manual has spells that recharge on a per day rest.

Even if you restrict yourself to enemies that share type with player characters, you have dozens of options with hundreds of different permutations - enough for more games than most people ever care to play. The actual point, which your comment doesn't address in the slightest, is that you, as game and scenario designer, make the choice of who the relevant opponents are for your players.


And I would wager that those monsters who do are already balanced around going nova and casting their most powerful spells every fight.

Functionally, a monster that attacks, casts its most powerful spells, and then runs away and repeats the same day, is just a slightly easier version of having two encounters against two seperate monsters.

Neither of these holds well even in D&D, and don't hold for other games as any sort of general rule. In fact, often it's the opposite: in several games, if enemies opened up with their most powerful attacks, players would just lose. They are deliberately coded to not do that just to give the players a chance, the balance point is literally reverse of what you wager. Since you are your game's designer, which way it goes is a decision you have to make, and looking at other games isn't particularly instructive if you don't know why they do things their way.

But, even if you opt to go with a model that boils down to "just a slightly easier version of having two encounters against two seperate monsters", so what? That's not some terrible calamity that you need to avoid at all costs.


Also, monsters can't have the same access to magic items as player characters because then the power curve becomes exponential and unsustainable as every victory doubles the player's loot.

Angband already teaches by example how to avert this, and I already told you how. Or are you talking about D&D? Because what you say is just false. If party has X resources and enemy has X resources, the players end up with 2X resources upon victory. If enemy recovers up to X resources, then next victory gets players up to 3X resources. You seem to assume the enemies would need to get 2X resources as well, but this is an unnecessary extra step. Also, since many item costs are exponential, 2X resources does not get players double power; they cannot, say, wear two pieces of leather armor for double bonuses, and if they sell one, they won't even get enough money to upgrade to the next better type of armor. These principles apply for both mundane and magic items.

The mathematical trend is towards diminishing returns, not exponential growth.

For contrast, if enemies do always get equal resources to players? That is called an equal encounter. There might be an exponential curve on paper, but in practice, players end up in fights that are just as hard as the ones before. It's only "unsustainable" in the sense that at some point, players beat the last enemy that matters and complete their campaign, or the enemies beat them and the game ends. You know, business as usual.


And yeah, I guess you could say I am causing the asymmetry in my system, but that's because I am trying to create a fantasy world with a variety and mythical monsters rather than just a collection of homicidal wizards.

That's fair.

It's not an argument against thinking like an enemy strategists and giving those mythical monsters goals and objectives beyond killing player characters or reducing their resources by set quota.


When I am playing the monsters I am thinking like a strategist.

When I am setting up the scenario, I am looking for one that will result in a fun adventure; not one where the PCs are murdered in their sleep without a chance to fight back or where the local militia has already killed all the monsters and tells the PCs to keep walking.

Great, so you DO understand thinking like an enemy strategist does not mean being a strawman who only sets up unwinnable scenarios. Why are you arguing with me, again?


Monsters that run away are guaranteed to be a pain in the butt for everyone involved. The PCs will chase them down and kill them, and will not have fun doing it. It doesn't actually gain the monsters anything, they are still dead, all it did was save the PCs some resources in exchange for wasting time. (Honestly.... this sounds a lot like the 15MWD itself).

Now, obviously, this assumes a normal scenario. I have had several situations where it made tactical sense for the monsters to fall back and regroup for a future attack, and these few occasions are what the players always point to when they justify their genocidal take no prisoners scorched earth tactics.

You are, again, suffering from brain rot caused by your particular players. What fleeing gains for the monster, is a chance of survival, because not all opponents will chase them down. Why? Because it's not "fun" for the pursuer, it is work, with additional risks that the pursuer can avoid by letting the monster go. Your players just aren't savvy enough to see this far, and cannot distinguish a monster that's no longer a threat from one that is. Which is why they end up doing things like cornering a fleeing beast to its lair and getting mauled by it, when they could've walked away.

In short, they are bad at this. Stop appealing to worst instincts of your players.


Why do you assume [the fleeing wizard] shouldn't have been worth XP?

The wizard was two or three levels above the party, it's just that because they "defeated" him half a dozen times they demanded a ludicrous amount of XP for an enemy who was two or three levels above them.

Because if you were okay with the fights giving experience, the system was working exactly as it's made to work, and your players were just reminding you to give them their due. No horror story there, just business as usual.


I am curious what this would actually look like in practice though, especially how it would actually work to pace the game. To me it just seems like slower easier fights that give less XP and require more bookkeeping, so I am probably missing something.

Enemies having a chance at fleeing or surrendering at 20% actually means individual fights end faster, other things being equal; I would know, given I play under rules where morale leads to this happening. If 80% of XP is gained when they do, this also means faster advancement - this, I don't see in my games, but the reason is because XP given for fights is low compared to what is required for level up. (Farming hence does not work, because the number of combats required to advance in level is so high a character is overwhelmingly likely to die before amassing enough experience.)

Book keeping does increase, but the increase is small - see the calendar trick I explained above.

Beyond this, it's hard to say, because it depends on what strategy and tactics players choose. If they follow the strategy I outlined for Angband, each individual fight takes less time, but overall amount of repeating fights goes up as the players try to stave off diminishing returns. In the long term, if they're savvy, they move on when diminishing returns means they no longer get anything out of fighting the same opponent. If they're not, they fight the same opponent until they die of random chance, boredom or old age.


I did think of a system where the first encounter is worth 1/4 XP, the second 1/3, the third 1/2, the fourth 3/4, and then the fith and beyond give full XP. That might produce similar results.

That's just gambling and you're hoping on players to double down. Instead of fractions, you could just give a multiplier for subsequent encounters, the only difference is phrasing. Risk-averse players will still just do one encounter, neither winning big nor losing big.

GloatingSwine
2023-03-04, 06:11 AM
Great, so employ a gameplay conceit that doesn't require a player to sit out the adventure for that reason. Such as a Pokeball or, you know, restraints that allow dragging the prisoner with them.

The real question is "is the NPC an interesting prisoner?"

Parties are only going to take prisoners on special occasions because most NPCs aren't going to be interesting enough to take prisoner. The only thing a prisoner can do is be inconvenient until cashed in on.

Vahnavoi
2023-03-04, 07:13 AM
Yes, which is why franchises such as Pokemon and Shin Megami Tensei devote a lot of time and effort on character design and various associated mechanics, so that you want to capture the enemy. Though I'm rather skeptical of your statement of what prisoners can or cannot do. Even real militaries have found various uses for PoWs, even using them as negotiating chips involves several different tactics. A prisoner doesn't have to be left to rot in a corner in chains, people.

GloatingSwine
2023-03-04, 07:45 AM
Yes, which is why franchises such as Pokemon and Shin Megami Tensei devote a lot of time and effort on character design and various associated mechanics, so that you want to capture the enemy. Though I'm rather skeptical of your statement of what prisoners can or cannot do. Even real militaries have found various uses for PoWs, even using them as negotiating chips involves several different tactics. A prisoner doesn't have to be left to rot in a corner in chains, people.

You want to capture the first copy of each critter you see, but after that they're just another one and you want to crunch through them as efficiently as possible.

And sure, you can cash in prisoners sometimes but do you know in any given generic encounter whether you'll get anything valuable for doing so? Probably not, because it's situational based on the GM not system level. So unless the situation gives a realistic expectation of value in advance (a bounty for an infamous bandit, a ransom for an enemy noble, etc.) players aren't even going to think of taking a prisoner when all they can do is be annoyed by them trying to escape (because you will note you didn't actually present any interesting things they can do whilst they are still prisoners, only in the manner of their disposal).

Vahnavoi
2023-03-04, 08:01 AM
I'm well aware it's a matter of scenario design, which is why I've been telling to people to pay attention to scenario design. That includes players. Why the hell do people presume players come up with their tactics based on spherical-cows-in-a-vacuum system level considerations instead of the situation actually presented to them?

King of Nowhere
2023-03-04, 05:04 PM
I have had very few casualties (typically 1-2 a campaign) and very few PC losses (93% of missions are successes, and they win 99.5% of fights), with about 1/3 sessions has a close call.


you actually kept track of statistics like that? 1/3 may just be eyeballing, but 93% looks oddly specific


That would be really great.

But in my experiance, balance is everything.

I have never sat at a table that would allow it.

The players I have played with have always been obsessed with balance, and would consider the above to be the equivalent of showing up to poker night with marked cards.

It would be the last game, and for years to come they would tell stories of what a horrible dirty cheater I was.

even if the danger is telegraphed?

I mean, I create a world with set-up powers. there are high level people around. if you mess with the evil empire, the evil empire top echelon include a 20th level party, and while they are certainly not going to show up for you when you're a nobody dealing minor acts of resistance, the point stands that the empire has resouces and if you make too much noise, they will use them.
even when the players are level 20 with demigod status and are the most powerful people in the world, the evil empire still controls enough mid-high level people that they could easily swarm the party and destroy them, if the party gave them an opportunity. the party had to bring alliances to defeat the evil empire.

but the thing is, the players know it. their bosses told them all they need to know about the evil empire and the powers it can call. they know that, after they just defeated the mid-level party sent after them, they best flee, because soon somebody stronger may teleport in place.
and when they decided to skip the line of increasingly stronger foes and directly try to ambush the empire top assassin, they got their asses handed to them and they didn't complain; they knew exactly that she was a 20th level rogue/assassin, they knew her fighting style, they even had a good idea of her items, they decided to try anyway, trusting in the advantage of surprise and planning (to their credit, a similar tactic worked in a previous campaign, and they got totallly level-inappropriate loot for it).
So they knew they were taking a high-risk, high-reward venture. they could even see what went wrong: they didn't factor in the rogue's stellar spot and listen checks, letting her become aware of the ambush and turn it on the party. they have nothing to blame but their own planning, and perhaps the cleric's poor roll on move silently. their reactions varied from "it was worth a try" to "we should have thought that as a rogue she'd be likely to have high perception" to "when she killed everone in the party capable of teleport, we were totally badass managing to disengage anyway!"

if the party wandered into a swamp, and met a goblin hunter, and surprise! the goblin was 20th level because you rolled 100 on the random encounter table, that would be a completely different feeling. this would truly be character death on a random roll, or apparently by dm fiat.

if your party knew in advance that a villain is too strong for them, and had any chance to steer clear from him, do you think they would still get angry at you if they decided to face him anyway?
[knowing your party, i expect the answer is yes, but worth asking]
you say that death can happen if it stems from a player doing something really stooopid, and I'd call "insisting on picking a fight with someone who's clearly out of your league" as pretty spot on.

Talakeal
2023-03-05, 07:18 AM
So, I played again.

Man, the advice about having the NPCs react to the PCs was golden.

It doesn't always make sense, there are large sections of the dungeon which are inhabited by animals or undead, but the first floor is kobold territory, and when the players hit them and fell back, it gave the kobolds the chance to fortify their domain and go all Tucker's on the PCs.

Long story short, the PCs actually surrendered to kobolds! My. Players. Surrendered. !!!!!!!

They worked out a deal with the kobolds, although they are still planning on betraying them when they get strong enough.

Not sure what, if any, lesson they took from it though.


you actually kept track of statistics like that? 1/3 may just be eyeballing, but 93% looks oddly specific.

As I run primarily home brew systems I tend to keep track of data like that as part of the play-testing process. I also keep at least an outline of every session as I like to do campaign diaries, primarily h to keep the story consistent in my head and to practice prose writing.

That being said, the 93% number is a few years out of date and is probably not exact anymore, but the win to loss ratio is still right around 1/20.


you actually kept track of statistics like that? 1/3 may just be eyeballing, but 93% looks oddly specific


even if the danger is telegraphed?

I mean, I create a world with set-up powers. there are high level people around. if you mess with the evil empire, the evil empire top echelon include a 20th level party, and while they are certainly not going to show up for you when you're a nobody dealing minor acts of resistance, the point stands that the empire has resouces and if you make too much noise, they will use them.
even when the players are level 20 with demigod status and are the most powerful people in the world, the evil empire still controls enough mid-high level people that they could easily swarm the party and destroy them, if the party gave them an opportunity. the party had to bring alliances to defeat the evil empire.

but the thing is, the players know it. their bosses told them all they need to know about the evil empire and the powers it can call. they know that, after they just defeated the mid-level party sent after them, they best flee, because soon somebody stronger may teleport in place.
and when they decided to skip the line of increasingly stronger foes and directly try to ambush the empire top assassin, they got their asses handed to them and they didn't complain; they knew exactly that she was a 20th level rogue/assassin, they knew her fighting style, they even had a good idea of her items, they decided to try anyway, trusting in the advantage of surprise and planning (to their credit, a similar tactic worked in a previous campaign, and they got totallly level-inappropriate loot for it).
So they knew they were taking a high-risk, high-reward venture. they could even see what went wrong: they didn't factor in the rogue's stellar spot and listen checks, letting her become aware of the ambush and turn it on the party. they have nothing to blame but their own planning, and perhaps the cleric's poor roll on move silently. their reactions varied from "it was worth a try" to "we should have thought that as a rogue she'd be likely to have high perception" to "when she killed everone in the party capable of teleport, we were totally badass managing to disengage anyway!"

if the party wandered into a swamp, and met a goblin hunter, and surprise! the goblin was 20th level because you rolled 100 on the random encounter table, that would be a completely different feeling. this would truly be character death on a random roll, or apparently by dm fiat.

if your party knew in advance that a villain is too strong for them, and had any chance to steer clear from him, do you think they would still get angry at you if they decided to face him anyway?
[knowing your party, i expect the answer is yes, but worth asking]
you say that death can happen if it stems from a player doing something really stooopid, and I'd call "insisting on picking a fight with someone who's clearly out of your league" as pretty spot on.

I tend to run linear adventures.

That being said, the players can and often do go off the rails and provoke someone or something that is way beyond their capabilities, and when that happens I don't usually pull my punches. Bob and Dave in particular doen't like being told what to do and will often suicide their characters to prove a point by attacking a powerful NPC whgo asks them not to do something.

Satinavian
2023-03-05, 08:47 AM
People on the forum, Quertus primarily, equate being cowardly with being smart, and I am trying to explain that, by definition, a successful adventurer is going to have to be both cunning AND brave.

The problem is that you don't demand that the characters are cunning and brave, you demand that the players are cunning and brave. And if the players' plans happen to be not particularly smart, you let them fail and tell them it is their fault. And if the players are not sure about their abilities and act with caution, you complain about characters acting not brave enough.


The players won't get smarter nor braver just because you want them to. They likely never will.


If you want to test the characters, use the character stats. There are systems out there that give stat bonuses when being weakened or hurt or outnumbered. The idea is that this will incentivice the players to take more risk and make them more able to triumph in the end. There are systems where being smart (or lucky) let's you invoke certain boni on the fly whenever you need them. Because you are retroactively prepared for it (or your luck strikes again).

That is how you could try to make the trope of the cunning and brave adventurer happen. Not by demanding that the players action conform with your idea of roleplaying adventurers in sight of it being neither mechanically benefitial nor necessarily how they imagine their characters.

Talakeal
2023-03-05, 09:09 AM
The problem is that you don't demand that the characters are cunning and brave, you demand that the players are cunning and brave. And if the players' plans happen to be not particularly smart, you let them fail and tell them it is their fault. And if the players are not sure about their abilities and act with caution, you complain about characters acting not brave enough.


The players won't get smarter nor braver just because you want them to. They likely never will.


If you want to test the characters, use the character stats. There are systems out there that give stat bonuses when being weakened or hurt or outnumbered. The idea is that this will incentivize the players to take more risk and make them more able to triumph in the end. There are systems where being smart (or lucky) let's you invoke certain boni on the fly whenever you need them. Because you are retroactively prepared for it (or your luck strikes again).

That is how you could try to make the trope of the cunning and brave adventurer happen. Not by demanding that the players action conform with your idea of role-playing adventurers in sight of it being neither mechanically beneficial nor necessarily how they imagine their characters.

IMO player skill should have an impact on performance. That is a fundamental aspect of playing a game.

My players are not dumb. In fact, they can be downright brilliant when they want to be. Honestly, dumbing down the monsters so that the players skill / effort doesn't result in increased effectiveness is exactly the sort of "rubber-banding" that Quertus (and others) are so vehemently against.

As for brave, that isn't for the players, that's for the characters. The players tell me they want to play a game about action and adventure, and cowardly people don't go on action-filled adventures (except temporarily with damn good incentive). Bringing a cowardly character to such a game is just not appropriate anymore than, say, bringing in a axe-wielding barbarian to a modern police procedural game or a paladin to a mafia game.


Edit: You know, I am having trouble actually picturing what a game would look like where players couldn't play so poorly they lose, or where they can't be blamed for doing so. Like, I can't actually imagine how an RPG would work unless the GM fudges everything like crazy and throws consistency and verisimilitude out the window. Nor can I imagine a single player video game or traditional multi-player board game (either competitive or co-op) that would work like that.

ahyangyi
2023-03-05, 11:06 AM
I just played some ToME4 this weekend. Not my favorite type of roguelike so far, but it does showcase how a roguelike with absolutely zero resource management can be done. If you have trouble imagining a game world where "throwing all your power" does not lead to guaranteed win, then playing this might help. (It never troubled me, because the enemy also throws all their powers, why would one side magically win?)

Anyways, I think "my players are smart when they tried" is a worse attitude than "my players are dumb". If you want roleplaying and/or realism, shouldn't you downplay the "smart" thing?

And, what is "lose"? If my character is forced to choose between death or a deal with a devil, is death "lose" and the deal "win"?

Talakeal
2023-03-05, 11:40 AM
Anyways, I think "my players are smart when they tried" is a worse attitude than "my players are dumb". If you want roleplaying and/or realism, shouldn't you downplay the "smart" thing?

From a simulationist perspective, yes. And that is normally my mindset.

My players tend to be more gamist and look at things from a perspective of challenge and balance.

Often times, it is hard to draw the line between the two though.

For example, my character knows what she is doing in a fight, but her tactics are limited by what I, the player, can come up with. And I don't think the game would be improved by the DM imposing what they feel to be superior tactics upon me.

And, honestly, if you are playing a stupid character and they die a stupid death, that's fine by me. But I have a feeling that if you get the rest of the party killed as a result they won't be so happy, and most of my players won't accept mistakes and will blame me for their "stupid" deaths.

Although, to be fair "stupid" generally isn't really the right word. More often a "stupid" death is caused by being stubborn, or overconfident, or selfish, or paranoid, or just plain not paying attention. And this isn't really a matter of anything on the character sheet but how the player chooses to play their character.


And, what is "lose"? If my character is forced to choose between death or a deal with a devil, is death "lose" and the deal "win"?

That's probably a lose / lose situation.

King of Nowhere
2023-03-05, 11:50 AM
As for brave, that isn't for the players, that's for the characters. The players tell me they want to play a game about action and adventure, and cowardly people don't go on action-filled adventures (except temporarily with damn good incentive). Bringing a cowardly character to such a game is just not appropriate anymore than, say, bringing in a axe-wielding barbarian to a modern police procedural game or a paladin to a mafia game.

I think you are confusing bravery with fool-hardyness here.

yes, brave people go to action adventures, cowardly people don't. but just because brave people take risks, it doesn't mean they take needless risk. quite the opposite: brave people stay alive by controlling extremely well the risks they take.
think of special forces assigned a special task, like storming the house of a terrorist to capture/kill him; that's the closest equivalent to a dungeon run in real life. those guys do not get in and start shooting, like in movies. those guys set up a careful intelligence work so that they can know exactly how many people are in the house, where they are likely to be, they consider all the variables to find the right moment to strike. they go as far as building a replica of the target house and try rehearsals of the incursion. and before they go, they make sure that all their gear is in order, and that they have a fallback strategy.
now, those soldiers do not retreat after the first gunfight because they expended bullets and have to reload. but that's only because their target would flee. if those soldiers could retreat, rest, come back, and find the house in the same exact situation as they left it? they'd totally do it. whatever minimizes the actual risk.

So brave characters on an action adventure and careful planners painstakingly evaluating every danger, gathering every possible information, spending whole gaming sessions in planning and retreating as soon as things don't go according to plan are not mutually exclusive.

on the other hand, I had a cowardly player once. one whose first reaction to a fight was to start running in the other direction. if your players are like that, I can see your disappointment.

It doesn't always make sense, there are large sections of the dungeon which are inhabited by animals or undead, but the first floor is kobold territory, and when the players hit them and fell back, it gave the kobolds the chance to fortify their domain and go all Tucker's on the PCs.

Long story short, the PCs actually surrendered to kobolds! My. Players. Surrendered. !!!!!!!
Yay!
great job on enforcing consequences. if you attack the same enemy multiple times, the enemy will try to prepare for you. trying to clear the dungeon in one go is dangerous, but giving the enemy time to organize is also dangerous, there's a tradeoff.

of course, your players being your players, I expect all kinds of wrong lessons learned.
"the dm set us up to fail"
"next time, we have to try hard to kill any kobold, anywhere"
"let's never rest again, or this will happen. let's keep facing encounters even though we are out of spells and severely wounded"
"we were defeated, but ultimately the dm gave us a way out. we don't need to worry for our safety, the dm will always save us. let's go chase the tarrasque!"
"the dm will fudge things so that, no matter what we do, we fail"
"the dm will fudge things so that we have to choose the path he wants us to"

Talakeal
2023-03-05, 12:14 PM
I think you are confusing bravery with fool-hardyness here.

yes, brave people go to action adventures, cowardly people don't. but just because brave people take risks, it doesn't mean they take needless risk. quite the opposite: brave people stay alive by controlling extremely well the risks they take.
think of special forces assigned a special task, like storming the house of a terrorist to capture/kill him; that's the closest equivalent to a dungeon run in real life. those guys do not get in and start shooting, like in movies. those guys set up a careful intelligence work so that they can know exactly how many people are in the house, where they are likely to be, they consider all the variables to find the right moment to strike. they go as far as building a replica of the target house and try rehearsals of the incursion. and before they go, they make sure that all their gear is in order, and that they have a fallback strategy.
now, those soldiers do not retreat after the first gunfight because they expended bullets and have to reload. but that's only because their target would flee. if those soldiers could retreat, rest, come back, and find the house in the same exact situation as they left it? they'd totally do it. whatever minimizes the actual risk.

So brave characters on an action adventure and careful planners painstakingly evaluating every danger, gathering every possible information, spending whole gaming sessions in planning and retreating as soon as things don't go according to plan are not mutually exclusive.

on the other hand, I had a cowardly player once. one whose first reaction to a fight was to start running in the other direction. if your players are like that, I can see your disappointment.


I don't think we are disagreeing.

So, my players don't (or rather rarely, as I said they can be brilliant) do any reconnaissance or planning. They kick in the door, charge the monsters, and don't usually do anything during combat to communicate or coordinate with one another.

Then they take more damage than anticipated. Then they either (in a timed mission) complain about how the fight wasn't balanced or (in a sandbox game) claim that continuing would be chasing good money after bad and fall back to rest up at their base.




Yay!
great job on enforcing consequences. if you attack the same enemy multiple times, the enemy will try to prepare for you. trying to clear the dungeon in one go is dangerous, but giving the enemy time to organize is also dangerous, there's a tradeoff.

of course, your players being your players, I expect all kinds of wrong lessons learned.
"the dm set us up to fail"
"next time, we have to try hard to kill any kobold, anywhere"
"let's never rest again, or this will happen. let's keep facing encounters even though we are out of spells and severely wounded"
"we were defeated, but ultimately the dm gave us a way out. we don't need to worry for our safety, the dm will always save us. let's go chase the tarrasque!"
"the dm will fudge things so that, no matter what we do, we fail"
"the dm will fudge things so that we have to choose the path he wants us to"

I think that will depend on how it goes down when they (inevitably) betray their newfound allies.

I did get one great quote from Bob though:

"We don't have the training for this.
We don't have the skills for this.
We don't have the gear for this.
We aren't prepared for this.
We aren't adventurers, we are a group of idiots who wandered into a dungeon.
We got our asses kicked by kobolds!
Three times!"

ahyangyi
2023-03-05, 02:46 PM
I mean, communication/coordination could as well mean slow combat and/or alpha gamers. There's a reason that the most popular cooperative wargaming boardgames (Gloomhaven) also comes with restrictions on player communication.

If your players prefer to have no or little communication during combat, then... what's wrong with that?

Can't we try to find the advantages and strengths of the current playstyle instead of focusing on the drawbacks?

Vahnavoi
2023-03-05, 03:19 PM
I mean, communication/coordination could as well mean slow combat and/or alpha gamers. There's a reason that the most popular cooperative wargaming boardgames (Gloomhaven) also comes with restrictions on player communication.

If your players prefer to have no or little communication during combat, then... what's wrong with that?

Can't we try to find the advantages and strengths of the current playstyle instead of focusing on the drawbacks?

Gloomhaven, and many other co-operative games, put restrictions on co-operation because that is part of the challenge. It isn't just to prevent socially dominant players from making all the decisions or just to keep play from slowing down. Chinese Whisphers and its derivatives make even better examples than Gloomhaven: fundamentally, the point is just to pass a message from one end of a chain to another. Yet the rules mostly just exist to make this task difficult and good chunk of entertainment comes from the ways people fail in passing the message.

In other games the challenge is elsewhere and poor communication and co-ordination just means the players suck. It's not "wrong" in some absolute sense, nor is it against the rules. It's just bad play. It isn't actually given there is any advantage to current playstyle of Talakeal"s players in the type of game they're currently playing.

Quertus
2023-03-05, 08:32 PM
I frequently get told on the forums to stop worrying about verisimilitude and instead worry about player fun, I really am not sure how doing the opposite would be helpful.


the forum is made of many people with different opinions. You are probably thinking of quertus here. but many other people tell you that you should apply more verisimilitude instead - namely, the kind of verisimilitude that would let enemies be more effective. basically, the same point vahnavoi makes here


Some you are advocating for a "games rules as physics" approach lit-RPG style? If so, then yes, Quertus is just about the only person who advises me to have more "verisimilitude".

I really wish you would stop saying I really on stories, that isn't true. Narrative gaming blows screaming chunks to the moon, and story structure is the last thing in the world on my mind when designing a scenario or a ruleset. Now, I may use a story or a real-life anecdote when trying to illustrate a point, but my goal is never to recreate a dramatic experiance.


Adventuring is a dangerous business. Cowards don't become adventurers, and idiots don't survive being adventurers.

People on the forum, Quertus primarily, equate being cowardly with being smart, and I am trying to explain that, by definition, a successful adventurer is going to have to be both cunning AND brave.

OK, OK, I get it, I'll post in the thread more. :smallbiggrin:

I'm a little confused why people think I hold the opinions I'm stated as holding, however. :smallconfused:

I usually push more towards Simulationist/realism/verisimilitude, simply because most games/systems/GMs push more towards Gamist/gameplay/stats(like "balance"). I recognize it can be a difficult set of concerns to balance. Which is why i usually push more towards the middle, thereby advising an increase in Simulationist concerns, but really advocate, "give them promises, and ask the players to find their own fun" as my general solution to this problem.

As was said in a quote I missed, being cowardly isn't smart, being smart is smart. That said, my characters whose smarts were overridden by their bravery, overconfidence, nobility, goodness, self-sacrificing nature, etc, have most all died at this point. Leaving more careful, intelligent, and cowardly characters to make up the bulk of my remaining roster.



Although, to be fair "stupid" generally isn't really the right word. More often a "stupid" death is caused by being stubborn, or overconfident, or selfish, or paranoid, or just plain not paying attention. And this isn't really a matter of anything on the character sheet but how the player chooses to play their character.

Did you mean "selfless" or "self-sacrificing" instead of "selfish" there? Because selfishness and intelligent self-interest rarely result in death, IME. Whereas being "kind", and wanting to take the bandits alive, eating (in, say, D&D) a -4 penalty to hit for dealing subdual damage, can result in a "stupid" death (or even TPK!) against opponents that otherwise wouldn't have posed a threat. That's the problem with choosing such a suboptimal path of "goodness" over pragmatic cowardice and self-interest.

And "paranoid" sounds like the kind of trait that keeps one from dying a stupid death - "I was playing perfect 5d Wizard Chess, to the point that even my Contingencies had Contingencies, and that's why I died" has said no PC ever. "Overconfidence" and "lack of paranoia", OTHO, have claimed many a noob. :smallamused:


I did get one great quote from Bob though:

"We don't have the training for this.
We don't have the skills for this.
We don't have the gear for this.
We aren't prepared for this.
We aren't adventurers, we are a group of idiots who wandered into a dungeon.
We got our asses kicked by kobolds!
Three times!"

I'm really concerned that you got this result after asking them to be braver. I'm more concerned that you're not concerned. And I'm a different kind of concerned that you went Tucker's on them after years (decades?) of none of their attempts to trap your monsters working, "because realism".

With how explosive and irrational your group is, just don't haunt me if they suffer a homicidal blowup over this. On the bright side, maybe this will finally be the catalyst that makes them start to learn, and travel down my path of KiaZen? Given how violent some of the groups I"ve been in have been, it's not a method I ever would have in good conscience suggested without appropriate warnings, but maybe in Bizarro World you'll actually see good results from showing such a volatile group of players that they're "a group of idiots". One can hope. :smallsmile:

Vahnavoi
2023-03-06, 04:32 AM
As was said in a quote I missed, being cowardly isn't smart, being smart is smart.

Such a wonderfully unhelpful statement.

Here. I think you'll both benefit from this. (https://youtu.be/hEUO6pjwFOo)

Long story sort, "being smart", or rather, functional intelligence, is a matter of being able to reason and take actions effectively towards some goal. This is at the root of why I've repeatedly asked Talakeal to think about and specify what players and characters are working towards when using words like "optimal" and "effective". "Smart" and "stupid" are in the same boat.

So, this kind of stuff:


Although, to be fair "stupid" generally isn't really the right word. More often a "stupid" death is caused by being stubborn, or overconfident, or selfish, or paranoid, or just plain not paying attention. And this isn't really a matter of anything on the character sheet but how the player chooses to play their character.

... is kind of silly. In order for these behaviours to not be stupid, we have to posit some goal towards which they are effective. What is that? If no such goal can be identified, and these behaviours demonstrably hinder player progress in a game, then you've just given a list of particular ways to be stupid in your game.

As far as "selfishness" goes, ordinary selfishness is not the same as (economic or game) theoretical selfishness, and people really should stop making that conflation. Ordinary everyday selfishness revolves around delayed gratification (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_gratification). Ordinary everyday selfishness is typified by choosing short-term gratification over longer-term goods, often because a person does not have capacity to consider the long term. That is why selfishness often leads to stupid actions in real life: the selfish action only makes sense considering a very narrow time window or set of consequences, and fails to serve a person's stated goals when extrapolated into the future.

If you want to analyze this in context of rationally self-interested agents, contrast simple Prisoner's Dilemma with iterated Prisoner's Dilemma without a known end. The simple version is called a "dilemma" because it appears two rational agents will end up with a worse outcome than irrational agents, but unilaterally acting less rational can only lead to a worse outcome; rational self-interest seems to end up acting against itself. But the iterated version without a known end has a different payoff matrix and within that version, rational self-interest can find the better solution.

Now think of an actual person in a situation similar to Prisoner's Dilemma. Even if they do their best to act on their rational self-interest, their ability or inability to consider their situation as part of a series makes a world of difference for their actions. Short-sighted selfishness that only considers the simple version will pick the wrong solution for the long version.

There is another sense of "selfishness" that is also relevant: egoism. An egoist person projects their internal life on the external world. One of the most basic forms of this is assuming others have the same goals as you. This leads to judging other people "smart" or "stupid" based on what you'd want in their place, not what they actually want. Where extrapolating wrong motives into the future leads to faulty predictions, this of course has a high chance of proving the egoist person quite stupid themselves.

Satinavian
2023-03-06, 05:27 AM
My players are not dumb. In fact, they can be downright brilliant when they want to be.Being dumb vs being brilliant is (nearly) never a decision one can make.

Your players seem to make both moves that you think are dumb and moves that you think are brilliant. That is not strange. But don't conclude from the existance of moves you think are brilliant that your players could be brilliant all the time if they only wanted to. That is not how it works. And trying to present obstacles that the brilliant ones master and the dumb ones fail will make them occasionally fail and then get extra cautious or complain about stuff being too harsh.


The players tell me they want to play a game about action and adventureThey want to play a game about action and adenture, where they always succeed.

Nor can I imagine a single player video game or traditional multi-player board game (either competitive or co-op) that would work like that.I think you have missed a lot of "easy modes" and "story modes" then. Especially in a story mode video game RPG you will still see a story about action and advetnture, just not one that actually has any challenges for the player.

Playing an RPG this is very much possible and not strange at all. It is not even an inconsistent approach. It is just that it would be boring for you. Be honest about why you don't do so.

Talakeal
2023-03-06, 06:27 AM
They want to play a game about action and adventure, where they always succeed.

They have never vocalized that last though. They have told me they want more action and adventure. They haven't said they want to always succeed, because admitting that would hurt their egos, just like losing does. Far better to demand a balanced game (as they do all the time) and then whine that it was unfair when they lost.

Because that is what 90% of my games problems come down to, people who are looking for blame other people for their own weak ego.


Playing an RPG this is very much possible and not strange at all. It is not even an inconsistent approach. It is just that it would be boring for you. Be honest about why you don't do so.

It would be boring for me and 5/6 players (and I suspect the sixth would still get bored of it fairly quickly).

And the same players who need to prove their dominance are the ones who are most into crunchy mechanical stuff and would least enjoy a "story mode" game.


There is another sense of "selfishness" that is also relevant: egoism. An egoist person projects their internal life on the external world. One of the most basic forms of this is assuming others have the same goals as you. This leads to judging other people "smart" or "stupid" based on what you'd want in their place, not what they actually want. Where extrapolating wrong motives into the future leads to faulty predictions, this of course has a high chance of proving the egoist person quite stupid themselves.

Is that the word for that?

I have often thought that about myself, I want other people to be happy and will sacrifice to help others, but I have a hard time internalizing that what makes other people happy can be so different from myself.


Did you mean "selfless" or "self-sacrificing" instead of "selfish" there? Because selfishness and intelligent self-interest rarely result in death, IME. Whereas being "kind", and wanting to take the bandits alive, eating (in, say, D&D) a -4 penalty to hit for dealing subdual damage, can result in a "stupid" death (or even TPK!) against opponents that otherwise wouldn't have posed a threat. That's the problem with choosing such a suboptimal path of "goodness" over pragmatic cowardice and self-interest.

And "paranoid" sounds like the kind of trait that keeps one from dying a stupid death - "I was playing perfect 5d Wizard Chess, to the point that even my Contingencies had Contingencies, and that's why I died" has said no PC ever. "Overconfidence" and "lack of paranoia", OTHO, have claimed many a noob. :smallamused:

I wish I had a problem with selfless characters sacrificing themselves, but no.

When I say selfish or paranoid I mean refusing to work with party members / friendly NPCs because you don't trust them or think you know better than they do.

Take a look at actual real-life paranoia sometime. One of my (former) game members suffers from it, and he has a history of refusing to take his medicine and assaulting people because of it, hardly conductive to a long and healthy life.


I'm really concerned that you got this result after asking them to be braver. I'm more concerned that you're not concerned. And I'm a different kind of concerned that you went Tucker's on them after years (decades?) of none of their attempts to trap your monsters working, "because realism".

That's a bit extreme.

What I said is that it's unrealistic that PCs would be brought in to defeat a monster that the commoners could take out themselves with zero risk, so I would come up with a scenario where the beast isn't stupid enough to simply wander into obvious death traps when designing such an adventure.

Its not that none of their traps work. There are plenty of times when the PCs come up with a smart trap or face a stupid monster. Its just that a monster who has been established as smart won't (usually) fall for a dumb trap.

Although, I am not sure what the connection is here. You are surprised that I play smart monsters as smart because I have a history of playing monsters as smart?

The only thing I can think of is you are objecting to an asymmetrical knowledge thing where the DM knows if something is a trap or not beforehand so traps are unfair when used by the DM?


EDIT: And, on second thought, I don't think I have ever even done that much. The story about the smart wolf was a different DM where I was a PC. I can't recall ever having the PCs set a trap that the monster ignored, although that maybe because I set the stage well enough they knew not to try. I did say that, in combat, I put more thought into the monsters tactics when they are losing than when they are winning to give the PCs a break and RP overconfidence / desperation, but that is hardly the same thing.


With how explosive and irrational your group is, just don't haunt me if they suffer a homicidal blowup over this. On the bright side, maybe this will finally be the catalyst that makes them start to learn, and travel down my path of KiaZen? Given how violent some of the groups I"ve been in have been, it's not a method I ever would have in good conscience suggested without appropriate warnings, but maybe in Bizarro World you'll actually see good results from showing such a volatile group of players that they're "a group of idiots". One can hope. :smallsmile:

Its just so refreshing that they are actually looking inward after a defeat rather than insisting that I am cheating and are actually connecting the natural consequences of their actions.

You seem to have put 2 and 2 together and realized that by provoking the kobolds and then falling back to rest that is what caused the kobolds to fortify their lair and prepare for the PC's return.

And that's progress.


I mean, communication/coordination could as well mean slow combat and/or alpha gamers. There's a reason that the most popular cooperative wargaming boardgames (Gloomhaven) also comes with restrictions on player communication.

If your players prefer to have no or little communication during combat, then... what's wrong with that?

Can't we try to find the advantages and strengths of the current playstyle instead of focusing on the drawbacks?

I find those games extremely stressful and counter productive.

I would not play a team game that operated under such rules, I would rather just stay home and play a video game than participate in a social activity where I couldn't socialize.

Also, it makes no sense from a RP perspective; what is stopping the characters from talking and how does the setting function so that teamwork doesn't help with success?

Vahnavoi
2023-03-06, 09:14 AM
Being dumb vs being brilliant is (nearly) never a decision one can make.

Playing or not playing to the limit of one's intelligence, on the other hand, is a decision almost anyone can make. How convinced are you that Talakeal's players are playing to their actual limit?

---


Is that the word for that?

I have often thought that about myself, I want other people to be happy and will sacrifice to help others, but I have a hard time internalizing that what makes other people happy can be so different from myself.

It's a word. "Egocentric" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism) and "self-centered" can sometimes be better, since "egoism" has other meanings in other contexts.

King of Nowhere
2023-03-06, 09:30 AM
Did you mean "selfless" or "self-sacrificing" instead of "selfish" there? Because selfishness and intelligent self-interest rarely result in death, IME. Whereas being "kind", and wanting to take the bandits alive, eating (in, say, D&D) a -4 penalty to hit for dealing subdual damage, can result in a "stupid" death (or even TPK!) against opponents that otherwise wouldn't have posed a threat. That's the problem with choosing such a suboptimal path of "goodness" over pragmatic cowardice and self-interest.

And "paranoid" sounds like the kind of trait that keeps one from dying a stupid death - "I was playing perfect 5d Wizard Chess, to the point that even my Contingencies had Contingencies, and that's why I died" has said no PC ever. "Overconfidence" and "lack of paranoia", OTHO, have claimed many a noob. :smallamused:
disagreement here.
first, you specifically mention intelligent self-interest. well, intelligent selflessness is also rarely going to result in death, and if it does, you generally accepted the possibility.
being selfish leads to being isolated. being isolated leads to having no friends. no friends means nobody will bail you out when you're in trouble. and you'll have more enemies.
paranoia also leads you to distrust, which leads to losing allies.
stupid evil is as dangerous as stupid good.

"I was playing perfect 5d wizard chess, and then twenty high level npcs assaulted my fortress and overcame all my defences and there was nothing I could do, because I pissed them off, each one of them"

I mean, if selflessness wasn't actually good for your own survival in a variety of scenarios, evolution wouldn't have preserved it.

EDIT: in the case of talekeal players, they betray anyone in their selfish interest, and their paranoia leads them to chasing and killing any enemy that tries to escape. this will lead to harder fights, and nobody will surrend anymore, and they may not have a chance to surrender themselves the next time.

Vahnavoi
2023-03-06, 09:47 AM
Evolution is context-dependent process. If anyone has evolved selfless tendencies, it's because such tendencies served their ancestors in the past, with no guarantee that they will continue to serve them in the future.

Of course, the reverse is just as true. The selfish impulses that made your ancestor succeed might be detrimental or self-destructive to you.

But the real kicker is that in rational analysis, selfless and sufficiently long-term selfish thinking can be congruent and lead to the same conclusions. Sometimes the distinction doesn't matter, if it can be made at all.

Talakeal
2023-03-06, 10:03 AM
It's a word. "Egocentric" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism) and "self-centered" can sometimes be better, since "egoism" has other meanings in other contexts.

To me Self-centered means selfish.

I don't think of myself as selfish, I just have trouble internalizing other people's preferences.

For example, I might see someone who looks hungry and go out of my way to, say, buy them an expensive steak, without even considering that they might be a vegetarian or prefer pork chops.

Satinavian
2023-03-06, 10:50 AM
Playing or not playing to the limit of one's intelligence, on the other hand, is a decision almost anyone can make. How convinced are you that Talakeal's players are playing to their actual limit?In every single disagreement that Talakael described his players acting dumb, they always seemed convinced to not have acted dumb. If they were just playing dumb, they would have defended their action by saying so.

Talakeal
2023-03-06, 11:02 AM
In every single disagreement that Talakael described his players acting dumb, they always seemed convinced to not have acted dumb. If they were just playing dumb, they would have defended their action by saying so.

Its not about intentionally playing dumb, its more often about being distracted / lazy / or overconfident and not feeling the inclination or need to devote brainpower to tactics or being too arrogant / selfish / paranoid / awkward to put effort into communication and teamwork.

Satinavian
2023-03-06, 11:11 AM
Yes, that is how you describe them.

And there is no way whatsoever for you to get rid of personality traits of your players. If they are lazy, they will remain lazy. If they are arrogant, they will continue to blaim any failures on you being unfar. If they can't do proper teamwork even after years of playing together that is nothing you as GM can really change.


You should stop trying to change your players. Accept them as they are or look for others. That is esspecially true for Bob.

Quertus
2023-03-06, 12:11 PM
They have never vocalized that last though. They have told me they want more action and adventure. They haven't said they want to always succeed, because admitting that would hurt their egos, just like losing does. Far better to demand a balanced game (as they do all the time) and then whine that it was unfair when they lost.

Because that is what 90% of my games problems come down to, people who are looking for blame other people for their own weak ego.



That's a bit extreme.

Although, I am not sure what the connection is here. You are surprised that I play smart monsters as smart because I have a history of playing monsters as smart?

The only thing I can think of is you are objecting to an asymmetrical knowledge thing where the DM knows if something is a trap or not beforehand so traps are unfair when used by the DM?




Its just so refreshing that they are actually looking inward after a defeat rather than insisting that I am cheating and are actually connecting the natural consequences of their actions.

You seem to have put 2 and 2 together and realized that by provoking the kobolds and then falling back to rest that is what caused the kobolds to fortify their lair and prepare for the PC's return.

And that's progress.

When a GM creates and runs the world, all the world shares their blind spots. That’s just the nature of the beast.

Happily, your players seem to have viewed events the same way you did. Sure, those actions had logical consequences. And, hooray, your players have acquired a new skill: [Look Inwards]. I’m really happy for y’all.

Here’s the problems: yes, they didn’t think, and blundered into that scenario, and only saw after the fact how obviously their foes might prepare for their return. However, that scenario is entirely of your devising - you created the scenario, pushed them to push hard, and encouraged them to fall back. The fact that they’re in a “Tucker’s” scenario feels like your doing, not theirs.

A bunch of weak egos, who feel the need to blame others for their own mistakes? I can easily see them focusing on “this is your fault” (that we’re in this scenario) rather than “this is our fault” (that we didn’t prepare for this scenario).

And that by itself would have been enough to trigger some groups I’ve been in.

But on top of that, your group’s been telling you forever that they want “action and adventure”, which… might well translate into “CaS mindless kick in the door to find a balanced encounter on the other side”, whereas you’ve forced a “5d Wizard Chess actually needing to think CaW game” on them. And that probably feels like a giant middle finger.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m all about giving the middle finger of CaW to my players, too - just not to violent sociopaths (word chosen randomly for its feel, not for its precise definition) who can’t handle it. Thankfully, my violent sociopaths always had multiple members more than capable of exceeding the “thought” prerequisites of my adventures, so my surgically enhanced middle finger was never a problem.

But if you somehow exceeded the capabilities of one of my old groups, despite their protests, for years? And then forced / manipulate them into a “Tucker’s”, to their minds tricking them into thinking it was their fault? It wouldn’t have been pretty.

Then again, I’m more familiar with the “ambush the umpire in the parking lot for making a bad call” mindset of violence, rather than your table’s “child throwing their toys in a tantrum” violence, so maybe my concerns are unfounded. Shrug. It’s not a part of the human psyche that my hobbiest interest in psychology has really focused on.

Talakeal
2023-03-06, 12:49 PM
@Stinavian: Maybe so. I just wanted to make it clear that my players ae not stupid, nor is their lack of tactics an intentional attempt o RP stupid characters.


@Quertus:

That’s not quite what happened. They were going about the dungeon at a good pace, encountered a kobold lair, and then decided to go back to town and rest up before clearing it. This gave the kobolds a chance to prepare for them and fortify their defenses, turning what would have been a fairly east standup fight into a veey difficult situation.

ahyangyi
2023-03-06, 12:59 PM
Gloomhaven, and many other co-operative games, put restrictions on co-operation because that is part of the challenge. It isn't just to prevent socially dominant players from making all the decisions or just to keep play from slowing down. Chinese Whisphers and its derivatives make even better examples than Gloomhaven: fundamentally, the point is just to pass a message from one end of a chain to another. Yet the rules mostly just exist to make this task difficult and good chunk of entertainment comes from the ways people fail in passing the message.

In other games the challenge is elsewhere and poor communication and co-ordination just means the players suck. It's not "wrong" in some absolute sense, nor is it against the rules. It's just bad play. It isn't actually given there is any advantage to current playstyle of Talakeal"s players in the type of game they're currently playing.

I intentionally picked Gloomhaven because its restriction is soft and isn't much of a challenge than a recommended social norm. That said, that's probably still a bad example because much of the tactical talk happens after revealing initiative and Gloomhaven does nothing against that.

Anyways, I think this topic is better represented in this other recent thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654576-Frustrating-things-players-do-in-game/page2), which you also participated in. What I was trying to say is close to icefractal's opinion, and I think I didn't express it as clearly as they did. I know you were in disagreement -- but that's fine, this is just a clarification.


@Stinavian: Maybe so. I just wanted to make it clear that my players ae not stupid, nor is their lack of tactics an intentional attempt o RP stupid characters.


@Quertus:

That’s not quite what happened. They were going about the dungeon at a good pace, encountered a kobold lair, and then decided to go back to town and rest up before clearing it. This gave the kobolds a chance to prepare for them and fortify their defenses, turning what would have been a fairly east standup fight into a veey difficult situation.

I'm thinking about this. On the one hand, it definitely helped that your world is dynamic and the NPCs reacted to player actions, but on the other hand, would it be helpful if you point out potential consequences or their missed tactical options forG a few sessions?

You know, that's how we learn most things; we see how other do and follow their examples until we become proficient. So if the players are not proficient, perhaps they need examples?

Vahnavoi
2023-03-06, 02:33 PM
In every single disagreement that Talakael described his players acting dumb, they always seemed convinced to not have acted dumb. If they were just playing dumb, they would have defended their action by saying so.

That same set of observations can be explained by a bunch of people rationalizing their behaviour to excuse themselves from putting in more effort. You have probably seen it yourself myriad times in most mundane of contexts: people giving token effort, then proclaiming something is too hard, before giving up or resuming what they were doing already.

Claiming to have played dumb is not a defense in such situations. It's just admitting you didn't put in the effort, and makes you liable in eyes of others to do better. Don't conflate the choice to not play to one's limit with simply acting dumb as part of playing a character.

gbaji
2023-03-06, 03:38 PM
In D&D, characters need buckets of magic items to keep up. If all the opponents have buckets of magic items, then the game goes into an insane monte haul wealth spiral.

It's a problem with D&D, which is a very item heavy game in terms of PC power. But it's not that impossible to overcome. As has already been mentioned, there's a pretty sharp point of diminishing returns. In D&D, you can only wear a specific amount of each type of magic gear. Anything you run across that isn't an upgrade, is mostly useless. A +1 sword, when everyone alerady has +3 swords, isn't worth more than what you can sell it for. In most sane games, enchanted armor that isn't an upgrade for anyone is going to be too heavy/unweildy to carry with you, right? Of course, D&D gives us bags of holding, which make the whole thing "silly". But maybe consider creating a game in which things like that (and teleport) just don't exist? This ceases to be an issue.

Also try playing games that aren't chock full of "+X magic <whatever>" items. You might find that a lot of these problems aren't really that much of an issue. There should be ways to make NPCs difficult to deal with that don't always involve handing the PCs ridiculous amounts of loot when they win. Again. Didn't you design the game system you are playing? Don't make it so much like D&D, and you will avoid the problems that D&D has.


In White Wolf games, if you give the NPC's full PC resources, then every fight takes two hours and the players whine incessantly about having to ration out their resources while the enemies can burn through a month of resources in a single combat. (Heck, my players whine about the monsters being at full HP when encountered).

Its also extremely boring for the PCs to encounter NPCs over and over again and a pain in the butt for the DM to have to make an NPC party for each encounter, which is why, imo, modern games no longer even attempt PC NPC symmetry.

Again though, this is a construct of the "X encounters of Y difficulty a day" mentality. In my game, the PCs rarely have more than one encounter per day. But those encounters involve them wandering around, discovering who the bad guys are (or the bad guys discovering them), and then maybe getting into an encounter with them. Sometimes, they are easy encounters. Sometimes, they are really difficult. But the encounters, and the nature/difficulty of those encounters are based on the situation the PCs are in. It's about what they are doing, and what is there. Not at all "what can they handle in a fight", much less "I need to structure X fights of exactly Y difficulty for them each day". That's.... insane.

The PCs generally have oppotunities for using diplomacy to resolve things, or at least to figure out who they are dealing with. Again, they don't just randomly wander around and fight things. In my game setting, things exist where they are for a reason, and have a purpose for being there. Part of the "game" is the players exploring and figuring things out. And yeah, sometimes this means figuring out how to deal with a group of NPCs in a non-violent manner. Sometimes, they have to figure out how to defeat a group of NPCs that may be quite tough. But there are very very few "random encounters" in my game. Occasionally, rarish (depending on where they are), and usually somewhat trivial (cause if there's things wandering randomly that are a real threat to a decently powered adventuring party, I can't rationlize how normal people survive in this world, right?).



That is exactly how the system does work.

The problem is that in real life the "floor" is hidden information, but in the game the players can look in the book and see what said "floor" is, and will thus always feel ripped off if they pay more than it.

I've never seen a game guide that had wholesale prices rather than list prices for PCs to pay for things. And if it does? Who cares? You tell your players that they don't know what the NPC paid for that good. Here's what he's offering as a result of their haggling. Period. When players do this in my game (they use a skill called bargaining), I have them roll their skill, and I roll for the NPC. I have a price in mind for the good when they start, and I adjust from that point based on the relative die rolls. I don't show them my roll anyway, so how on earth would they know? They just know that sometimes, when they buy a mule to carry stuff it costs this much, and sometimes it costs a little more, and sometimes a little less.

I just don't make my players micromanage their finances that much either. So I guess it's more of a focus thing. I also don't tend to have magic stores selling stuff for players to buy in my game either, so it's not that big of a deal either way. They're mostly paying for food, lodging, equipment, etc. As a general rule, in the context of an adventuring group, they just don't have financial problems in my game. There's a pretty huge jump from "affording day to day stuff", and "buying some powerful magic item, or a castle, or business". They're in different financial regions, so we don't tend to worry about the small stuff that much.



In my last campaign they were trekking across a wilderness that is roughly as dangerous as Skull Island from King Kong, not an active enemy war-zone. The things they fought were primarily big monsters and environmental hazards rather than organized enemy armies. The idea was the PCs would hear about a treasure in the wilderness, get to it expending as few resources as possible, and then pull back. What the players did instead was retreat to town after every random encounter and only go for the treasure if they made a near flawless run. So, they ended up having far MORE combats, but because every combat was their first combat of the day, they had zero potentially lethal combats.

If that's how they decided to do that, then that's what they decided. Maybe next time, don't put a town conveniently located where they can do this? If they had to find a map to the island, then hire a ship to get there (and perhaps the captain insists that he'll only stick around for X days), then they have to trek inland, find the treasure and get back to the ship in that amount of time, right? Where is this "town" they are retreating to? It should not exist in this scenario, right?

You're the GM. If you decide to create a mythical "Skull Island" adventure, then make the island somewhere remote, make it take time/effort/money to get there, and give them a specific amount of time to explore and then have to leave by ship, perhaps never to return. There must be a reason why this whole area is swarming with monsters and whatnot, and hasn't been already wiped out and explored, right? Make that the same thing that makes them have to actually "explore the island".

Can I repeat my earlier point that elminating easy teleportation would seem to solve nearly every problem you have in your game? Maybe think about doing that. Or, if not, then you can't have adventures like this in your game world. If teleportation is that common, this island should not exist as it is, right? The first group of adventurers to discover it should have already cleared it, taken all the loot, or sold information to others, provided teleportation coordinates, or whatever. The point is that if your world has this easy method of travel, then all things valuable enough to go and take should already have been taken and put it somewhere "secure" from teleportation. If you're going to allow that in your game setting, you have to logically adjust the setting to assume what a world like that would actually look like several thousand years later (or whatever time frame we're looking at here).

There should be no "mythical treasure guarded by nothing but animals/monsters", right? Should just not exist in this world at all. Build your setting. Make it consistent with regard to the powers and abilities that the beings living in it have. If teleportation exists in your game, and is relatively easy for adventurers to have access to then "security via obscurity/remote-location" cannot realistically exist in your game.



The players I have played with have always been obsessed with balance, and would consider the above to be the equivalent of showing up to poker night with marked cards.

Then they/you are balancing to the wrong things. Balance to the setting, not the PCs. There should always be a lot of things in the setting that are vastly more powerful than the PCs are. And they should be aware of this at all times. They should *never* just wander around assuming that nothing they encounter will ever be too much for them, or that they must even be scaled to "X fights of Y difficulty".

This is entirely up to you, as the GM, to implement. Or not. But if you don't then you can't be surprised when your players expect a series of theses "balanced" encounters, and get upset if you don't provide them with exactly that.


The argument seems to be based on the idea that "tactics that work" means "enemies win, players lose". This is horse hockey. That's not what realism means. To wit, realism means attempt to present reality as it is, without romance, idealization or abstraction. Tactics, means doing what you can with what you have, in pursuit of objectives set by strategy. Put together, "realistic tactics" means enemies doing what they think would be best for their goals, given their actual position, knowledge and resources. Nowhere is it guaranteed that this doesn't give players a fighting chance. It's only annoying to deal with, in the same sense as dealing with an actual intelligent opponent in a real scenario would be.

Yup. The PCs are generally going to be tougher than any random thing they run into. But not always. Realism means that the NPCs act in a rational reasonable manner, based on who they are. Period. Now yeah, sometimes, those NPCs just aren't expecting a powerful group of PCs who have access to some rare abilities/magic/items/whatever, and the PCs steamroll them. Sometimes, the NPCs have access to things the players didn't consider.

If you adjust your encounter methodology to be less "attack everything we run into, assuming the GM has balanced it for us to fight", and "talk to them, see what's going on, figure out whether we can resolve this using methods X, Y, or Z, and then make a decision", then you can have a great amount of realism in your game without it always being "NPCs win". The PCs just have to also be "realistic" about what battles they decide to fight, and how they fight them.

I once ran a (long) adventure where there were two big bads. Each of them were waaaaaay outside the PCs league. Like, ancient super powerful lich on one hand, and fallen (but still extremely powerful) deity on the other. Both causing problems. However, the two were also working against eachother and plotting ways to eliminate the other. The entire adventure was basically the PCs figuring out who these two big bads were, dealing with various minions and plots going on, discovering the "main scheme" each was using against eachother, and then manipulating things so that they enabled both of them to succeed. They still had a number of adventures along the way, and a big climatic final battle, but they weren't required to directly straight up fight against them directly.

The PCs should not just assume they can directly physically handle everything in the game setting. But "balanced encounter" mechanisms actually create and reinforce this assumption. Those mechanisms should be guidelines for encounters, not rules to follow.



For contrast, if enemies do always get equal resources to players? That is called an equal encounter. There might be an exponential curve on paper, but in practice, players end up in fights that are just as hard as the ones before. It's only "unsustainable" in the sense that at some point, players beat the last enemy that matters and complete their campaign, or the enemies beat them and the game ends. You know, business as usual.

And this is strongly game system and setting dependent.



So, I played again.

Man, the advice about having the NPCs react to the PCs was golden.

It doesn't always make sense, there are large sections of the dungeon which are inhabited by animals or undead, but the first floor is kobold territory, and when the players hit them and fell back, it gave the kobolds the chance to fortify their domain and go all Tucker's on the PCs.

Long story short, the PCs actually surrendered to kobolds! My. Players. Surrendered. !!!!!!!

They worked out a deal with the kobolds, although they are still planning on betraying them when they get strong enough.

Not sure what, if any, lesson they took from it though.

Great! Sounds like that worked out well. And they maybe learned something. Progress is being made.



Here’s the problems: yes, they didn’t think, and blundered into that scenario, and only saw after the fact how obviously their foes might prepare for their return. However, that scenario is entirely of your devising - you created the scenario, pushed them to push hard, and encouraged them to fall back. The fact that they’re in a “Tucker’s” scenario feels like your doing, not theirs.

Except he didn't. He predicted that they would *not* push hard, and would instead just hit the first room and then retreat to safety. So he had the NPCs react to that and were ready for them when they came back. IMO, this is exactly correct.

No one, in their right mind, would ever think "hit one group at a time, then go home and rest in between each attack" would ever work out well. Yet, that appears to be exactly the strategy that this group is attempting to employ. So yeah, imposing a tiny bit of "real world realism" into the game is not a bad thing at all. His group learned that "Oh, yeah. If we kill just some of the kobolds, and then leave, the rest of them will be ready for us when we come back". That's a *great* lesson IMO.


Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m all about giving the middle finger of CaW to my players, too - just not to violent sociopaths (word chosen randomly for its feel, not for its precise definition) who can’t handle it. Thankfully, my violent sociopaths always had multiple members more than capable of exceeding the “thought” prerequisites of my adventures, so my surgically enhanced middle finger was never a problem.

It's a good thing if the players learn that the world they're playing in is actually bigger than them and doesn't actually revolve around them.


But if you somehow exceeded the capabilities of one of my old groups, despite their protests, for years? And then forced / manipulate them into a “Tucker’s”, to their minds tricking them into thinking it was their fault? It wouldn’t have been pretty.

Not sure where you get "tricking them into thinking it was their own fault". It was their own fault. I mean. This is tactics 101 stuff here.

Talakeal
2023-03-06, 06:31 PM
It's a problem with D&D, which is a very item heavy game in terms of PC power. But it's not that impossible to overcome. As has already been mentioned, there's a pretty sharp point of diminishing returns. In D&D, you can only wear a specific amount of each type of magic gear. Anything you run across that isn't an upgrade, is mostly useless. A +1 sword, when everyone alerady has +3 swords, isn't worth more than what you can sell it for. In most sane games, enchanted armor that isn't an upgrade for anyone is going to be too heavy/unweildy to carry with you, right? Of course, D&D gives us bags of holding, which make the whole thing "silly". But maybe consider creating a game in which things like that (and teleport) just don't exist? This ceases to be an issue.

Also try playing games that aren't chock full of "+X magic <whatever>" items. You might find that a lot of these problems aren't really that much of an issue. There should be ways to make NPCs difficult to deal with that don't always involve handing the PCs ridiculous amounts of loot when they win. Again. Didn't you design the game system you are playing? Don't make it so much like D&D, and you will avoid the problems that D&D has.

That is not a problem my system has.

It does, however, have meta resources that give the players control over the game, and it would be absolutely miserable if every NPC had those same resources.


Again though, this is a construct of the "X encounters of Y difficulty a day" mentality. In my game, the PCs rarely have more than one encounter per day. But those encounters involve them wandering around, discovering who the bad guys are (or the bad guys discovering them), and then maybe getting into an encounter with them. Sometimes, they are easy encounters. Sometimes, they are really difficult. But the encounters, and the nature/difficulty of those encounters are based on the situation the PCs are in. It's about what they are doing, and what is there. Not at all "what can they handle in a fight", much less "I need to structure X fights of exactly Y difficulty for them each day". That's.... insane.

The PCs generally have opportunities for using diplomacy to resolve things, or at least to figure out who they are dealing with. Again, they don't just randomly wander around and fight things. In my game setting, things exist where they are for a reason, and have a purpose for being there. Part of the "game" is the players exploring and figuring things out. And yeah, sometimes this means figuring out how to deal with a group of NPCs in a non-violent manner. Sometimes, they have to figure out how to defeat a group of NPCs that may be quite tough. But there are very very few "random encounters" in my game. Occasionally, rarish (depending on where they are), and usually somewhat trivial (cause if there's things wandering randomly that are a real threat to a decently powered adventuring party, I can't rationalize how normal people survive in this world, right?).

My PCs enjoy high action games.

Even if it is just one fight per session, it is still annoying for the PCs to have to deal with an NPC who can throw everything he has into surviving the fight while they have to ration it out for whatever non combat challenges will be required of them this week / month.



I've never seen a game guide that had wholesale prices rather than list prices for PCs to pay for things. And if it does? Who cares? You tell your players that they don't know what the NPC paid for that good. Here's what he's offering as a result of their haggling. Period. When players do this in my game (they use a skill called bargaining), I have them roll their skill, and I roll for the NPC. I have a price in mind for the good when they start, and I adjust from that point based on the relative die rolls. I don't show them my roll anyway, so how on earth would they know? They just know that sometimes, when they buy a mule to carry stuff it costs this much, and sometimes it costs a little more, and sometimes a little less.

I just don't make my players micromanage their finances that much either. So I guess it's more of a focus thing. I also don't tend to have magic stores selling stuff for players to buy in my game either, so it's not that big of a deal either way. They're mostly paying for food, lodging, equipment, etc. As a general rule, in the context of an adventuring group, they just don't have financial problems in my game. There's a pretty huge jump from "affording day to day stuff", and "buying some powerful magic item, or a castle, or business". They're in different financial regions, so we don't tend to worry about the small stuff that much.

My system doesn't keep track of money for minor purchases, only relatively rare custom-made gear that has no fixed price. So, you see how much it costs to craft (which is the floor for price) and then haggle up from there.

I just had a ten-page thread about why this feels bad for players vs. being given a "sticker price" as a ceiling and then haggling down from there even if they both work the exact same way, you can go there if you want more context.



If that's how they decided to do that, then that's what they decided. Maybe next time, don't put a town conveniently located where they can do this? If they had to find a map to the island, then hire a ship to get there (and perhaps the captain insists that he'll only stick around for X days), then they have to trek inland, find the treasure and get back to the ship in that amount of time, right? Where is this "town" they are retreating to? It should not exist in this scenario, right?

You're the GM. If you decide to create a mythical "Skull Island" adventure, then make the island somewhere remote, make it take time/effort/money to get there, and give them a specific amount of time to explore and then have to leave by ship, perhaps never to return. There must be a reason why this whole area is swarming with monsters and whatnot, and hasn't been already wiped out and explored, right? Make that the same thing that makes them have to actually "explore the island".

In this case, the players were essentially natives of the tiny walled village by the coast, except instead of racist aborigine caricatures they were Phoenician sailors who did all of their trade by sea and never ventured inland. There were lots of ruins out there with the treasures of their ancestors, but nobody was both brave enough to go looking for it and strong enough to survive. The idea was that the PCs would be the first.

The adventure sites were really remote and hard to get to. That didn't slow down (or rather speed up) my players at all.

The whole idea of a captain who will leave after X days (or other ticking time bomb) is really contrived and hard to pull of plausibly in this sort of scenario, especially for a whole campaign, and likely would just be met with the PCs killing the captain and sailing the boat themselves or some similar out of the box solution.



Can I repeat my earlier point that eliminating easy teleportation would seem to solve nearly every problem you have in your game? Maybe think about doing that. Or, if not, then you can't have adventures like this in your game world. If teleportation is that common, this island should not exist as it is, right? The first group of adventurers to discover it should have already cleared it, taken all the loot, or sold information to others, provided teleportation coordinates, or whatever. The point is that if your world has this easy method of travel, then all things valuable enough to go and take should already have been taken and put it somewhere "secure" from teleportation. If you're going to allow that in your game setting, you have to logically adjust the setting to assume what a world like that would actually look like several thousand years later (or whatever time frame we're looking at here).

There was no teleporting in this game. I haven't had a mage capable of casting teleport in one of my parties for close to a decade at this point. Not that it would have mattered, I don't think they would have cast teleport if they could; it takes too many spell slots.




There should be no "mythical treasure guarded by nothing but animals/monsters", right? Should just not exist in this world at all. Build your setting. Make it consistent with regard to the powers and abilities that the beings living in it have. If teleportation exists in your game, and is relatively easy for adventurers to have access to then "security via obscurity/remote-location" cannot realistically exist in your game.

Well that's just an argument against the adventure genre in general.



Then they/you are balancing to the wrong things. Balance to the setting, not the PCs. There should always be a lot of things in the setting that are vastly more powerful than the PCs are. And they should be aware of this at all times. They should *never* just wander around assuming that nothing they encounter will ever be too much for them, or that they must even be scaled to "X fights of Y difficulty".

This is entirely up to you, as the GM, to implement. Or not. But if you don't then you can't be surprised when your players expect a series of theses "balanced" encounters, and get upset if you don't provide them with exactly that.



Yup. The PCs are generally going to be tougher than any random thing they run into. But not always. Realism means that the NPCs act in a rational reasonable manner, based on who they are. Period. Now yeah, sometimes, those NPCs just aren't expecting a powerful group of PCs who have access to some rare abilities/magic/items/whatever, and the PCs steamroll them. Sometimes, the NPCs have access to things the players didn't consider.

If you adjust your encounter methodology to be less "attack everything we run into, assuming the GM has balanced it for us to fight", and "talk to them, see what's going on, figure out whether we can resolve this using methods X, Y, or Z, and then make a decision", then you can have a great amount of realism in your game without it always being "NPCs win". The PCs just have to also be "realistic" about what battles they decide to fight, and how they fight them.

I once ran a (long) adventure where there were two big bads. Each of them were waaaaaay outside the PCs league. Like, ancient super powerful lich on one hand, and fallen (but still extremely powerful) deity on the other. Both causing problems. However, the two were also working against eachother and plotting ways to eliminate the other. The entire adventure was basically the PCs figuring out who these two big bads were, dealing with various minions and plots going on, discovering the "main scheme" each was using against eachother, and then manipulating things so that they enabled both of them to succeed. They still had a number of adventures along the way, and a big climatic final battle, but they weren't required to directly straight up fight against them directly.

The PCs should not just assume they can directly physically handle everything in the game setting. But "balanced encounter" mechanisms actually create and reinforce this assumption. Those mechanisms should be guidelines for encounters, not rules to follow.

That sounds like a lot of fun.

But my players would not accept it.

They take encounter balance to be an iron-clad rule and don't take kindly to GMs who cheat by violating it.

King of Nowhere
2023-03-06, 07:11 PM
Then they/you are balancing to the wrong things. Balance to the setting, not the PCs. There should always be a lot of things in the setting that are vastly more powerful than the PCs are. And they should be aware of this at all times. They should *never* just wander around assuming that nothing they encounter will ever be too much for them, or that they must even be scaled to "X fights of Y difficulty".

This is entirely up to you, as the GM, to implement. Or not. But if you don't then you can't be surprised when your players expect a series of theses "balanced" encounters, and get upset if you don't provide them with exactly that.



Yup. The PCs are generally going to be tougher than any random thing they run into. But not always. Realism means that the NPCs act in a rational reasonable manner, based on who they are. Period. Now yeah, sometimes, those NPCs just aren't expecting a powerful group of PCs who have access to some rare abilities/magic/items/whatever, and the PCs steamroll them. Sometimes, the NPCs have access to things the players didn't consider.

If you adjust your encounter methodology to be less "attack everything we run into, assuming the GM has balanced it for us to fight", and "talk to them, see what's going on, figure out whether we can resolve this using methods X, Y, or Z, and then make a decision", then you can have a great amount of realism in your game without it always being "NPCs win". The PCs just have to also be "realistic" about what battles they decide to fight, and how they fight them.

I once ran a (long) adventure where there were two big bads. Each of them were waaaaaay outside the PCs league. Like, ancient super powerful lich on one hand, and fallen (but still extremely powerful) deity on the other. Both causing problems. However, the two were also working against eachother and plotting ways to eliminate the other. The entire adventure was basically the PCs figuring out who these two big bads were, dealing with various minions and plots going on, discovering the "main scheme" each was using against eachother, and then manipulating things so that they enabled both of them to succeed. They still had a number of adventures along the way, and a big climatic final battle, but they weren't required to directly straight up fight against them directly.

The PCs should not just assume they can directly physically handle everything in the game setting. But "balanced encounter" mechanisms actually create and reinforce this assumption. Those mechanisms should be guidelines for encounters, not rules to follow.



+1

my campaign runs the gamut from "there are plenty of things more powerful than you" to "you are among the strongest, but the main npc bosses can tpk you depending on luck and strategy" to "you are the strongest party around, but the evil empire can still gather enough mid-high level parties to swarm you if you charge frontally without precautions".
at this point the party defeats the final villains - who generally teamed up in an attempt to put up enough power to deal with the party and their allies - and I call the campaign over because there's nothing left anymore to challenge the party. oh, the setting still assume a few hundred level 16+ people in the world, but those that were enemies of the party are defeated, the party by now has gathered a lot of friends, and it's unreasonable to expect any new coalition to rise against them strong enough to make it a sporting fight. So, time to pick your epilogue and move on.

gbaji
2023-03-06, 09:58 PM
That is not a problem my system has.

It does, however, have meta resources that give the players control over the game, and it would be absolutely miserable if every NPC had those same resources.

Ah. Ok. So some sort of expendable/recoverable XperY type pool of points that are expended to gain some benefit in any given situation? Like a luck/karma pool or somesuch (I did peruse your game rules, but didn't go that far in)? I can see how giving those to NPCs can be a pain. Um... But that's kind of the problem here though. If those meta resources are a significant amount of their overall capabilities, they are going to tend to only do things if/when they have them available to ensure success. Maybe tweak the balance on them a bit, so that they are less necessary? Or, given your group, maybe they just assume they should use them, so they do? Dunno.

I'm not a huge fan of having pools like that. I have played games with various mechanisms of that sort, and have actually enjoyed them, but it can put players in a "we can only do X things a day/week/whatever" mindset, doubly so if the delta between using and not using them is significantly large. I would lean towards the players being able to handle 90% of encounters without having to use any of these abilities/points/whatever, and scale things so that they should be saving them for nothing but big boss type battles (or the rare "OMG! that was super unlucky" random bad thing).



My PCs enjoy high action games.

Even if it is just one fight per session, it is still annoying for the PCs to have to deal with an NPC who can throw everything he has into surviving the fight while they have to ration it out for whatever non combat challenges will be required of them this week / month.

Maybe have different pools for things related to combat and things related to social interactions? Or just not allow them to be used for social stuff? I'm finding it "odd" that your system basically penalizes the PCs if they do social stuff by making them less powerful in a fight later. Or, like I said above, just scale most of the encounters (of any kind) to just not require spending those resources at all. The PCs have stats on their sheets. They have skills. They have abilities. They have spells, items, etc. They should be using that stuff to deal with most of the situations they find themselves in.

I find the concept that players are thinking of their characters as just a set of "super powerup abilities" that they can use X of and recover at Y rate, kind of extremely video-gamey. Those should really be special abilities, used rarely and when things go horribly wrong (or when in a really desperate final battle type situation). Having them view those things as their normal "kit" of tools to use, and use them all the time, is probably leading to this "odd" behavior you are seeing. I'm not sure if that's partly game design, or just your own odd set of players, but that's not normal to me. Again, they should be thinking in terms of dealing with normal day to day encounters without ever using those abilities at all. That way, when they do encounter a "big bad mega encounter", they can pull out all the stops to pull off the heroic win.


My system doesn't keep track of money for minor purchases, only relatively rare custom-made gear that has no fixed price. So, you see how much it costs to craft (which is the floor for price) and then haggle up from there.

I just had a ten-page thread about why this feels bad for players vs. being given a "sticker price" as a ceiling and then haggling down from there even if they both work the exact same way, you can go there if you want more context.

Oh. Fair enough. I must have missed that thread (or probably got bored reading it, because I don't normally spend that much thought on costs and haggling skills). Honestly? My opinion as a GM, is that I don't care what the players are reading in a "cost to craft" source book. This NPC, right here, is deciding what he's willing to sell the item for. Period. If they want to use the listed cost to craft, they can go buy their own materials, and use their own skills, and spend their own time, and craft the item themselves. If they want to pay for someone else to spend their time, and their effort, and their skill, doing that, then they have to pay what the NPC is asking for. So yeah. You are still deciding what the NPC is going to want, and having the PCs haggle from there. If the players have a problem with that, well... there's the crafting rules. Go take your character out of the adventure, say they are spending the next X years learning how to craft stuff, and then they can charge whatever the market will bear (and I'm pretty sure if they are the ones on that side of the equation they will never insist on haggling with "cost to make" as some sort of starting point). Problem solved.



In this case, the players were essentially natives of the tiny walled village by the coast, except instead of racist aborigine caricatures they were Phoenician sailors who did all of their trade by sea and never ventured inland. There were lots of ruins out there with the treasures of their ancestors, but nobody was both brave enough to go looking for it and strong enough to survive. The idea was that the PCs would be the first.

Nature never does something just once. Why are the PCs so much more powerful than anyone else who's grown up in that village in the last 100 years, or 200, or 500, or whatever? If the monsters living on the island are so powerful and nasty that no one has ever managed to survive an expedition to the interior, then why on earth is the village still standing? It should have been overrun by giant Gorrillas (or whatever) long ago. I get that the "everyone is normal and unwilling to do anything extraodinary at all except the PCs" is a standard trope of many RPG settings, but I find that to be a really bad one. It's just not terribly realistic. The PCs should be no more powerful or capable than the local captain of the guard, or dozens of his troops. or dozens of other adventurous types who have grown up in said village. How did they learn to be this skilled/powerful, and get whatever gear they are using, and knowledge, and whatnot, if there aren't others (NPCs) who have the same? And if this really is some tiny little village, how did X number of people, all about the same age, just happen to all grow up and decide to be adventurers and be the first to go exploring inland, when no one else in the history of the village ever has? Is the backstory to your game setting that some meteor landed and granted special powers to just a small set of special people or something? Otherwise, it kinda makes no sense to have "no one goes out the walls of our city" for generations, and then suddenly one day it's like "pop! hey, we're going to explore deep into the interior and find treasure!".

But even setting that aside. Let's assume that is the case, and that's the setting you have for them. In that case, then maybe starting them off on day one with "here's a map to vast treasure deep in the interior" is the wrong approach. Just let them explore in the area around the village, and get a sense for "what is out there". Let them cut their teeth taking out small groups of wild beasts and monsters and whatnot, and maybe making money selling rare/exotic pelts or something. Build them up to "searching for the lost treasure of El Diablo" or whatever. We kinda have to assume that the critters in the area around the village aren't as powerful as the ones deeper in, right (again, otherwise the village should have been wiped off the map long ago)? So they really should just do short adventures inland a bit, to get a lay of the land or something. You can gradually entice them deeper in (perhaps some patron is interested in buying increasingly rare or more difficult to find monster parts or something). I can think of a lot of things they could set as goals in the short to mid term in that kind of setting that would "work" with the setting, but also allow them to more cautiously explore.


The adventure sites were really remote and hard to get to. That didn't slow down (or rather speed up) my players at all.

Yup. Then put less important adventure sites that are closer to home then. Let them work their way up to going farther in.


The whole idea of a captain who will leave after X days (or other ticking time bomb) is really contrived and hard to pull of plausibly in this sort of scenario, especially for a whole campaign, and likely would just be met with the PCs killing the captain and sailing the boat themselves or some similar out of the box solution.

I was merely proposing this as an alternative to "they run back to the saftey of town after every fight" problem. If, instead of an interior to the island they grew up on, this is an already established group of adventurers, who are seeking fame and fortune, and have come across a map to the "hidden island of treasure" far across the sea, then you can have someone have to take them there, which requires them having at most a base camp on the island from which they have to explore. Getting back to the ship, and sailing a month or so across the ocean to go "back to town" isn't going to work, right? It's not arbitrary at all to have restrictions like that. Ships require resources to operate. They can't just sit around forever at anchor off some unexplored coastline. That's the same whether it's someone else's ship they are chartering for the expedition, or if it's their own ship. And in either case, there is no "town" to go back to, unless they want to spend a couple months sailing back and forth between single fights.

If the intention is for them to explore all the way in, and not run back to town after ever fight, the easy solution is to not give them a town to run back to. You could still make a campaign out of this, but the party would have to find sufficient treasure on each expedition to cover the cost to mount the next one. So they have to bring all their supplies with them. Pay for the cost to sail across the sea to get there, then have the ship wait while they explore. Then, when their resources are exhausted, and they've done all they can, they return to the ship, and sail back to home port, sell their loot, recover their resources, etc. By dramatically increasing the cost, both in time and money, just to get to the island itself, they will be forced to actually explore it more on each trip. Just a thought of a different way to approach this kind of adventure.

Obviously, since it appears you've already started/done this, the point is somewhat moot. But I guess my general point here is: if you don't want players to rely on easy/cheap resources being readily available, then don't make those things readily available. Assuming there's some value to "going back to town", and you want them to keep exploring between times they "go back to town", then make "town" farther away.


There was no teleporting in this game. I haven't had a mage capable of casting teleport in one of my parties for close to a decade at this point. Not that it would have mattered, I don't think they would have cast teleport if they could; it takes too many spell slots.

Ok. Wasn't clear on why it was so easy for them to just go back to town after every fight. Given a couple of your previous posts about adventuring groups who seemed to have various teleportation spells available, I assumed that something like this was in effect. Again, my default assumption for "island full of ancient ruins and mythical monsters for the players to explore" would be that there isn't any "town" on the island at all, and that this was an island that the players actually discovered (found a chart to in some ancient dread pirates treasure trove maybe). I would never put a town in an adventure setting like that (for exactly the problems/reasons you are having). Or, if I did, it would not be the town the PCs grew up in. It would maybe be the village of the local folks, from whom perhaps rummors of the horrors that lie in the interior might come from, and perhaps some who may oppose the PCs exploring ("they'll bring the wrath of <whatever> on us all"), and some who may help them, whatever. That would be part of the adventure itself, and would not necessarily always be a "safe place" either. I'd certainly not have it be a magic mart where they can just sell their loot and buy potions and items or whatever. And I'm not sure exactly how your meta-power things work in your game system, but I'd likely put restrictions on whether they could regain them there as well (although that kinda depends on the powers, requirements, etc).

If you want them to explore, then make it necessary that they actually explore. I'll point out again (as I have a couple times in other threads): I'm somewhat baffled by the lack of apparently ability to just "explore the wilderness" in your game. I've literally had PCs trek off in unexplored areas of my game world for months at a time (sometimes the better part of a year, never once setting foot in a friendly town). They should have the ability to live off the land, maintain themselves, and otherwise adventure "unattached" to any town at all. And they should be able to handle random encounters regularly in that environment, and the occasional ancient ruin/temple/whatever, as well. All while searching for some other <thing> they are looking for (and presumably eventually finding it, which may itself involve a somewhat extended exloration adventure as well). Sure. They may run into the occasional settlement of humans, or maybe trolls, or other less friendly types, but there's usually somewhat non-existant access to "civilization" and "buying/selling" things (occasional trade with some local village is the best they can hope for). Somehow, they manage just fine.

Push your players out of the nest. Let them fly... :smallcool:



Well that's just an argument against the adventure genre in general.

No. It's an argument against "adventuring 5 miles outside of a well established settled town and expecting to find some secret vast treasure trove". And yeah, that argument goes double if teleportation exists in the game because "everwhere you know of" is the equivalent of "5 miles out of town" when you have those sorts of travel abilities.

The "adventure genre" generally actually involves "going on an adventure". Which usually doesn't involve exploring your own back yard. It certainly can, when you have some newbie characters or something, but they should also *not* be "the most brave and powerful people we know" at the same time. I often introduce new characters with some short local adventures. Um... But nothing they do couldn't also have been done by any random kingdom guard patrol if they happened to be the ones there at the time (and were free to go do such things on their own time or something). I suppose that's a game setting thing. In my game, there is nothing *special* about the PCs other than they are the people who happen to be played by the players. Sure, as a backstory bit, it's assumed that they are more adventurous than most people (cause you could play a farmer, who just continues farming if you want, but that probably wouldn't be terribly exciting), and we assume that PCs spend more of their free time practicing/training than most people (who, you know, go home and relax after a days work, and spend their days off hanging out at the local pub, or whatever, instead of praticing magic or cool new sword moves). But mechanically? And even power level? They have no innate special advantages. It's only what they gain via adventuring over time that sets them apart from anyone else in the world.

But that's my game. It seems as though yours is run a bit differently.



That sounds like a lot of fun.

But my players would not accept it.

They take encounter balance to be an iron-clad rule and don't take kindly to GMs who cheat by violating it.

And they don't consider it "cheating" for the GM to adjust the entire world around them into "level appropriate encounter" sized bites?

Talakeal
2023-03-07, 08:20 AM
Great, so you DO understand thinking like an enemy strategist does not mean being a strawman who only sets up unwinnable scenarios. Why are you arguing with me, again?

I honestly don't know the specifics of where we are disagreeing.

What I am saying is that most games have a mechanic that pushes the scales in favor of PC survival. These mechanics often aren't accounted for in the fiction (I tend to play them as survivor bias).

I feel that this is a good thing as it helps the players feel more heroic in the fiction layer. But, as a result, some tactics that would work in the fiction / real life won't work mechanically (and vice versa) and that sometimes this is asymmetrical between PCs and NPCs.


Because if you were okay with the fights giving experience, the system was working exactly as it's made to work, and your players were just reminding you to give them their due. No horror story there, just business as usual.

As far as my horror stories go, I agree this one is pretty darn tame.

The issue was that, because the wizard used hit and run tactics rather than standing and fighting, the players felt entitled to six times the experience they would have gotten had he simply stood and fought, even though the retreating made the fight easier for the PCs in the long run.

Honestly, that is one of the big flaws of the D&D XP system; circumstances and tactics grossly change the difficulty of a fight; if you don't change XP to account you get some weird situations (low level PCs negotiating with a dragon and then getting tens of thousands of XP for making a simple diplomacy check) and if you do modify XP based on tactics players go out of their way to kill everything in the least efficient way to maximize XP gains.

But that is neither here nor there because I no longer give XP for kills and use milestone instead in both D&D and my system.


And they don't consider it "cheating" for the GM to adjust the entire world around them into "level appropriate encounter" sized bites?

They come from a more "gamist" point of view than I do where the mechanics try and trump fiction.

I tend to compromise and try and have things be as close to the PCs level as is plausible given the fiction as that helps out both narrative possibilities and mechanical challenges without breaking the simulation. But again, plausibility only goes so far, and my players still tend to provoke things way out of their league.



Ah. Ok. So some sort of expendable/recoverable XperY type pool of points that are expended to gain some benefit in any given situation? Like a luck/karma pool or somesuch (I did peruse your game rules, but didn't go that far in)? I can see how giving those to NPCs can be a pain. Um... But that's kind of the problem here though. If those meta resources are a significant amount of their overall capabilities, they are going to tend to only do things if/when they have them available to ensure success. Maybe tweak the balance on them a bit, so that they are less necessary? Or, given your group, maybe they just assume they should use them, so they do? Dunno.

I'm not a huge fan of having pools like that. I have played games with various mechanisms of that sort, and have actually enjoyed them, but it can put players in a "we can only do X things a day/week/whatever" mindset, doubly so if the delta between using and not using them is significantly large. I would lean towards the players being able to handle 90% of encounters without having to use any of these abilities/points/whatever, and scale things so that they should be saving them for nothing but big boss type battles (or the rare "OMG! that was super unlucky" random bad thing).

Maybe have different pools for things related to combat and things related to social interactions? Or just not allow them to be used for social stuff? I'm finding it "odd" that your system basically penalizes the PCs if they do social stuff by making them less powerful in a fight later. Or, like I said above, just scale most of the encounters (of any kind) to just not require spending those resources at all. The PCs have stats on their sheets. They have skills. They have abilities. They have spells, items, etc. They should be using that stuff to deal with most of the situations they find themselves in.


I find the concept that players are thinking of their characters as just a set of "super powerup abilities" that they can use X of and recover at Y rate, kind of extremely video-gamey. Those should really be special abilities, used rarely and when things go horribly wrong (or when in a really desperate final battle type situation). Having them view those things as their normal "kit" of tools to use, and use them all the time, is probably leading to this "odd" behavior you are seeing. I'm not sure if that's partly game design, or just your own odd set of players, but that's not normal to me. Again, they should be thinking in terms of dealing with normal day to day encounters without ever using those abilities at all. That way, when they do encounter a "big bad mega encounter", they can pull out all the stops to pull off the heroic win.

In short, characters in my game have a set number of rerolls each mission. These don't usually represent anything in the fiction, instead representing a combination of survivor bias and the whims of meddling gods. They aren't a necessary resource, just something to help the PCs survive and give the players a bit more control over the random nature of the dice.

That being said, if the players refuse to engage in any combat without a full pool of rerolls, they are effectively immortal. This isn't normally a problem with the system as written, but it makes running a hex-crawl / mega-dungeon a bit trickier than the episodic pace the system was designed for (but again, no worse than a D&D campaign where the casters can go nova every fight due to the 15MWD).

Its a unified system, I try and not have special combat only mechanics, especially considering that the game is perfectly happy with less action oriented groups than mine.



Oh. Fair enough. I must have missed that thread (or probably got bored reading it, because I don't normally spend that much thought on costs and haggling skills). Honestly? My opinion as a GM, is that I don't care what the players are reading in a "cost to craft" source book. This NPC, right here, is deciding what he's willing to sell the item for. Period. If they want to use the listed cost to craft, they can go buy their own materials, and use their own skills, and spend their own time, and craft the item themselves. If they want to pay for someone else to spend their time, and their effort, and their skill, doing that, then they have to pay what the NPC is asking for. So yeah. You are still deciding what the NPC is going to want, and having the PCs haggle from there. If the players have a problem with that, well... there's the crafting rules. Go take your character out of the adventure, say they are spending the next X years learning how to craft stuff, and then they can charge whatever the market will bear (and I'm pretty sure if they are the ones on that side of the equation they will never insist on haggling with "cost to make" as some sort of starting point). Problem solved.

That is certainly an option, and pretty close to how I feel.

The issue was mostly about presentation; basically haggling a merchant down from a sticker price feels like a benefit while haggling up from wholesale feels like a cost, even if the net result is the same, and since my book doesn't list sticker prices, only costs to craft, the whole system feels like a punishment to most people.



Nature never does something just once. Why are the PCs so much more powerful than anyone else who's grown up in that village in the last 100 years, or 200, or 500, or whatever? If the monsters living on the island are so powerful and nasty that no one has ever managed to survive an expedition to the interior, then why on earth is the village still standing? It should have been overrun by giant Gorrillas (or whatever) long ago. I get that the "everyone is normal and unwilling to do anything extraordinary at all except the PCs" is a standard trope of many RPG settings, but I find that to be a really bad one. It's just not terribly realistic. The PCs should be no more powerful or capable than the local captain of the guard, or dozens of his troops. or dozens of other adventurous types who have grown up in said village. How did they learn to be this skilled/powerful, and get whatever gear they are using, and knowledge, and whatnot, if there aren't others (NPCs) who have the same? And if this really is some tiny little village, how did X number of people, all about the same age, just happen to all grow up and decide to be adventurers and be the first to go exploring inland, when no one else in the history of the village ever has? Is the backstory to your game setting that some meteor landed and granted special powers to just a small set of special people or something? Otherwise, it kinda makes no sense to have "no one goes out the walls of our city" for generations, and then suddenly one day it's like "pop! hey, we're going to explore deep into the interior and find treasure!".

But even setting that aside. Let's assume that is the case, and that's the setting you have for them. In that case, then maybe starting them off on day one with "here's a map to vast treasure deep in the interior" is the wrong approach. Just let them explore in the area around the village, and get a sense for "what is out there". Let them cut their teeth taking out small groups of wild beasts and monsters and whatnot, and maybe making money selling rare/exotic pelts or something. Build them up to "searching for the lost treasure of El Diablo" or whatever. We kinda have to assume that the critters in the area around the village aren't as powerful as the ones deeper in, right (again, otherwise the village should have been wiped off the map long ago)? So they really should just do short adventures inland a bit, to get a lay of the land or something. You can gradually entice them deeper in (perhaps some patron is interested in buying increasingly rare or more difficult to find monster parts or something). I can think of a lot of things they could set as goals in the short to mid term in that kind of setting that would "work" with the setting, but also allow them to more cautiously explore.

Yup. Then put less important adventure sites that are closer to home then. Let them work their way up to going farther in.

The city was in a slow decline, and every year the wilderness was taking back more of the region (not literally an island, just an isolated outpost on the coast of a vast prehistoric wilderness).

Many people have tried before, and many people have died. That is where the rumors are coming from after all!

In this case, the PCs were actually special, they were all descendants of the Maui style demigod who first colonized the region so long ago and all had some form of supernatural powers. But, mostly, it was just a combination of luck and synergy that allowed them to be the first people who succeeded. If they hadn't come along, someone else probably would have in time, or the city would have been wiped out.

That being said, it wasn't a single adventure, it was a hex-crawl with adventure sites sprinkled across the wilderness. Some were near the city, some were very far indeed, distance had little influence on the PCs decision to turn back.



Ok. Wasn't clear on why it was so easy for them to just go back to town after every fight. Given a couple of your previous posts about adventuring groups who seemed to have various teleportation spells available, I assumed that something like this was in effect. Again, my default assumption for "island full of ancient ruins and mythical monsters for the players to explore" would be that there isn't any "town" on the island at all, and that this was an island that the players actually discovered (found a chart to in some ancient dread pirates treasure trove maybe). I would never put a town in an adventure setting like that (for exactly the problems/reasons you are having). Or, if I did, it would not be the town the PCs grew up in. It would maybe be the village of the local folks, from whom perhaps rumors of the horrors that lie in the interior might come from, and perhaps some who may oppose the PCs exploring ("they'll bring the wrath of <whatever> on us all"), and some who may help them, whatever. That would be part of the adventure itself, and would not necessarily always be a "safe place" either. I'd certainly not have it be a magic mart where they can just sell their loot and buy potions and items or whatever. And I'm not sure exactly how your meta-power things work in your game system, but I'd likely put restrictions on whether they could regain them there as well (although that kinda depends on the powers, requirements, etc).

If you want them to explore, then make it necessary that they actually explore. I'll point out again (as I have a couple times in other threads): I'm somewhat baffled by the lack of apparently ability to just "explore the wilderness" in your game. I've literally had PCs trek off in unexplored areas of my game world for months at a time (sometimes the better part of a year, never once setting foot in a friendly town). They should have the ability to live off the land, maintain themselves, and otherwise adventure "unattached" to any town at all. And they should be able to handle random encounters regularly in that environment, and the occasional ancient ruin/temple/whatever, as well. All while searching for some other <thing> they are looking for (and presumably eventually finding it, which may itself involve a somewhat extended exloration adventure as well). Sure. They may run into the occasional settlement of humans, or maybe trolls, or other less friendly types, but there's usually somewhat non-existant access to "civilization" and "buying/selling" things (occasional trade with some local village is the best they can hope for). Somehow, they manage just fine.

The whole thing is a balancing act; where can the PCs regain resources and how long does it take? Standard D&D style 8 hours sleep and you are at 100% does indeed allow for indefinite exploration. My system tends to be a little less forgiving.

For my game I said you can only rest in town, but I tinkered a lot with exactly how punishing it is to go back to town, I never found the sweet spot as everything I did made them even more cautious and eager to go back, whether it was harsher or more lenient.

The game overall was a success, I just never got the rythim of rest vs adventure down right, and I don't want a repeat of the situation for my current mega-dungeon. So far, it is working out better, although I think that is mostly just due to a different player makeup than anything I did. Also, maybe, me being more upfront with my expectations and also more vague with the mechanics of how XP is gained and how the dungeon becomes more dangerous over time.

Quertus
2023-03-07, 09:02 AM
They’re one more thing that’s been bothering me about this: after a million years in the pit, the Kobalds get one look at the PCs, and suddenly their defenses are better?

Unless they built their traps out of the flesh and bones of the orcs the PCs killed and left behind, I’m really not seeing how this makes sense.

Talakeal
2023-03-07, 09:55 AM
They’re one more thing that’s been bothering me about this: after a million years in the pit, the Kobalds get one look at the PCs, and suddenly their defenses are better?

Unless they built their traps out of the flesh and bones of the orcs the PCs killed and left behind, I’m really not seeing how this makes sense.

Kobolds haven't been there for a million years, just a couple decades.

They are basically living in the ruins of the older human city (similar to the Seattle underground) that lies between the surface and the true dungeons below. All of their defenses are turned toward the dungeon.

An earthquake recently revealed their complex, and the PCs are the first human invaders to come from that direction, essentially attacking from behind their lines.

When the PCs murdered one of their priests and his followers, the kobolds decided to turn some of their defenses inward as well as setting an ambush for those specific PCs along that specific route in case they returned to finish the job (which they inevitably did).

Quertus
2023-03-07, 11:17 AM
Kobolds haven't been there for a million years, just a couple decades.

They are basically living in the ruins of the older human city (similar to the Seattle underground) that lies between the surface and the true dungeons below. All of their defenses are turned toward the dungeon.

An earthquake recently revealed their complex, and the PCs are the first human invaders to come from that direction, essentially attacking from behind their lines.

When the PCs murdered one of their priests and his followers, the kobolds decided to turn some of their defenses inward as well as setting an ambush for those specific PCs along that specific route in case they returned to finish the job (which they inevitably did).

That makes more sense. But wait… the earthquake happened to reveal the dungeon at the same time that Those Who Lurk Below happened to start a “the megadungeon gets harder over time” march towards the surface?

kyoryu
2023-03-07, 11:28 AM
They’re one more thing that’s been bothering me about this: after a million years in the pit, the Kobalds get one look at the PCs, and suddenly their defenses are better?

Unless they built their traps out of the flesh and bones of the orcs the PCs killed and left behind, I’m really not seeing how this makes sense.

Kinda this. Assuming the dungeon is a living, breathing place, they have other issues to deal with besides the PCs. The PC raid should be, more or less, "Tuesday". It might end up with them bolstering some defenses, but shouldn't be a completely major overhaul.

Also presume that the kobolds have finite resources, and only so much ground to cover. While it's good to handwave reinforcements between delves to get "up to stock", I wouldn't presume, in most cases, that they can just triple their defenses everywhere.

Talakeal
2023-03-07, 11:34 AM
Kinda this. Assuming the dungeon is a living, breathing place, they have other issues to deal with besides the PCs. The PC raid should be, more or less, "Tuesday". It might end up with them bolstering some defenses, but shouldn't be a completely major overhaul.

Also presume that the kobolds have finite resources, and only so much ground to cover. While it's good to handwave reinforcements between delves to get "up to stock", I wouldn't presume, in most cases, that they can just triple their defenses everywhere.

They didn't do anything fancy. They reassigned a dozen warriors to guard the tunnel leading to their lair, kept a watch over the dungeon entrance, dug a pit beneath an already weakened section of floor, and set up a pair of levers to topple two status. Their heavy hitters remained deeper down to guard against incursions from below.


That makes more sense. But wait… the earthquake happened to reveal the dungeon at the same time that Those Who Lurk Below happened to start a “the megadungeon gets harder over time” march towards the surface?

Basically, the dungeon was in ecological balance for millions of years. Then, about eighty years ago, something happened to throw it out of whack, and there has been slow steady pressure for the lower reaches to expand to the upper levels. Then, the earthquake kicked the process into high gear by opening up a bunch of new passages, collapsing some others, and rendering areas of the dungeon uninhabitable.

Slipjig
2023-03-07, 03:11 PM
You don't really "clear" a mega-dungeon, any more than you would "clear" a jungle. It's a permanently dangerous environment, and will stay that way unless the PCs do something fundamentally remake the Dungeon. Expeditions are probably trying to reach a certain objective.

For every cleared encounter, every time the party takes a Long Rest roll % dice. On a roll of 91-00, the encounter is repopulated (or replaced with something of a comparable power level). This isn't some sort of magical "resetting", it's new monsters being attracted to whatever brought the original monsters in.

Be cheap with the monetary rewards, and make the inn expensive enough that at low levels it takes a decent amount of their coin to get their long rest. Or set a threshold of, "you must have X coin by day Y, or Bad Thing Z happens". Or make like The Yawning Portal and charge them every time enter or exit the dungeon.

Have a competing party going in via another entrance. Have the other party brag about how many rooms they cleared (and it should generally be just a LITTLE more than the PCs). Or, say that the other party went in the same entrance, followed the same path the PCs did, and have them showing off the SWEET treasure they found in the very first uncleared room they came to (which would have been the next one the PCs hit if they had kept going).

Lacco
2023-03-07, 03:30 PM
My PCs enjoy high action games.

Even if it is just one fight per session, it is still annoying for the PCs to have to deal with an NPC who can throw everything he has into surviving the fight while they have to ration it out for whatever non combat challenges will be required of them this week / month.

*SNIP*

That sounds like a lot of fun.

But my players would not accept it.

They take encounter balance to be an iron-clad rule and don't take kindly to GMs who cheat by violating it.

This reminds me of one thing I once wrote regarding my RL gaming group.

My players love the idea of dungeons. My players enjoy games that happen inside dungeons.

My players are bad at dungeoneering. They just plainly do not enjoy old-school dungeon delving. They do not enjoy exploring and mapping the dungeon. They do not enjoy the logistic aspects. They do not enjoy the navigation minigame. They do not look for secrets, they treat every obstacle as 0/1 situation (go through it or fail). At first glance, what they want is a Betsheda/Skyrim style linear storytelling dungeon. No real decisions, only clear pathway, some branches, lots of story. Each encounter is an obstacle to be passed and solution is either sword, magic, diplomacy or item to be found (ideally already found).

What they want, once inside a dungeon, is to get to the end and get out.

Ideally at one sitting.

Boom. There goes my megadungeon.

What do you think about the following theory: Your players love the idea of a high action, high lethality, high stakes game. But they do not enjoy it.

Also: regarding the idea of a captain that leaves after X days: normally, hiring a ship to just wait somewhere is nor really profitable. So hiring a ship that drops you off and then returns after X days, picking you up... and if you are not there, waiting for a day or two... would that be better? More realistic?

And if they are the kind of players who would rather kill the crew & take the ship... welcome to the new "we are pirates!" campaign. After all, piracy is like dungeon delving, but the dungeons are smaller, kinda smell funny and are full of drunk sailors.

gbaji
2023-03-07, 06:48 PM
Honestly, that is one of the big flaws of the D&D XP system; circumstances and tactics grossly change the difficulty of a fight; if you don't change XP to account you get some weird situations (low level PCs negotiating with a dragon and then getting tens of thousands of XP for making a simple diplomacy check) and if you do modify XP based on tactics players go out of their way to kill everything in the least efficient way to maximize XP gains.

I suppose this is depedent on specific editions of D&D, but I'm pretty sure all of them have some instructions on what actually counts as "defeating the monster". And "monster intentionally engaged in hit and run tactics" certainly does not count as the monster being defeated. And "making a deal with a dragon" may get you some diplomacy/adventure-goal experience, but not the experience for "defeating the dragon". Do you get experience for "defeating the innkeeper" every time you negotiate the price for a room, or a bowl of soup? No. This entire line of thinking falls heavily into the "this is too silly for anyone to take seriously".


But that is neither here nor there because I no longer give XP for kills and use milestone instead in both D&D and my system.

And that's an excellent way to do this. Also encourages/incentivizes the players to actually engage in the scenario at hand instead of just running around "defeating things".



They come from a more "gamist" point of view than I do where the mechanics try and trump fiction.

Then you remind your players that the "game mechanics" do not say anything at all about what level NPCs must be. The actual mechanics just state how various relative skill/level/spells/whatever interact. The mechanics handle "level 20 arch mage attacking level 1 adventuring party" just fine.

The challenge ratings and other related "rules" are just guidelines for GMs so they can anticipate how much "stuff" they can throw at a typical level X adventuring party between rest periods while challenging them but not overwhelming them. They are not to be interpreted as hard restrictions to anything and everything the PCs may ever encounter in the game world. That's an... insane interpretation of those systems.


I tend to compromise and try and have things be as close to the PCs level as is plausible given the fiction as that helps out both narrative possibilities and mechanical challenges without breaking the simulation. But again, plausibility only goes so far, and my players still tend to provoke things way out of their league.

Honestly though, and I know this may be difficult at this point, and especially with this table, but that assumption/expectation is *not* what the players should have, and by complying with their frankly ridiculous assumptions, you're actually just enabling more of this poor gaming methodology. Yes, if you are putting in content which the PCs must engage with and "defeat" (actually defeat, see above), then those guidelines are important, and you must follow them to some degree. If the players feel you are forcing them into encounters they cannot win, they will be upset with you (and rightly so).

But if you just have "content", that they are not required to engage with, much less "defeat", you can certainly make that content well outside of those encounter guidelines. And, honestly, if you want a realistic world, you really should do this. In a realisic world, the vast majority of things in the area near the PCs are not just coincidentally going to be exactly the right level to fit the guidelines for "daily encounters". There should be a whole bunch of "easy stuff", and some "hard stuff", and some "impossible stuff" (arguably changing ratio as PC levels increase). As a GM, just make sure that the "impossible stuff" is always stuff they are not required to actually fight and defeat as part of your adventure/scenario. Everything else should be gravy from that point on.

What this teaches the players is that their characters cannot just assume anything they run into can (much less should) be defeated by them. They should engage in some investigation first, and maybe some dialogue as well. And unless their "quest" (or whatever) actually requires that they "kill the goblins and take their macguffin", then they should not assume they must attack and kill the goblins. Again, if you force the combat encounter (or a series of encounters), then you should follow the guidelines. But if the players are choosing to engage in stuff around them, you are under zero obligation to do so. So yeah, if you're planning out a section of your megadungeon that the players must complete in a single period (or suffer some sort of retribution/consequences) *that* is what you use the encounter level guidelines for. But just "things that exist in the world that they may interact with as they wish"? Nope.



In short, characters in my game have a set number of rerolls each mission. These don't usually represent anything in the fiction, instead representing a combination of survivor bias and the whims of meddling gods. They aren't a necessary resource, just something to help the PCs survive and give the players a bit more control over the random nature of the dice.

That being said, if the players refuse to engage in any combat without a full pool of rerolls, they are effectively immortal. This isn't normally a problem with the system as written, but it makes running a hex-crawl / mega-dungeon a bit trickier than the episodic pace the system was designed for (but again, no worse than a D&D campaign where the casters can go nova every fight due to the 15MWD).

Ok. So basically some form of luck/karma pool thing. Got it. That makes sense. Uh. Most game systems I've played that use those either hand out a very small number (with minor benefits like adding to dice pools) that are "per encounter" or are somewhat larger in number (but perhaps also with more significant effects, like your reroll system), but those are "per adventure".

I suspect part of your problem is giving the players more or less an "I win" button, and then allowing them to get them back as a "per rest" mechanic. Those should be "per adventure/scenario/whatever". And you should be determing when that period ends. I'd maybe tie it to the "adventure goal" thing you are using for experience, or if those are too granular, then some sort of significant milestone in a larger adventure. But they should really just have this one pool that covers the entire "we set out to find X, and defeat Y", and they don't recover until/unless they have completed that quest. I would maybe even abstract this as "the gods favor shines on you when you are engaged in mighty and brave tasks". So they don't get to use these rerolls at all while doing "mundane day to day things". They only get a pool when they set off on an actual "quest", and then only get them while actually fullfilling that quest. Returning to town to continue exploring doesn't count. Until they find one of the treasure locations they are looking for, overcome/defeat whatever obstacles/guardians are there, and return with whatever they find there, the "quest" isn't completed, and they don't get the points refilled.


The issue was mostly about presentation; basically haggling a merchant down from a sticker price feels like a benefit while haggling up from wholesale feels like a cost, even if the net result is the same, and since my book doesn't list sticker prices, only costs to craft, the whole system feels like a punishment to most people.

Yeah. I can see that. But the book is about the mechanics and material costs for crafting. It's not going to know about the economics of your specific game setting. I would perhaps go write up a "setting guide", that lists actual suggested/typical retail prices for these crafted items and hand that to your players. Or, at the very least, do some basic math and multiply the "cost to craft" by some value representing the time/difficulty of learning how to perform that bit of crafting, then multiplying by some rarity/scarcity of materials based on where you are (which in large cities connected to trade routes may be "1", but in some podunk out of the way location could be "5" or even "10"), and then multiplying that number by "profit margin", which should be somewhere around 25-40%. So a typical formula might look like C*D*S*P, where C="base cost of ingredients", and D="difficulty of the craft attempt", and S="scarcity of materials", and P="profit margin".

So maybe something simple like a basic potion which requires a low/easy to learn crafting skill, in a large city, might be say 10gp*1.2*1*1.3=15.6gp. So that's the "base price". Note, that the only part that you can actually haggle here is the "P" value. That's the actual profit margin involved. Sure, we might also haggle the "D" value as well, but assuming there is a cost to take time studying your craft, which must be recouped by making and selling crafted items, this is always going to be baked into the equation. So yeah, the haggling roll should only maybe result in price range of 13gp (minimum floor cost at which the seller is just breaking even) to say 18.2 (an equal "swing" in the opposite direction). The base point should be 15.6gp essentially with a +/- range of 2.6 (the actual profit margin for this otherwise "cheap" potion).

And if you think a 30% markup is "high", you have never actually operated a small retail operation before. Although, to be fair, if we're talking about much more expensive items, then the markup can be smaller (much smaller even). A typical convenience store runs a 40% gross profit margin (that's at the upper range). Most retail stores run somewhere in the 25-30% range. Very high end items (like say jewelry shops) can operate closer to 10-15%. That's "markup on each item relative to cost" btw, not "total gross profit margin". That's even lower, because "wholesale cost" is only part of the cost to run a business. The building cost money. Maintenance costs money. Paying your employees cost money. Securing your shop and goods costs money (and losses via theft, breakage, etc... costs money as well). In modern economies, you will also have numerous fees, licenses, insurance, etc that must be purchased (and renewed) as well, plus electricity costs, payroll taxes, business taxes, and probably a zillion other things I'm forgetting (we really really make small businesses jump through hoops).

So yeah. If the players are balking at this, then simplify it by just handing them the retail cost forumulas as well (or just a completed sheet for the area they are in, and the things available for purchase). Haggling is always going to exist entirely within the range of "profit margin" for the seller. You simply can't start at a "cost of materials" point. You must start at a "what is the minimum the seller can afford to sell this for?" point. Then add a profit for the seller and *then* start your haggling from there. That is your "base retail price".



In this case, the PCs were actually special, they were all descendants of the Maui style demigod who first colonized the region so long ago and all had some form of supernatural powers. But, mostly, it was just a combination of luck and synergy that allowed them to be the first people who succeeded. If they hadn't come along, someone else probably would have in time, or the city would have been wiped out.

That being said, it wasn't a single adventure, it was a hex-crawl with adventure sites sprinkled across the wilderness. Some were near the city, some were very far indeed, distance had little influence on the PCs decision to turn back.

Again though, I'd maybe try to make those special abilities that they have something they can only use when actually doing something "special". Do they have any sort of maps to guide them, or idea where some of these adventure points may be? Or are you actually just expecting them to wander aimlessly through the jungle? I mean, that is a hex crawl (which btw, is not my preferred method of running adventures, but that's just me), so I suppose that's just the way things are. You need to put in some means to encourage them to do more than just kill some critters in the wilderness though. Doesn't need to be precise, but even just some information (rummors, legends, whatever) about various treasures associated with some terrain features, or specific monster types, or something to tell them "hey, we're getting close to something we heard about that might be worth checking out".



The whole thing is a balancing act; where can the PCs regain resources and how long does it take? Standard D&D style 8 hours sleep and you are at 100% does indeed allow for indefinite exploration. My system tends to be a little less forgiving.

For my game I said you can only rest in town, but I tinkered a lot with exactly how punishing it is to go back to town, I never found the sweet spot as everything I did made them even more cautious and eager to go back, whether it was harsher or more lenient.

Yeah. I think that's part of the problem though. You've tied regaining the (very powerful) abilities to "resting in town". Which is precisely why they seem to want to retreat to town as often as possible. If you tied it to "every time you eat a ham sandwich" you can bet they'd be manipulating things to make sure they have a steady supply of bread and ham. If you want them to "complete a specifc set of adventure bits", then you should tie regaining those abilities to that instead. Just a suggestion.

Arbitrarily making it more or less difficult to get back to town is only kinda spackling over the problem IMO (and will smell strongly of you manipulating things). Some resources should regain by any kind of rest, anywhere. Why does being in a town matter? It's silly and arbitrary. Other resources, especially rare and powerful ones, should require that they do some specific action to get them back. Something they can't just do easily and quickly and/or just stop the current adventure for.

And yeah, before you go there, requiring them to complete <some specific milestone in the adventure> is *also* arbitrary and can be seen as manipulative as well. But if these are actual "special powers" they get that NPCs do not, then they should be tied to them doing some "special things" (ie: going on some kind of actual declared "quest" with actual declared objectives). Which means they are commiting themselves to this task, and their favor only applies to things done in the pursuit of that thing. Make it like a holy knight making an oath to "find and return the kidnapped princess", and gaining some kind of divine aid while in the performance of that task, but which only lasts while doing so, and he can't take on another until he's done.

That sort of methodology should keep them focused on what they are doing, and really committed to actually pushing through the content. If these rerolls do not return until they are "done", then going back to town doesn't help them at all. They must push on *and* they must carefully dole out their use of these rerolls to last through whatever content you require before you give them more. Dunno. I just think that would work a lot better and avoid this whole issue. I'm sure your players will disagree though.


The game overall was a success, I just never got the rythim of rest vs adventure down right, and I don't want a repeat of the situation for my current mega-dungeon. So far, it is working out better, although I think that is mostly just due to a different player makeup than anything I did. Also, maybe, me being more upfront with my expectations and also more vague with the mechanics of how XP is gained and how the dungeon becomes more dangerous over time.

That's good to hear.


Also: regarding the idea of a captain that leaves after X days: normally, hiring a ship to just wait somewhere is nor really profitable. So hiring a ship that drops you off and then returns after X days, picking you up... and if you are not there, waiting for a day or two... would that be better? More realistic?

That should work as well. Bit trickier to play out, but if they are going on a long extended trip to the interior, then that's probably a more realistic way to handle it. My main point with the "have them travel to the entire region via ship" was to eliminate the "town" from the equation entirely. Force them to carry their own supplies with them, and then live off the land as much as possible, with some combination of those determining how long they can last before they need to hoof it back and return to civilization. And yeah, having the ship captain say "I'm off to port, be back in 30-35 days", really puts an interesting bit of timetable on things.


And if they are the kind of players who would rather kill the crew & take the ship... welcome to the new "we are pirates!" campaign. After all, piracy is like dungeon delving, but the dungeons are smaller, kinda smell funny and are full of drunk sailors.

Yeah. I think that while players often think this sort of thing is a simple/easy solution (and these players seem like that times 100), it's actually somewhat difficult to manage a ship if you aren't actually highly trained in it. And crew members aren't going to be terribly happy to help you out if you just killed their captain. I'm a bit of a hard nose when it comes to PCs arbitrariliy murdeing NPCs because "we want their stuff" (which is basically what this would be). So best case, you convince the crew to help you sail the ship, but at some point you're going to land in a port, and that's when the crew will out you as pirates and arrange for whatever legal system handles such things take care of you (you are now arrested or outlaws, and your ship aint leaving cause no crew and the port's naval forces are keeping you at dock, so... good luck!). Worst case lands in the area of "they just slit your throats while you are sleeping and take their ship back".

Remember that the crew didn't sign on to be pirates, and presumably the party isn't actually large enough to handle a seafaring ship by themselves. So...

Talakeal
2023-03-19, 07:48 AM
Well, we had another game. And it did not go well.


In short, the players continued their tactic of raiding and falling back, so that two monsters in neighboring regions of the dungeon who had been harassed by the PCs hit and run tactics came up with a pact, if one of them came under attack from the PCs, the other would come in from behind, flanking the PCs and cutting off their retreat.

This worked, and the players again had to surrender and negotiate a ransom.


Now, they were obviously feeling down, but Brian was sulking pretty hard for the rest of the evening. Eventually, he said he just wasn't feeling the game anymore and wanted to stop. I asked what was the matter, and he said that he realized that the pact they made with the monsters was one sided.

I said yes, the monsters had you dead to rights, they had no reason to offer you a good deal.

He said that he felt like the game was in a "slow death spiral" and that after losing two weeks in a row, they will never recover.

He said he doesn't feel like playing anymore, and Bob piped in and said that he wanted to quit the game after last session.


So basically, I got this from my group:

Losing fights is not fun. They should not have to play a game that is not fun.

They would rather TPK and end the game than ever suffer a setback.

Money and pride are more valuable to them than their lives, both in character and IRL.

Surrendering rather than dying is doing a huge favor to the DM, as the DM inevitably cares more about the campaign than the players and puts more work in, therefore the DM should feel obliged to make the terms of surrender purely beneficial to the players.

Setbacks are only acceptable if I let them grind back to the same place. As there is a finite amount of XP and treasure in the dungeon, that means anything short of perfection is a screw job that makes the game not fun.



None of this really surprises me. I have known for years that players hate surrender and that most of the players in my group suffer from some combination of clinical depression and / or narcissism, but it is shocking to hear it put so bluntly. And yeah, I mean it is never directly stated, but one of the key components of all of my famous horror stories is that I care more about the game than anyone else in the group and that they know this and use it as leverage to get away with things that would get them kicked out of any non bizarro-world group.


So, in short, I always here about how alternate failure conditions besides death are great for RPGs; but my players can't handle the thought of anything short of perfection, and when things go bad they actively want to die and the game to end so they don't have to acknowledge their failures. (On a related note, I have noticed for years they have a sort of psychological death spiral, if their first plan doesn't work for whatever reason they withdraw and declare the situation hopeless rather than coming up with a new plan).




Aside from the pessimism and bitching, they did have one very good point that I would like some help with if anyone has advice to offer:

So, IMO the ideal game-play loop is the players play as smart as they can to conserve resources and push as deep into the dungeon as they can, and then fall back when their resources are depleted. HOWEVER, the players don't have great scouting ability (and in a dungeon scouting can be pretty tough at the best of times) so that if they decide to push on, go into a new room, and bite off more than they can chew, and fall back, they will put the monsters on alert and make further progress very difficult.
My reading of most of the advice in this thread is that this is a good thing, but in practice, does that not mean the optimal strategy is to pull back out of the dungeon the moment you could, conceivably, lose the next fight if a big monster is beyond the next door? Doesn't smart / reactive monsters incentive the very 15 MWD attitude that this thread was created to avoid?

Vahnavoi
2023-03-19, 08:00 AM
Congratulations, you're right back to the beginning. As I told you several times already, what your players do isn't optimal. It is basic. And, as your players correctly observe, their adherence to flawed basic strategy means they end up in a slow downward spiral untill they, eventually, lose.

Better players would devise a better strategy or at least better tactics to beat that downward spiral. Your players don't, because of their fragile egos. Taking their reactions at face value, they can not play the kind of game you made competently, nevermind optimally.

At this point, you either accept this and find other players, or change your game yet again. But please, for the love of God, stop projecting dysfunctionality of your players on all others, or rating game design principles based on their particular issues.

Talakeal
2023-03-19, 08:03 AM
Congratulations, you're right back to the beginning. As I told you several times already, what your players do isn't optimal. It is basic. And, as your players correctly observe, their adherence to flawed basic strategy means they end up in a slow downward spiral untill they, eventually, lose.

Better players would devise a better strategy or at least better tactics to beat that downward spiral. Your players don't, because of their fragile egos. Taking their reactions at face value, they can not play the kind of game you made competently, nevermind optimally.

At this point, you either accept this and find other players, or change your game yet again. But please, for the love of God, stop projecting dysfunctionality of your players on all others, or rating game design principles based on their particular issues.

Agreed.

But they aren't always wrong. Mathematically, the 15 MWD is the optimal way to play barring other factors, and IMO you have a poorly designed game if the optimal strategy is contrary to the intended game-play loop.

I feel like the last paragraph of my post about reactive monsters is a legitimate criticism of the idea that you can counter hit-and-run tactics by having intelligent reactive monsters.

Vahnavoi
2023-03-19, 09:00 AM
You keep using the word "optimal" wrong. When and where using hit-and-run tactics against reactive opponents leads to a downward spiral, it cannot possibly be optimal, and anyone trying to optimize for success realizes facts point away from those types of tactics.

When this is NOT the case, hit-and-run tactics are normal and expected part of gameplay. Literally my first post in this thread opened with that, followed by discussion on implementation and limits of such tactics in context of an infinite resource megadungeon, a la Angband.

Whenever you use weasel words like "barring other factors", you are implicitly ignoring elements that would actually allow for calculating an optimal path, and thus guilty of spherical-cows-in-a-vacuum argument. So are your players whenever they do this. The degenerate gameplay loop is something you trick each other into, not just a byproduct of game rules or game design principles. Which is why you got to separate in your mind two different groupings of incentives: "what people who are kinda bad at playing this game think is optimal" versus "what people who are good at this game think is optimal". The difference between these groups usually is whether they take into account those other factors.

Talakeal
2023-03-19, 09:51 AM
You keep using the word "optimal" wrong. When and where using hit-and-run tactics against reactive opponents leads to a downward spiral, it cannot possibly be optimal, and anyone trying to optimize for success realizes facts point away from those types of tactics.

When this is NOT the case, hit-and-run tactics are normal and expected part of gameplay. Literally my first post in this thread opened with that, followed by discussion on implementation and limits of such tactics in context of an infinite resource megadungeon, a la Angband.

Whenever you use weasel words like "barring other factors", you are implicitly ignoring elements that would actually allow for calculating an optimal path, and thus guilty of spherical-cows-in-a-vacuum argument. So are your players whenever they do this. The degenerate gameplay loop is something you trick each other into, not just a byproduct of game rules or game design principles. Which is why you got to separate in your mind two different groupings of incentives: "what people who are kinda bad at playing this game think is optimal" versus "what people who are good at this game think is optimal". The difference between these groups usually is whether they take into account those other factors.

I don't disagree with anything you say.

But the "other factors" is not a weasel word, it is the crux of the issue. The whole purpose of the thread is to come up with "other factors" that bring optimal play toward the ideal game play loop rather than making the problem worse or creating some other form of degenerate play.

Quertus
2023-03-19, 09:56 AM
Congratulations, you're right back to the beginning. As I told you several times already, what your players do isn't optimal. It is basic. And, as your players correctly observe, their adherence to flawed basic strategy means they end up in a slow downward spiral untill they, eventually, lose.

Better players would devise a better strategy or at least better tactics to beat that downward spiral. Your players don't, because of their fragile egos. Taking their reactions at face value, they can not play the kind of game you made competently, nevermind optimally.

At this point, you either accept this and find other players, or change your game yet again. But please, for the love of God, stop projecting dysfunctionality of your players on all others, or rating game design principles based on their particular issues.

Make a game for the players you have. The downward spiral game you made was an epic failure at achieving that goal.


My reading of most of the advice in this thread is that this is a good thing, but in practice, does that not mean the optimal strategy is to pull back out of the dungeon the moment you could, conceivably, lose the next fight if a big monster is beyond the next door? Doesn't smart / reactive monsters incentive the very 15 MWD attitude that this thread was created to avoid?

Which is why you don’t use smart / reactive monsters in a megadungeon. Or, you know, at all with your group. You give them mindless, uncooperative monsters, or foes trapped in a time loop, that they get an infinite number of tries against to build their strategies, so that they can be the underdogs who win, so that they can come off as intelligent, learning, BDHs. Instead of being the losers who lose to kobolds, who get out-thought by the monsters, and who enter a downward spiral of failure breeding failure.


Agreed.

But they aren't always wrong. Mathematically, the 15 MWD is the optimal way to play barring other factors, and IMO you have a poorly designed game if the optimal strategy is contrary to the intended game-play loop.

I feel like the last paragraph of my post about reactive monsters is a legitimate criticism of the idea that you can counter hit-and-run tactics by having intelligent reactive monsters.

And the time Temple megadungeon I suggested would be nigh immune to the 15 MWD. Whereas the reactive dungeon you built discouraged your players from playing it at all. Consider why that is.

GloatingSwine
2023-03-19, 10:27 AM
I don't disagree with anything you say.

But the "other factors" is not a weasel word, it is the crux of the issue. The whole purpose of the thread is to come up with "other factors" that bring optimal play toward the ideal game play loop rather than making the problem worse or creating some other form of degenerate play.

The other factor in what you've discussed here is information.

Your players attempted hit and run tactics on opponents which had the time and resources to fully recover and prepare for the next attack and no other concerns which would have distracted them from doing so.

So honestly ask yourself "what information was presented to the players which caused them to think hit and run was viable?"

Because what I see is happening is they use a strategy that they think is going to be effective (wearing the enemy down with hit and run tactics) but it isn't (because they don't meaningfully weaken the enemy for next time) and the reason it isn't because of facts not in their possession (enemy has the resources to fully recover).

So what did they base the decision to use that strategy on?

If the answer was "nothing, they just blundered in and this happened as a result of them bailing the first time" then that's also a problem. And it might be like 85% a them problem but also as the GM and system and scenario designer it's something where you could be guiding them towards the sort of information gathering that would tell them, for instance "these kobolds have a lot of supplies and spare warriors they can recall given time, but not a lot of force on hand, harrassment will be ineffective but decisive battle will be effective".

Because the other possibility is that they're blundering around expecting the loop of the game to be a kick the doors in and take the treasure dungeon crawl where they don't have to think about that kind of stuff, and you're playing a world simulation back to them they aren't expecting or accounting for.

Talakeal
2023-03-19, 10:31 AM
Make a game for the players you have. The downward spiral game you made was an epic failure at achieving that goal.



Which is why you don’t use smart / reactive monsters in a megadungeon. Or, you know, at all with your group. You give them mindless, uncooperative monsters, or foes trapped in a time loop, that they get an infinite number of tries against to build their strategies, so that they can be the underdogs who win, so that they can come off as intelligent, learning, BDHs. Instead of being the losers who lose to kobolds, who get out-thought by the monsters, and who enter a downward spiral of failure breeding failure.



And the time Temple megadungeon I suggested would be nigh immune to the 15 MWD. Whereas the reactive dungeon you built discouraged your players from playing it at all. Consider why that is.

As a wise turtle once said, before the battle of the fists comes the battle of the mind.

The "downward spiral" is completely psychological, not mechanical.

Honestly, I can't think of any way to break that aside from working full time as the PCs "PR team" throwing impossibly easy fights at them but somehow conveying AFTER THE FACT* that this was an incredible victory that only someone as smart and powerful as they were could have possibly won, but they managed to score 110%** victory!

*: Because if they believe their enemy is dangerous before they fight, the will enter the downward spiral preemptively.
**: This percentage will, of course, have to continually increase. As we established before, they consider any mission where they don't get further ahead of the WBL curve as a percentage to be a failure.

Sapphire Guard
2023-03-19, 11:20 AM
Problem with using effective tactics is that sometimes they work. You got unlucky that they worked two sessions in a row, but this is a very fine line. If every session is going to end in surrender, it's quickly going to go sour.

The point of the effective monsters is that they make it difficult to have a predictable pattern. So the ideal impact would be 'okay if they know we will be heading back this way we will be ambushed, let's not go back to town tonight, let's instead camp somewhere safe like with the kobolds or in the mortuary, so the counterattack won't know where we are'

GloatingSwine
2023-03-19, 11:32 AM
Problem with using effective tactics is that sometimes they work. You got unlucky that they worked two sessions in a row, but this is a very fine line. If every session is going to end in surrender, it's quickly going to go sour.

This, again, is an information thing.

The GM has perfect information about anything not inside the players' heads, the players only have the information they have managed to gather. If the monsters are using strategies like alliances then the players need to be able (at least in principle) to find out information in advance like the relations between different groups before they become relevant and to understand that co-operation between groups is a thing that is going to happen in this game.

And if they don't have the habit of doing that, but it's going to be fundamental to the way the campaign works, then that needs to be a conversation that gets had about the game so that everyone has the same expectations about what the game is.

King of Nowhere
2023-03-19, 01:43 PM
a question that needs to be asked is, what was the correct strategy for players?
because there is the risk of creating a morton's fork. if the players take frequent rests, the monsters will organize and defeat them. but if the players never rest, they will be exhausted and die. what could the players have done to ensure their success?

a second, strictly related question, is: did the players have a way to figure out the winning strategy?

because, without a positive answer to both of those questions, the players may get the feeling that they have no way to win. if they push they will eventually be overwhelmed, but if they retreat the dungeon will become unwinnable later.

the players must get the impression that they have to play smart to win. they must not get the impression that they are playing dm-may-i?, or that they are playing with an oppositive dm out to punish them, or that their success or failure depends on hidden random factors that they have no way to discover.
many dm also want to feel that their players are overcoming obstacles by being smart, not by having a pushover adventure designed to reward total morons, so in this case the players and dm goals of wanting to build a campaign rewarding good thinking are aligned. bonus points if the informations are story-related and require/favor immersion in the campaign world to appreciate.

We can't say if it's your fault for not giving information or your player's fault for not taking the clues without more details.

Talakeal
2023-03-19, 01:55 PM
a question that needs to be asked is, what was the correct strategy for players?
because there is the risk of creating a morton's fork. if the players take frequent rests, the monsters will organize and defeat them. but if the players never rest, they will be exhausted and die. what could the players have done to ensure their success?

I have always designed adventures so that if the players go until they are exhausted they will pull through barring extreme bad lack or character mismatch.

The idea of smart reactive monsters shoring up their defenses in opposition to hit and run tactics is not something I am familiar with running, hence why I am asking for advice and consider it a legitimate grievance.

There are plenty of ways for the players to gather intelligence, but their characters don't really have a great build for it and none of the players really have the temperament for it.

King of Nowhere
2023-03-19, 02:30 PM
I have always designed adventures so that if the players go until they are exhausted they will pull through barring extreme bad lack or character mismatch.
but a megadungeon is clearly too big to be cleared out in one go, so I guess there are some intermediate objectives that the players can achieve before stopping? Was the thing clearly communicated?

GloatingSwine
2023-03-19, 05:16 PM
The idea of smart reactive monsters shoring up their defenses in opposition to hit and run tactics is not something I am familiar with running, hence why I am asking for advice and consider it a legitimate grievance.


The biggest mistake you can make is making the enemy too good at adapting to the players' strategy. Smart and reactive monsters still need to have some limitations based on their situations, and sometimes hit and run should actually work. You're not playing the Borg, you don't have to counter the players every time. If you do they'll just get frustrated, especially if you find a new way to do it every time that they couldn't have predicted in advance.

These groups should not be running with infinte resource cheats on, they should have limits and flaws that the players must find out.


There are plenty of ways for the players to gather intelligence, but their characters don't really have a great build for it and none of the players really have the temperament for it.

For the sort of scenario you were trying to run*, gathering intelligence is so important that it shouldn't ever be build dependant. There might be different ways to get at the information but it's so critical to being able to play the game that everyone always needs it, but your players are going in blind.

*That, I think, your players do not know they are playing. They do not know they are playing a strategy puzzle game where they need to figure out all the possible responses their opponent might have and account for them in advance, but they are.

Edit: Another good rule to stick to is that the first couple of times at least the players try a deliberate strategy, let it work because then they'll actually be motivated to try strategies. And when it's not going to work make sure they know that in advance.

Talakeal
2023-03-20, 05:47 AM
The biggest mistake you can make is making the enemy too good at adapting to the players' strategy. Smart and reactive monsters still need to have some limitations based on their situations, and sometimes hit and run should actually work. You're not playing the Borg, you don't have to counter the players every time. If you do they'll just get frustrated, especially if you find a new way to do it every time that they couldn't have predicted in advance.

These groups should not be running with infinte resource cheats on, they should have limits and flaws that the players must find out.



For the sort of scenario you were trying to run*, gathering intelligence is so important that it shouldn't ever be build dependant. There might be different ways to get at the information but it's so critical to being able to play the game that everyone always needs it, but your players are going in blind.

*That, I think, your players do not know they are playing. They do not know they are playing a strategy puzzle game where they need to figure out all the possible responses their opponent might have and account for them in advance, but they are.

Edit: Another good rule to stick to is that the first couple of times at least the players try a deliberate strategy, let it work because then they'll actually be motivated to try strategies. And when it's not going to work make sure they know that in advance.

In this case the strategy was one group of monsters going to the group of monsters across the hall and saying, hey, let's make a pact, if you hear us being attacked, come across and help as out and we will do the same, ok?

Not exactly the Borg there.

Quertus
2023-03-20, 06:15 AM
In this case the strategy was one group of monsters going to the group of monsters across the hall and saying, hey, let's make a pact, if you hear us being attacked, come across and help as out and we will do the same, ok?

Not exactly the Borg there.

Yeah, but… look at it from your players’ point of view - how would you, as a player, handle my megadungeon that would do such things? Where I’m roleplaying you, making sure that the monsters are already challenging, and that these two teaming up leads to a TPK (even if by another name of “surrendering”)?

Talakeal
2023-03-20, 06:19 AM
but a megadungeon is clearly too big to be cleared out in one go, so I guess there are some intermediate objectives that the players can achieve before stopping? Was the thing clearly communicated?

I suppose not, I probably was playing up the mystery and freedom a bit too much.

It doesn't have clearly defined objectives, but it does have wings. The idea was that the players would explore one wing at a time, but instead they kind of drifted around and fell back when they bit off more than they could chew.

Note, however, that I am not playing the whole dungeon as a hive mind; monsters only react when the party engages an intelligent group and then fails to deal with them, and even that reaction is only directly related to that monster's "territory".




Honestly, from a mechanical standpoint, they aren't doing too bad. Making deals with monsters puts them in a better position than going into wholly hostile territory, but the hit to their pride may not be something they can recover from. Like most of my horror stories, this one comes down to a battle of egos.


Yeah, but… look at it from your players’ point of view - how would you, as a player, handle my megadungeon that would do such things?

You're mega-dungeon specifically? I would need to go back and reread / think about it.

In general, it really depends on the character.

If I was in my players shoes, I would pump the friendly monsters for all the information I could about the dungeon, talk them into working together with us and each other to create a safe area of the dungeon with a defended bulwark against the other denizens, and then manipulate them into believing it is in our best interests to take the magic items and treasure in exchange for trinkets from the human world.

GloatingSwine
2023-03-20, 06:23 AM
In this case the strategy was one group of monsters going to the group of monsters across the hall and saying, hey, let's make a pact, if you hear us being attacked, come across and help as out and we will do the same, ok?

Not exactly the Borg there.

But it is. It's a new adaptation to their strategy that stops it from working which is so different from the last adaptation that even if they had countered that they would have failed again in a new way. Because you're the DM and you're in control of the world you can always come up with new adaptations by just inventing new things that could have happened to stop them, like a pact between groups of monsters.

There need to be rules about what you allow yourself to do to counter your players in order to make what you're trying to do satisfying to play, and your players need to be able to discover and understand those rules just as well as you do so that they can predict these outcomes. They should have known an alliance between these groups was not only possible likely before they came into conflict with them. And them knowing it means you needing to build the scenario such that they basically can't avoid finding it out irrespective of their character builds.

Because right now, your players don't know the rules of the game they're trying to play. And so they're failing every time due to things completely beyond their power to account for. They can't have strategies, they can't have plans, because strategies and plans require understanding the rules in which they are expected to operate.

Consider: In the first session they pushed as hard as they could and wore themselves out and had to retreat to rest, then in the second session the same enemy was set up so that if they did it again they would fail (and that's what happened). The enemy had unlimited ability to recover to a position much stronger than they had started and so the players had made negative progress.

In the third session they tried not to wear themselves out by using resource conserving hit and run attacks, but again the situation forced them to fail by trying that due to introducing something they had no way of accounting for (alliances between monster groups).

So the only rule right now is "there are no correct approaches, everything we do gets hard countered".

Talakeal
2023-03-20, 06:54 AM
Two generic questions about dungeon crawling:

Most doors open inward so that people can't simply open them by taking them off the hinges, correct? Is there a way to stop such a door from being opened from the outside? Spiking doors work great for stopping monsters getting in, but is there a similar technique for stopping them from getting out?

Second, how easy is it too knock on a stone wall to tell how thick it is? In video games this is a very common tactic for checking for secret rooms, but I have never heard of anyone doing this in a tabletop dungeon crawl.


But it is. It's a new adaptation to their strategy that stops it from working which is so different from the last adaptation that even if they had countered that they would have failed again in a new way. Because you're the DM and you're in control of the world you can always come up with new adaptations by just inventing new things that could have happened to stop them, like a pact between groups of monsters.

There need to be rules about what you allow yourself to do to counter your players in order to make what you're trying to do satisfying to play, and your players need to be able to discover and understand those rules just as well as you do so that they can predict these outcomes. They should have known an alliance between these groups was not only possible likely before they came into conflict with them. And them knowing it means you needing to build the scenario such that they basically can't avoid finding it out irrespective of their character builds.

Because right now, your players don't know the rules of the game they're trying to play. And so they're failing every time due to things completely beyond their power to account for. They can't have strategies, they can't have plans, because strategies and plans require understanding the rules in which they are expected to operate.

Consider: In the first session they pushed as hard as they could and wore themselves out and had to retreat to rest, then in the second session the same enemy was set up so that if they did it again they would fail (and that's what happened). The enemy had unlimited ability to recover to a position much stronger than they had started and so the players had made negative progress.

In the third session they tried not to wear themselves out by using resource conserving hit and run attacks, but again the situation forced them to fail by trying that due to introducing something they had no way of accounting for (alliances between monster groups).

So the only rule right now is "there are no correct approaches, everything we do gets hard countered".

I am missing something.

The first few pages of this thread seemed to be about how I was playing my monsters too dumb and they need to be smart and reactive. Now that seems to be bad.

These are players with decades of gaming experience, not little kids in their first RPG, why wouldn't they expect humanoid enemies to be able to employ basic tactics like communicating with one another, blocking doors, and keeping watches?

Likewise, what sort of "rules" should I set for myself? And how do those avoid breaking verisimilitude?


Also really curious about how players can get intelligence regardless of their build or proclivities without stripping away all immersion and mystery by just delivering tons of forced exposition.

King of Nowhere
2023-03-20, 08:41 AM
I am missing something.

The first few pages of this thread seemed to be about how I was playing my monsters too dumb and they need to be smart and reactive. Now that seems to be bad.

Take everything you read on an internet forum with a grain of salt. You can find useful ideas to try, but that's all. You certsinly csnnot get a miracle solution.



Also really curious about how players can get intelligence regardless of their build or proclivities without stripping away all immersion and mystery by just delivering tons of forced exposition.
By asking questions. Same as you'd do in real life.
Ask people around what they know. Maybe somebody was already in that dungeon, track them down and ask them to draw a map. Pay if necessary.
Hire people. Maybe you don't have divination spells, but somebody else in the world does. Find him, pay him for some spellcasting. Ssme goes for some kind of explorer.
Get allies. You find a goblin tribe inside the dungeon, do not attack on sight unless they are immediately hostile. See if you can negotiate safe passage across their land; should not be hard, they don't want to die and you are not damaging them just passing through. And since you're there, ask them if they can tell you what's in the rest of the dungeon.

If they are intelligent, they can negotiate and there's rarely a need to fight. I bet my players could finish the dungeon in one go, almost without rolling dice.
Of course, this requires the players to not be murderhobos eager to kill sapient beings for a handful of copper

Satinavian
2023-03-20, 09:00 AM
I am missing something.

Do you remember being told how your players will inevitably complain if you don't hand them easy wins ?
And that the megadungeon setup might not be a good fit for your group at all in the first place ? And how your attempts at managing pacing might come over as restrictive instead ?

Many people have told you how they would do a megadungeon. I would put intelligent enemies into mine as well. But i wouldn't run one for Bob or Brian.
Of course intelligent enemies are harder than normal enemies. And your players nearly always complain about things being "too hard" whenever get a setback. The only way to make them happy is providing easy wins and disguising that so that they can feel smart.

Talakeal
2023-03-20, 09:01 AM
Take everything you read on an internet forum with a grain of salt. You can find useful ideas to try, but that's all. You certainly cannot get a miracle solution.

Good point. I need to stop looking at the forumites as a hive mind, but this thread in particular is giving me whiplash and making me think I am missing something key.


By asking questions. Same as you'd do in real life.

Ask people around what they know. Maybe somebody was already in that dungeon, track them down and ask them to draw a map. Pay if necessary.

Hire people. Maybe you don't have divination spells, but somebody else in the world does. Find him, pay him for some spellcasting. Same goes for some kind of explorer.

Get allies. You find a goblin tribe inside the dungeon, do not attack on sight unless they are immediately hostile. See if you can negotiate safe passage across their land; should not be hard, they don't want to die and you are not damaging them just passing through. And since you're there, ask them if they can tell you what's in the rest of the dungeon.

If they are intelligent, they can negotiate and there's rarely a need to fight. I bet my players could finish the dungeon in one go, almost without rolling dice.
Of course, this requires the players to not be murderhobos eager to kill sapient beings for a handful of copper

So here's the thing.

My players care about two things above all else; wealth and pride.

They care more about this than success, ethics, even power and their character's lives, and certainly more than lore or storyline. Even XP means less to them than gold, which always struck me as very odd.

They would never pay someone for divinations because that is turning treasure into "useless" lore. The same reason they would never play a diviner, it turns combat power into useless lore.


They see having to make deals with monsters as a catastrophic failure because it hurts their wealth and their pride, even though from a utilitarian perspective (meaning their odds of getting to max level and completing the dungeon) they are far better off now than they were before.

Slipjig
2023-03-20, 10:14 AM
What do your players think money is for? Money is only good in that it allows you to purchase things. Maybe have a mentor NPC/patron say something about, "you need to spend money to make money". Do they refuse to use consumable items or cast spells that have expensive material components, too?

As for your questions about knocking on walls to find secret doors, that's actually reasonable. A stone door that is as thick as the surrounding wall would be too heavy for a human to push open, so a secret door in a stone wall will either not be made of stone, or will be a thin veneer of stone over another substance. In either case, it may sound different when knocked on. There's a reason you hide secret doors behind much lighter objects like paintings or bookshelves.

kyoryu
2023-03-20, 10:40 AM
In this case the strategy was one group of monsters going to the group of monsters across the hall and saying, hey, let's make a pact, if you hear us being attacked, come across and help as out and we will do the same, ok?

Not exactly the Borg there.

You're thinking in terms of "complexity of counter strategy". You should be thinking of "how much more difficult has it become?". An encounter suddenly doubling in numbers and coming from an undefended direction is far, far more than doubling the difficulty of the encounter.

The ideal adaptation increases a bit more gradually, and makes the undesired behaviors less effective while still leaving the desired behaviors viable.

So, having the enemies set up behind the PCs without actually starting the attack might work, as it would basically blow up their easy "get out" route, while encouraging them to go further into the dungeon.

DrMartin
2023-03-20, 11:29 AM
Also really curious about how players can get intelligence regardless of their build or proclivities without stripping away all immersion and mystery by just delivering tons of forced exposition.

a couple of ways you could go about this:

- create a framework for downtime actions, one of which is "gather information". You always get a helpful result, without a roll. You can roll to get some extra information. You can spend money to get some extra information as well.
be generous with the information, even giving out-of-character clear words explanations for in-character concepts that your players might not connect to their gaming consequences. As the GM you are your players eyes and ears and they cannot read your mind - even when you think what you are telling them it´s so obvious that anyone would get it.

- allow each skill to be useful in social circumstances and information gathering as well, to represent the network built around a specific activity, or the ability to find relevant contact and information about your field of specialty. Being proficient in riding horses means you can also roll Riding to find someone to buy a horse. Having a good attack skill means you can roll to find the best weapon dealers. Being good at <Dungeon Skill> means you know the right questions to ask about dungeons, even if your social skills sucks, and that you are great at socializing with other people that are also good at <Dungeon Skill> .

combine one and two to taste!

Quertus
2023-03-20, 12:38 PM
You're mega-dungeon specifically? I would need to go back and reread / think about it.

In general, it really depends on the character.

If I was in my players shoes, I would pump the friendly monsters for all the information I could about the dungeon, talk them into working together with us and each other to create a safe area of the dungeon with a defended bulwark against the other denizens, and then manipulate them into believing it is in our best interests to take the magic items and treasure in exchange for trinkets from the human world.

No, not a megadungeon I mentioned earlier, nor me as a megadungeon, but one I made “in your style”. And your answer… is really good. That last bit would probably bite you more often than help you on most intelligent monsters I’d run, but it’s a clever idea that could be useful if used properly on the correct targets.

However, it’s a really Epimethian answer. It’s “once we’ve failed, gotten in over our heads, and surrendered, here’s how I’d make lemonade out of those lemons”. And maybe that’s the key - maybe the biggest takeaway should be that you know how to make lemonade, whereas your group is allergic to lemons. Food for thought.

But, back to my original question here: how would you avoid getting into a TPK situation in the first place if I made a challenging, reactive dungeon?


Second, how easy is it too knock on a stone wall to tell how thick it is? In video games this is a very common tactic for checking for secret rooms, but I have never heard of anyone doing this in a tabletop dungeon crawl. .

Um… apparently really easy, if you have the skills? I seem to have a racial penalty to the check, as I’m an “anti-dwarf” irl, and can’t hear the things everyone else tells me are obvious.


These are players with decades of gaming experience, not little kids in their first RPG, why wouldn't they expect humanoid enemies to be able to employ basic tactics like communicating with one another, blocking doors, and keeping watches?

You know, my senile mind says this isn’t the first time I’ve been impressed by how good an answer you’ve given me to a “what would you do (as a player)?” question. Whereas, from your stories, no, I don’t expect your players to outperform the children I’ve gamed with.

Which makes me wonder: how are the games different when you’re a player as opposed to the GM? How do the challenges you face vary?

In fact, as usual, I’d suggest using this opportunity to run a series of one-shots; this time, however, I’d have each member of the group run a 1-shot, with the intent to use them as examples and reference points for a conversation to communicate what everyone wants out of the game.

For example, Brian may run a world where all the NPCs are mute. :smallwink:


Also really curious about how players can get intelligence regardless of their build or proclivities without stripping away all immersion and mystery by just delivering tons of forced exposition.

Eh, different builds can gather information differently. Quertus will gather info simply by what he sees, or via Divinations if he’s really interested in knowing things ahead of time. Armus will allow monsters to exit the dungeon, ambush them, and interrogate them. Pidge will read their minds, while invisibly watching them for days if necessary. Another character might investigate their crafts, materials, defenses, diet, fecal matter, myths, language, or any number of other data points in an attempt to gain further information about the dungeon (EDIT: “these defenses are made from Lizard bones, and appear to be designed to stop charging monsters… on the floor, walls, and ceiling.”).

It’s not about having a “one size fits all” Automatic info dump, it’s about accepting (or at least giving a chance to) any reasonable methods your players come up with. And tailoring the information they get to the method they use, and building content such that most any methods will provide enough answers… or, for some methods, enough questions to encourage them to search for more answers.

Thing is, your players don’t seem to want to play the Information game, do they?


Good point. I need to stop looking at the forumites as a hive mind, but this thread in particular is giving me whiplash and making me think I am missing something key.

I mean, I advised some largely non-reactive dungeons (physically incapable of reacting, stuck in Groundhog Day as one, mostly mindless as another), so we were definitely not all on the same page there.


So here's the thing.

My players care about two things above all else; wealth and pride.

They care more about this than success, ethics, even power and their character's lives, and certainly more than lore or storyline. Even XP means less to them than gold, which always struck me as very odd.

So your job as GM should be to give them an adventure high in wealth and pride. Hint: defeating them with Tuckers kobolds is the opposite of that.

So you need foes that are powerful and foolish, that the party (your players) can outsmart. “Average citizens” dumb enough to have not outsmarted your players, where they will ask for help with monsters that can be kited or defeated with simple traps. You need a world dumb enough that your players (and thereby their characters) look smart in comparison. In a word (and I can’t believe I’m suggesting this), you need the Forgotten Realms, as Ed writes it, where everyone wears their pants on their heads, and thinks it is normal to do so. You need the land of the blind, where your one-eyed players can be king. I never thought I’d be praising that facet of FR, or advising anyone to replicate it, but here we are.

I’m thinking that that’s what your players mean when they say that you take the game more seriously than they do. They want a game where they can come across as smart and competent without having to play the “5d Wizard Chess” that they perceive you to do. Or so I suspect.

So, find the most brain-damaged / mindless module you can find, and try running your group through that.


They would never pay someone for divinations because that is turning treasure into "useless" lore. The same reason they would never play a diviner, it turns combat power into useless lore.


They see having to make deals with monsters as a catastrophic failure because it hurts their wealth and their pride, even though from a utilitarian perspective (meaning their odds of getting to max level and completing the dungeon) they are far better off now than they were before.

Eh, would you really want to read the story of Conan being Tuckered? Would that really make Conan feel like a BDH if it were the first Conan story you ever read? Because (unless they’re playing existing characters from old campaigns) this is their characters’ debut, their first story, and they’re not coming across as Conan.

I’m with your players here. Don’t get me wrong, I play a tactically inept Academia mage, and a whole ship of fools, in addition to the more competent characters in my range. Your players don’t. They’re only interested in ego-boosting BDHs. That’s what you need to promise (in your head, not out loud), and you need to keep that promise. If you haven’t let them tell the story of how their characters are at least Conan level BDHs, you’ve failed to write an acceptable scenario for your players.

Talakeal
2023-03-20, 03:38 PM
So, having the enemies set up behind the PCs without actually starting the attack might work, as it would basically blow up their easy "get out" route, while encouraging them to go further into the dungeon.

That's actually not too far from what happened. They cut off the PCs escape, and then demanded a tribute for letting them go back. Actually attacking would have been both less interesting and less "fair" from a CaS perspective.


But, back to my original question here: how would you avoid getting into a TPK situation in the first place if I made a challenging, reactive dungeon?

By being smarter than the smarties and tougher than the toughies!

Joking aside, lot's of little stuff. But, admittedly, it is tougher at low levels.




Eh, different builds can gather information differently. Quertus will gather info simply by what he sees, or via Divinations if he’s really interested in knowing things ahead of time. Armus will allow monsters to exit the dungeon, ambush them, and interrogate them. Pidge will read their minds, while invisibly watching them for days if necessary. Another character might investigate their crafts, materials, defenses, diet, fecal matter, myths, language, or any number of other data points in an attempt to gain further information about the dungeon (EDIT: “these defenses are made from Lizard bones, and appear to be designed to stop charging monsters… on the floor, walls, and ceiling.”).

It’s not about having a “one size fits all” Automatic info dump, it’s about accepting (or at least giving a chance to) any reasonable methods your players come up with. And tailoring the information they get to the method they use, and building content such that most any methods will provide enough answers… or, for some methods, enough questions to encourage them to search for more answers.

Thing is, your players don’t seem to want to play the Information game, do they?

No, they don't.

There are lots of ways to do it, none of which much interest this party.




So your job as GM should be to give them an adventure high in wealth and pride. Hint: defeating them with Tuckers kobolds is the opposite of that.

So you need foes that are powerful and foolish, that the party (your players) can outsmart. “Average citizens” dumb enough to have not outsmarted your players, where they will ask for help with monsters that can be kited or defeated with simple traps. You need a world dumb enough that your players (and thereby their characters) look smart in comparison. In a word (and I can’t believe I’m suggesting this), you need the Forgotten Realms, as Ed writes it, where everyone wears their pants on their heads, and thinks it is normal to do so. You need the land of the blind, where your one-eyed players can be king. I never thought I’d be praising that facet of FR, or advising anyone to replicate it, but here we are.

I’m thinking that that’s what your players mean when they say that you take the game more seriously than they do. They want a game where they can come across as smart and competent without having to play the “5d Wizard Chess” that they perceive you to do. Or so I suspect.

So, find the most brain-damaged / mindless module you can find, and try running your group through that.


That ribbing on FR gave me a good laugh.

That said, I just don't think I could enjoy running a game like that.





Eh, would you really want to read the story of Conan being Tuckered? Would that really make Conan feel like a BDH if it were the first Conan story you ever read? Because (unless they’re playing existing characters from old campaigns) this is their characters’ debut, their first story, and they’re not coming across as Conan.

Conan specifically, not of the top of my head, no.

But plenty of the fantasy movies I grew up on (Willow, Return of the Jedi, The Last Unicorn, Flight of Dragons, etc.) have scenes where the heroes are captured and end up teaming up with their captors against the true villains.




I’m with your players here. Don’t get me wrong, I play a tactically inept Academia mage, and a whole ship of fools, in addition to the more competent characters in my range. Your players don’t. They’re only interested in ego-boosting BDHs. That’s what you need to promise (in your head, not out loud), and you need to keep that promise. If you haven’t let them tell the story of how their characters are at least Conan level BDHs, you’ve failed to write an acceptable scenario for your players.

Yeah, I guess.

But for me, part of being a Big Damn Hero is being tough and rolling with the punches, not throwing up your hands and committing suicide the first time things don't go your way.

I really like characters who never give up, and for me I really like the drama of captured characters, I love movies like Bridge on the River Kwai or the episode of Star Trek where Worf is in the prison camp. Part of what pissed me off so much about Brian's game is that everyone wants to play a character with a legendary resolve score on paper, but don't actually want to RP anything but a whiny little quitter in the game.

gbaji
2023-03-20, 04:09 PM
So, IMO the ideal game-play loop is the players play as smart as they can to conserve resources and push as deep into the dungeon as they can, and then fall back when their resources are depleted. HOWEVER, the players don't have great scouting ability (and in a dungeon scouting can be pretty tough at the best of times) so that if they decide to push on, go into a new room, and bite off more than they can chew, and fall back, they will put the monsters on alert and make further progress very difficult.

Yes. The "delve as deep as possible, then retreat" is a logical method for exploring some vast underground complex full of "bad things" to fight. I suspect the problem here is the structure of your dungeon. You have to actually think about how real underground "worlds" would be built. They would not be a massive series of tightly constructed hallways and walls, and rooms (like a lot of "dungeon maps actually use"). They would be a series of tunnels connecting a number of larger caves, with the caves having various features in them (and creatures). Some areas maybe more "worked' (meaning actual walls built, with tools and whatnot), but you need to rationalize why those things are there. Most areas should be natural caves, and those don't tend to cluster together closely.

Also, you need to think in terms of this being an ecosystem. Each set of creatures in each area has to live. They have to eat. They have to be able to build things within their areas (if sentient), and survive potential attacks from other creatures in nearby areas. As a result, I tend to build dungeons like this in sections, with each section being "this is where the <insert creature X> live, where they get their water, where they grow their food, heres where some wildish creatures live nearby which they hunt, etc. These sections are designed to be areas the PCs should be able to handle in a single "go", so to speak. You, as the GM, should make it relatively obvious to the players when this is some small batch of violent monsters living in said set of caves, or an intelligent set of enemies, or maybe even allies (or at least neutral folks who will maybe grant you passage, if you help defeate some monster in the caves "over there", that has been raiding them and causing problems or something).

It realy sounds like your players are not treating the world around them as a "real world" and the NPCS within it as actual creatures/people who actually live in that world. Not sure how you can manage this though, except to make it *really* obvious to them which things they're supposed to be fighting and killing, and which things they are supposed to be talking to instead. You'd think the simple observation that "hey, those critters over there are pointing sharp things at us, but not actually attacking, and are speaking to us. Maybe we should try to communicate instead of just killing them home-invasion style". That usually works. Maybe not with your players though.



Because the other possibility is that they're blundering around expecting the loop of the game to be a kick the doors in and take the treasure dungeon crawl where they don't have to think about that kind of stuff, and you're playing a world simulation back to them they aren't expecting or accounting for.

Yeah. I do think they just expect a classic dungeon hack. And hey. As much as I abhor the concept from a "this makes no sense" game world building pov. If that's honestly what my players really really want, I'd just give it to them. But I'd contrive a reason why this is the case. I literaly introduced some other plane the PCs found a way to a bit a go, where it was (horribly cribbed from various MMORPG game zones) basically a "dungeon hack". Complete with planar manifested "monsters" of various types, that... yeah, literally had bodies that faded away when defeated, leaving only the "treasure" behind, and said treasure could include various things that could be assembled into keys to open up more difficult/powerful/treasure-granting areas of said mega dungeon. And yeah, the bad guys will just hang out in their various rooms waiting to be defeated. Cause that's why they are there.

But yeah. I literally contrived this as "this plane was created by some deity as a testing ground for heroes", and left it at that. High level. High power. Gets tougher as you go. I tend to avoid this like the plague in any location in my game settings where "real people" live though. But yeah, if that's what the players want, then give them that. Sometimes, meaningless dungeon hack stuff is a lot of fun. Not something I'd base a long running campaign on, but sure.


Honestly, I can't think of any way to break that aside from working full time as the PCs "PR team" throwing impossibly easy fights at them but somehow conveying AFTER THE FACT* that this was an incredible victory that only someone as smart and powerful as they were could have possibly won, but they managed to score 110%** victory!

Clearly, they need Sir Robin's bard!


Because right now, your players don't know the rules of the game they're trying to play. And so they're failing every time due to things completely beyond their power to account for. They can't have strategies, they can't have plans, because strategies and plans require understanding the rules in which they are expected to operate.

Consider: In the first session they pushed as hard as they could and wore themselves out and had to retreat to rest, then in the second session the same enemy was set up so that if they did it again they would fail (and that's what happened). The enemy had unlimited ability to recover to a position much stronger than they had started and so the players had made negative progress.

In the third session they tried not to wear themselves out by using resource conserving hit and run attacks, but again the situation forced them to fail by trying that due to introducing something they had no way of accounting for (alliances between monster groups).

So the only rule right now is "there are no correct approaches, everything we do gets hard countered".

Yeah. I'm not sure how much of the "rule" was actually conveyed to the players (or how much "stuck" in their minds anyway). I also don't think that's a correct assessment. The first session, they fought a single fight, didn't come anywhere near exhausting their resources, defeated one room, then retreated. The second session, they returned to the same location, to find that the kobolds they'd attacked (and killed just one room of), had prepared for the party's return, ambused them, and forced their surrender. The lesson there should have been "don't attack a small portion of one group unless you either continue on to defeat the entire group, or don't ever come back".

The third session was a case of them once again attacking and just killing the first room of a group of monsters, and then retreated (so they didn't "learn the lesson at all"). This time, the monsters they attacked, formed a pact with another set of nearby monsters to engaged in mutual defense against the party, so when the party returned they got overwhelmed again.

Seems to me like this isn't a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't", but the players literally repeating the exact same mistake over and over again and then beisng surprised when it fails in the exact same way. ie: if you attack someone, but don't actually finish them off, they'll take some action to be better able to handle you if you return. Twice in a row, they attacked a group of opponents, just killed the first batch they ran into, and then left. Then, they just came right back expecting to... what? Just kill the next room of opponents and then retreat again and rinse/repeat forever? The first time this "failed" should have been a wake up call that this tactic is a poor one. That they effectively repeated the exact same tactic the very next game session kinda speaks volumes about these players.

This is seriously a "light grenade" scenario. If the players can't noodle this out...


Second, how easy is it too knock on a stone wall to tell how thick it is? In video games this is a very common tactic for checking for secret rooms, but I have never heard of anyone doing this in a tabletop dungeon crawl.

Actual secret walls/doors/panels in actual "dungeons" (or castles) are not how they are usually depected in films/tv. They aren't solid stone sections that slide to the side, or out, or in, or whatever (barring some kind of magic thingie, or really good crafting work). A 6" thick actual stone wall large enough to walk through would weigh a ridiculous amount (a little over 80lbs per 1'x1'x6" section, so a 5'x3' section would weigh over 1200lbs) and would never actually support its own weight if it were something that could slide, or open on a hinge or something. Such "real stone" panels would be something that might be opened once maybe, and require significant work to get them back into place. More likely a "secret door" would likely be a woden door, with some kind of veneer on it to make it look like the solid stone wall around it. So some mortar, and fake brick spackled on the door to match the real stone bricks and mortar around it. Actually trying to do this to match a stone wall (and make it look correct) is quite difficult, and often very easy to spot if you take a short amount of time actually looking closely. Hence, hiding them behind other objects in a room anyway or otherwise disquising them. So yeah. You can absolutely tell whether what appears to be a stone wall is just a facade, or is actually a full thickness stone or brick wall. And yeah. If well disquised visually, tapping will tend to work well.

More common (and honestly harder to detect) are actual wooden secret doors, in actual woden structures. Realize that even in stone castles, a heck of a lot of the interior may be wooden floors, walls, etc. I spent a few years as a kid living in a very rural redwood forested area. There was this very interesting guy (apparently a professor at the local college, but I didn't actually know that at the time). He lived a few blocks from a friends house (well, blocks is misleading, more like down the semi paved road that ran behind my friends house that we rode our bikes on). He had built an actual castle on his property. Like three stories tall, stone outer wall (one level high), with wooden structures filling the interior (and overlooking the outer wall itself). The thing was chock full of secret passages and doors. My friend and I used to go over there and play in that castle for hours and hours, just wandering around, climbing the walls, finding secret trap doors (not actual "traps" of course), cllimbing back inside the walls, finding more secret doors that went into various rooms from the back side, finding more passages that went under ground, and other ladders that would take you to up though trap doors into other areas inside the castle, etc. Once you found you way into the secret areas, there were winches or latches that opened up other doors and what not. It was fun! Like ridiculously fun (and probably an insurance nightmare today, but no one cared about that back then). Apparently, it's been built up into even more stuff since then over time, and the castle itself burned down and had to be rebuilt, so who knows if I'd be able to navigate it like I did as a kid.

Wooden "secret doors", if they are built even semi intelligently and only hinge/open on the "other side" are quite difficult to tell from any normal section of wooden wall framed by studs and supports. You can noodle it out if there's some "wiggle" in them. That's about it. Stone wall sections? Either completely impossible if they are as thick as the actual walls (but have some magic, or dwarven crafting to make them or something), or really quite easy if made via more "mortal" methods.



Also really curious about how players can get intelligence regardless of their build or proclivities without stripping away all immersion and mystery by just delivering tons of forced exposition.

I suppose that somewhat depends on how much of a stickler you are going to be as a GM to require specific intelligence gathering skills to be used. On the one hand, if no one has them, then you are condemning your players to constantly stumble around (which maybe should encourage them to learn this stuff). On the other hand, if you do allow PCs to "figure stuff out" even without such skills, then it eliminates the reason for having them in the game, and will effectively punish players for taking them. So you need to decide this, and let your players know during character build if such skills are important, so that they can intelligently choose them (at least make sure someone has some appropriate skills).

Having said this, there's a lot of stuff that should be possible to learn without special skills. Seriously. As the GM, you control the NPCs. Unless the first thing the NPCs do when seeing the PCs is attack, that should be a hint to the PCs to stop and talk to them. And that should lead to simple roleplaying to determine what happens. If the NPCs don't want violence, and the PCs would prefer to not have to fight these guys if there's another option, this should not take special skills to negoatiate.

I guess I'm somewhat flumuxed here, because to me the default condition for any encounter should be "not to fight". So if you aren't having your NPCs automatically attack, then what? Are the PCs just automatically attacking any NPC they encounter, thus forcing this into a combat situation? If that's the case, there's your problem right there.

Vahnavoi
2023-03-20, 04:38 PM
The "downward spiral" is completely psychological, not mechanical.

Then what you need is a coaching handbook for how to get a bunch of negative nellies out of a funk. This is a known thing, there are things you can do about it, but they exist outside the realm of game design.


Two generic questions about dungeon crawling:

Most doors open inward so that people can't simply open them by taking them off the hinges, correct? Is there a way to stop such a door from being opened from the outside? Spiking doors work great for stopping monsters getting in, but is there a similar technique for stopping them from getting out?

Second, how easy is it too knock on a stone wall to tell how thick it is? In video games this is a very common tactic for checking for secret rooms, but I have never heard of anyone doing this in a tabletop dungeon crawl.

For the first question, which way doors open is decided by more than one consideration. Especially indoors, where space requirements and direction of common movement are important considerations. For example, where I live, castle gates open inward (so. they'd be easy to defend, similar to what you note), but church doors open outward, so that if there's a fire inside the church during mass gathering, people rushing out will not block the door.
Apartment houses may have double doors for heat or noise control, in which case the outer door opens outwards and the inner door opens inwards.With that additional context out of the way, beams can be used to hold a door closed from either side. If the door opens away from you, some hooks or claws need to be attached to anchor the beam. Depending on make of the door, other solutions are possible. For example, a metal door can be solded or welded shut. Wooden doors can sometimes be frozen shut with enough water. Nailing or gluing planks across a wooden door will at least make pulling it open more difficult. If there's enough time, build another door that opens towards you and the barricade that.

For the second question, different materials will make different sounds when they are struck, and the sounds will also differ based on what's behind. Ultrasound imaging is the high tech version of this. Measuring how thick a wall is, is hard, but almost anyone with ears can, just by trial and error, notice hollow spaces behind thin walls or when material of wall changes from one to another. You can probably test this immediately in the house you live in. If you've never heard of anyone doing this in a tabletop game, you've not played games where architechture is important. It isn't just for finding secret doors. It's also for finding weak wall sections to break or repair, for finding hidden or obscured details in structures, in some cases for finding ore or water veins, etc.

Quertus
2023-03-20, 06:44 PM
That ribbing on FR gave me a good laugh.

Glad you enjoyed it. :smallbiggrin:


That said, I just don't think I could enjoy running a game like that.

Give it a try. You might be surprised.

But... let's look at this from another PoV.

Look at just how often your players make boneheaded mistakes. And just how bad those mistakes are.

Let's assume you'll forget or underestimate some of those errors, and so let's set the baseline at "make worse mistakes more often".

Let's call that baseline "genius level" in your new setting.

And let's never have the PCs encounter anything at genius level. Let's always only have them encounter things between "mindless" and "average" for their first campaign in this new setting.

Of course the (secret) name of this setting is "The Land of the Blind". But now the secret tagline is, "Like most GMs, Talakeal is terrible at roleplaying just how stupid real people really are", since the "This is how dumb the setting has to be to make your players feel good" tagline makes you feel unmotivated. (Is that fair? No. But it is your fault if the PCs come off as dumber than the players. So ask yourself: are your players really that dumb? If not (and I assume they're not), until you fix that gap, make the other denizens of your world just as dumb as you make the PCs. Maybe that'll encourage you to figure out how to fix that gap. Consider it your punishment, the one your players probably want to give you when they say that you care more than they do.)

Does this alternate perspective, of self-blame (AKA "This is an Opportunity, because it's something *I* can fix!"), and caring more about your players and less about your setting, make you feel any more motivated to create The Land of the Blind, Forgotten Realms rip off #980q391037?


Conan specifically, not of the top of my head, no.

But plenty of the fantasy movies I grew up on (Willow, Return of the Jedi, The Last Unicorn, Flight of Dragons, etc.) have scenes where the heroes are captured and end up teaming up with their captors against the true villains.

And in how many of those did the protagonists start out with a desire to genocidally murder and loot these future allies based on their race / species? I think there's a certain shared something in most of those movies, that contrasts with a (very important to maintain) complete lack of respect for their very existence in most "murder other sentient beings" Fantasy settings.


Yeah, I guess.

But for me, part of being a Big Damn Hero is being tough and rolling with the punches, not throwing up your hands and committing suicide the first time things don't go your way.

I really like characters who never give up, and for me I really like the drama of captured characters, I love movies like Bridge on the River Kwai or the episode of Star Trek where Worf is in the prison camp. Part of what pissed me off so much about Brian's game is that everyone wants to play a character with a legendary resolve score on paper, but don't actually want to RP anything but a whiny little quitter in the game.

That's tough.

So, there's lots of components to this. And I don't give your players credit for understanding even as many of them as I'll bother to list.

For some, like "prison camp" (where I don't remember the Worf reference, I only remember "There. Are. Four. Lights!" or whatever)... I have negative interest in roleplaying through anything like that, regardless of my character. SO, to repurpose some words, despite the Simulation saying that "imprisoned + strong willed" is a good combination, Gamist concerns of "the players find that anti-fun" suggest that's a bad target to aim for.

"Having a high ____" (saving throw, pain tolerance, torture resistance skill, whatever) is just a die roll, not something that is itself directly roleplayed. IRL, I had a root canal without anesthetic. But very few people who know me casually would suspect I have a high tolerance for pain. The correlation between these stats and roleplaying... aren't exactly something I'd expect from your group, so let's call them "unrelated". (On an unrelated note, I would love to be able to birth a child. But unless medical science has advanced further than I'm aware, XY says that's impossible, so I could never even call it a goal or bucket list item.)

"Rolling with punches", making lemonade out of lemons... is an acquired taste, and not the only form of being an underdog, a state which is itself not exactly essential to gaming.

I suspect that your players are "allergic" to Setbacks - to events in game leading to a game state that is worse than where they started. And that's a perfectly valid preference, even for people who are the picture of mental health, who don't suffer from depression.

I'm going to interrupt myself, and suggest you try a 1-shot of Shadowrun (or CP2020, or some other "Heist" game), where the PCs a) are the underdogs (compared to the Megacorp or whatever); b) absolutely and obviously HAVE to do recon / gather intel / come up with a plan b2) *before* the action (so none of this retcon powers ** from RPGs designed to emulate Heist movies (that would, in addition to being bad on its own merits, would give your players even more bad habits)). This will provide data on how your players handle other forms of being the underdog, how they handle planning / recon / whatever when it's obviously a required part of the game (as opposed to D&D, where "kick in the door" is a valid playstyle), and... lost my train of thought.

I'm not sure how your players handle other forms of "underdogism", to know if that form of BDH is for them.

That said, if you look at many (OP) Isekai characters, or the party I call my "BDH Party", they aren't BDHs because they're some weak underdog who has to roll with punches (often or ever), but explicitly because they don't (usually) even feel such punches, and just wade through such obstacles as though they were humans, trivially defeating things that lesser beings would struggle with. So being a BDH does not, in point of fact, require rolling with the punches, and they are certainly not required to actively have done so while "on screen" to be a BDH.

(Yes, yes, it almost certainly makes for a better movie or whatever if they do, but you're not making a movie, you're playing an RPG.)

Then, in the case of my BDH Party, after wading through the intended challenges like they were humans, struggling with things like "convincing the 'supposed to be friendly' village that we're the good guys allies a lesser evil than the one we're here to end".

Your players probably don't have your preferences of liking characters who never give up, and, even if they did, their depression doesn't let them roleplay through the "not giving up when bad things happen". At best, they can have high stats that let them roll "I don't give up" rolls, so that they never have to deal with bad things happening. You can make lemonade; they want to roll to not get lemons. Same core concept, completely opposite implementation in that one key area. Good luck wrapping your noodle around that one (unless, you know, you are built to have an easier time of it than I am, because people are different, dagnabbit!).

Lacco
2023-03-21, 08:57 AM
Likewise, what sort of "rules" should I set for myself? And how do those avoid breaking verisimilitude?

I think I saw a post regarding this topic some time ago, but I'm not able to trace it back. I remember the main point: it's easy for a GM to forget that he plays effectively a hivemind (all individual NPCs can act in 100% organized way and communicate their intents telepathically and without errors), while the rest of the players are somewhere on the scale between bunch of pre-schoolers to a SWAT team.

If we are talking about rules to play the enemies - not only monsters - smart, but not too smart, the basic rule is to play the enemies according to their mentality and abilities. I tend to underplay their efficiency, mainly because I deal with projects and organizations in RL and therefore I know that most of the time, even the well-oiled machines break down because of petty bathroom squabbles and a night of a bad sleep.

I always attempt to play the enemy as if they were actual beings - unless we are talking uber-enemies (e.g. genius level tacticians). So if I have a bunch of kobolds, they will use basic tactics, but they will pile them up in several layers. Elite dwarven legionnaires will be highly organized and will never run - even their retreats will be organized. Bandits will mainly focus on causing chaos and mayhem, and if their ambush fails, they will run away.

So: smart play depends on the attributes of the actors. So a goblin group (my world, my goblins) will have certain 'smarts' - they will be savage and will try to overwhelm, but may use some hit & run tactics. However, they will not keep rotating guard posts, won't go for complex traps and their idea of ambush is 'Groik yells "ATTTAAAACK" and we run and kill them". They will also run if their attack does not work well - and if more than half starts to run, they all run. Except for the one-eyed guy deep in the front who did not notice.

Monsters that are closer to animals are a different thing: they will mostly rely on instinct and learned behaviour.

Applying that to my GMing leads to a non-written set of rules:

Enemy is as smart as his character sheet tells me (even if I do extrapolate it).
A smart NPC may always make a stupid decision when in high-stress situation such as battle.
Allies may easily become enemies on daily basis.
There are no walkie-talkies in a dungeon.
If in doubt, check the ability to notice/hear stuff.
Morale is a thing.
Even if the enemy has a plan, one cog will fail.
Elite enemies have a backup plan even if one cog fails.


So some of the fights look like real mess: the enemies shout at each other, bicker, don't relentlessly attack (because they are waiting for their friends to jump in) and don't always make tactical or sensible choices.

On the other side, a smart enemies will play to their strengths, will plan, will communicate, will even stop to think about the situation, and will - sometimes - mess up.

Uber-tacticians will be ready for anything the players throw at them unless it genuinely surprises me - and even then they may have a response at hand unless they run out of resources or are unable to foil the players.

These also usually help avoid breaking verisimilitude at my table.


Also really curious about how players can get intelligence regardless of their build or proclivities without stripping away all immersion and mystery by just delivering tons of forced exposition.

Intelligence in megadungeon? Assuming we are talking about collecting clues about the enemy, there are some clues that can be provided without players using skills.

If there are several dozens of human skulls (with helmets) on pikes in front of the goblin encampement, they may assume the goblins were able to take out some folks. If there is a long hallway filled with human, dwarven and elven skulls, with some relatively fresh heads in the end, covered in goblin markings, they may take it as more serious warning.

Bloodstains, broken arrows and scorches may show them this spot is used for ambush and may even give them clue what to expect.

Hearing shouting, bickering and drunk singing may tell them the discipline is not the main focus.

Dead bodies tell very detailed tales about the thing that happened to them.

Do you mean intelligence like this? Or did you mean something different?

Vahnavoi
2023-03-21, 10:15 AM
@Lacco: sounds like you're referring to a post by Icefractal, I forgot the thread. There's been discussion on the same topic in this thread. Anyways, out of your rules, there is one that needs amending: "there are no walkie talkies in a dungeon". There are in fact several fictional conceits that could give either players or enemies a functionally equivalent, from telepathy to messenger familiar, even if you're not giving anyone a literal radio.

A better rule would be, "keep in mind how communication is done". This cuts both ways. If player characters are given sufficient communication channels, that will go a long way to answer how they can gain intelligence of a dungeon. It allows for new tactics, like splitting to scout ahead, without it being an automatic fail on their part.

gbaji
2023-03-21, 06:43 PM
If we are talking about rules to play the enemies - not only monsters - smart, but not too smart, the basic rule is to play the enemies according to their mentality and abilities. I tend to underplay their efficiency, mainly because I deal with projects and organizations in RL and therefore I know that most of the time, even the well-oiled machines break down because of petty bathroom squabbles and a night of a bad sleep.

I always attempt to play the enemy as if they were actual beings - unless we are talking uber-enemies (e.g. genius level tacticians). So if I have a bunch of kobolds, they will use basic tactics, but they will pile them up in several layers. Elite dwarven legionnaires will be highly organized and will never run - even their retreats will be organized. Bandits will mainly focus on causing chaos and mayhem, and if their ambush fails, they will run away.

So: smart play depends on the attributes of the actors. So a goblin group (my world, my goblins) will have certain 'smarts' - they will be savage and will try to overwhelm, but may use some hit & run tactics. However, they will not keep rotating guard posts, won't go for complex traps and their idea of ambush is 'Groik yells "ATTTAAAACK" and we run and kill them". They will also run if their attack does not work well - and if more than half starts to run, they all run. Except for the one-eyed guy deep in the front who did not notice.

Yup. Important for the GM to actually "roleplay" the NPCs based on their actual capabilities. It's probably one of the most difficult things for GMs to learn to do though, since it almost always involves the GM actively *not* acting on information he knows, so as to lower the capabilities of the NPCs. But one of the worse things for a game is if/when the players notice the NPCs acting in ways that they should not, based on them having information they should not. If you have players regularly asking "how did that NPC know to do X?", you are probably failing at this to some degree.

I also vary the amount of coordination of my NPCs based on training. My players can often tell, just from how I'm running the NPCs in a combat, whether this is a "random group of enemies" or "well trained squad who fight/train together regularly", just by how they move and coordinate their actions. It's one of those aspects of an NPC encounter that isn't going to appear on a stat block, but adds a ton of realism to the encounter itself. And also a way to make things that maybe look extremely diffuclt turn out to be a lot easier (or at least less difficult) when the PCs actually engage.

Discovering part way in a fight that the bad guys aren't covering eachother properly, and/or sometimes leave gaps undefended, or seem confused about who is supposed to be defending where, makes a huge difference in the actual difficulty of the fight for the PCs. Sometimes, you can include humorous bits in there as well. PCs are advancing, but there's a pit trap in front of them. Some of the enemies charge forward to attack the PCs, while one of them runs back and pulls the lever for the pit trap, and.... a few of their own guys fall because in his panic, he didn't look to see who was actually on the stretch of flooring, and the other guys in their panic didn't realize that they were charging across one of their own defenses to attack the party. This sort of thing serves both to whittle down the defenders a bit *and* allow the GM to present something that would have been a logical and very nasty defense (and perhaps warn the players to keep an eye out for stuff like this further in), without actually springing it on them.

GloatingSwine
2023-03-22, 07:52 AM
Likewise, what sort of "rules" should I set for myself? And how do those avoid breaking verisimilitude?

The rules need to be things like:

What will group A try doing in response to an attack, how good are they at it, how long will can they try and keep it up, what will they do then? And you need to have that all prewritten and never change it no matter what your players do, because this is the character of the NPCs you're playing and the material limitations of their situation.

And remember, your job isn't to beat your players it's to challenge them. Instead of working as hard as you can to make their strategy fail, make them work harder to make it succeed.

If their responses are going to include things like co-operation with other groups every group you introduce needs a prewritten diplomatic situation, who it likes, who it doesn't like, who it will and won't fight with, and all of these need to be written down before the players meet them and not change until the players interact in a way that changes them. This needs to be relatively common knowledge among the denizens and you need to at least offer the basics without the players asking (because they're not going to and you know it.) So when your players were at least talking to the Kobolds you need one to tell them what the basic diplomatic state of the area is.

Also also: This is the start of the dungeon, you shouldn't be pulling out all the stops (fortifications and ambushes and alliances) at the start. These groups should have simpler responses that they're worse at doing. Like have your kobolds throw up some basic fortifications, and if the players continue to hit and run have them eventually run out of the ability to do so. They don't have infinite resources, they can't build back stronger every time. If you want your players to suffer from not being decisive enough have them come back one day and find that the Kobolds have cleared out and they get less for winning than they would have otherwise, but clearly describe that something is changing in their behaviour. 2 or so encounters before this make it clear to the players that the enemy seems to now be buying time instead of fighting to repel them. (You may need to make it even more explicit on the first few "they look like they're clearing out, if you don't push through now you'll lose your chance". This is because your players have +100 to save vs. hints)

Talakeal
2023-03-22, 07:57 AM
So my players have decided not to quit, but they did come up with a new plan.

Rather than going into the dungeon themselves, they are going to sit in safe areas and summon incorporeal creatures to clear out the dungeon for them. This is smart (I have seen plenty of solutions for everything from the Tarrasque to Tucker's kobolds that boil down to "Summon Allip. Wait. Loot.") but isn't exactly fun game play.

Clearly, there are many things in the dungeon that can deal with incorporeal foes, but the majority have no way to harm them.

Any idea how I should arbitrate this?

Amidus Drexel
2023-03-22, 08:23 AM
So my players have decided not to quit, but they did come up with a new plan.

Rather than going into the dungeon themselves, they are going to sit in safe areas and summon incorporeal creatures to clear out the dungeon for them. This is smart (I have seen plenty of solutions for everything from the Tarrasque to Tucker's kobolds that boil down to "Summon Allip. Wait. Loot.") but isn't exactly fun game play.

Clearly, there are many things in the dungeon that can deal with incorporeal foes, but the majority have no way to harm them.

Any idea how I should arbitrate this?

The tricky thing here is balancing "rewarding your players for a smart solution" and "keeping the game fun for all involved". It should definitely work for the enemies they've already scouted that have no defenses against this kind of attack - that's the reward for their smart plan. (Ones that haven't been scouted might be taken by surprise or might have adequate defenses - the players have no way of knowing ahead of time. It's definitely a cool callback to occasionally have them find something that's already been killed by their advance force of summons).

Since you're playing a custom system (iirc) - depending on how your system works - if incorporeal creatures multiply when they kill things, there might be more dangerous (but less organized) spawn creatures left in the area. Presumably if your players can summon them, they can handle some number of them in a fight. For your players in particular, you might want to remind them that created spawn won't necessarily be under their personal control, and about any lore or setting-level consequences for these kinds of actions (corruption, alignment shift, bad reputation, attention of evil entities, etc.).

If incorporeal creatures in your system behave like incorporeal undead in older D&D editions, you should probably avoid ambushes with more than 1 or 2 enemies - any stat-draining or paralyzing creature in multiples quickly creates a death spiral once it succeeds on even a single attack (assuming it survives a round of combat). Let the party spot them well ahead of time at least twice before they get jumped by a single shadow/wraith/etc. later on, and do your best to telegraph ambushes.

GloatingSwine
2023-03-22, 08:39 AM
Any idea how I should arbitrate this?

Have most enemies run away from it until the players get bored of doing it.

Quertus
2023-03-22, 10:11 AM
So my players have decided not to quit, but they did come up with a new plan.

Rather than going into the dungeon themselves, they are going to sit in safe areas and summon incorporeal creatures to clear out the dungeon for them. This is smart (I have seen plenty of solutions for everything from the Tarrasque to Tucker's kobolds that boil down to "Summon Allip. Wait. Loot.") but isn't exactly fun game play.

Clearly, there are many things in the dungeon that can deal with incorporeal foes, but the majority have no way to harm them.

Any idea how I should arbitrate this?

Have the incorporeal creatures kill everything that has no defense against them. Done. Having discouraged brave play, reap what you sowed, and give your players a well-deserved win.

Now, note that "running away" technically is a defense against incorporeal creatures... but that may well just result in "100 goblin corpses were found next to 50 gnoll corpses at the edge of the gnoll camp, then the remaining 50 gnolls were killed by the incorporeal creatures".

Actually roleplay (gasp!) the magadungeon's inhabitants, have them do what they've already done, and ally with one another against this threat... only to still be killed by it.

Let your players learn all about how the magedungeon operates by all the corpses they see as they loot their way through the megadunegon.

Then - after you've beaten these lessons home over and over with detailed reports of corpses they've looted - make them actually use that knowledge when they come across foes that were able to kill the incorporeal creatures. Or hide from them (darn Mimics). Or whatever.

Talakeal
2023-03-22, 12:06 PM
The tricky thing here is balancing "rewarding your players for a smart solution" and "keeping the game fun for all involved". It should definitely work for the enemies they've already scouted that have no defenses against this kind of attack - that's the reward for their smart plan. (Ones that haven't been scouted might be taken by surprise or might have adequate defenses - the players have no way of knowing ahead of time. It's definitely a cool callback to occasionally have them find something that's already been killed by their advance force of summons).

Since you're playing a custom system (iirc) - depending on how your system works - if incorporeal creatures multiply when they kill things, there might be more dangerous (but less organized) spawn creatures left in the area. Presumably if your players can summon them, they can handle some number of them in a fight. For your players in particular, you might want to remind them that created spawn won't necessarily be under their personal control, and about any lore or setting-level consequences for these kinds of actions (corruption, alignment shift, bad reputation, attention of evil entities, etc.).

If incorporeal creatures in your system behave like incorporeal undead in older D&D editions, you should probably avoid ambushes with more than 1 or 2 enemies - any stat-draining or paralyzing creature in multiples quickly creates a death spiral once it succeeds on even a single attack (assuming it survives a round of combat). Let the party spot them well ahead of time at least twice before they get jumped by a single shadow/wraith/etc. later on, and do your best to telegraph ambushes.

Elementals, not self replicating undead.


Have the incorporeal creatures kill everything that has no defense against them. Done. Having discouraged brave play, reap what you sowed, and give your players a well-deserved win.

Now, note that "running away" technically is a defense against incorporeal creatures... but that may well just result in "100 goblin corpses were found next to 50 gnoll corpses at the edge of the gnoll camp, then the remaining 50 gnolls were killed by the incorporeal creatures".

Actually roleplay (gasp!) the magadungeon's inhabitants, have them do what they've already done, and ally with one another against this threat... only to still be killed by it.

Let your players learn all about how the mage-dungeon operates by all the corpses they see as they loot their way through the megadunegon.

Then - after you've beaten these lessons home over and over with detailed reports of corpses they've looted - make them actually use that knowledge when they come across foes that were able to kill the incorporeal creatures. Or hide from them (darn Mimics). Or whatever.

You lost me.

And yes, RPing the monsters is the core of this. But this requires a long solo game, I was wondering if there is any way to do it reasonably without having an entire series of solo sessions to myself.

What discouraged brave play? All of their failures are (so far) caused by running away from a threat rather than dealing with it.

What did they do to make them "well-deserving" of a win? And why do their previous forty odd victories not count?

What lessons are there to be learned from the corpses? I mean, subtle hints sure, but nothing that the PCs are likely to pick up on.

You really think everything should just die? I mean, a single incorporeal creature is going to take a LOOOOOOONG time to hunt down and kill everything in the dungeon, and there is plenty of stuff in there that can kill or banish it. Likewise, won't other monsters loot all of the corpses?

GloatingSwine
2023-03-22, 01:04 PM
What discouraged brave play? All of their failures are (so far) caused by running away from a threat rather than dealing with it.


Are they?

In your campaign diary thread the first and second expeditions they returned to town when they were, in your words, pretty beat up and in need of rest, and the third and fourth both seem to have gone south due to a miscast/wild surge from the wizard gooning someone unexpectedly. So that's 2 where they seem to have done as you wanted, 2 where they lost because of bad dice when the wizard TKOd herself, one where they assessed they were outmatched (and the wizard gooned someone with a miscast) and one where they got the two prong ambush (that apparently you know they are bad at dealing with so should probably tone down).

From the campaign diary I'm having a hard time tracking whether they're making progress when they score victories. They win encounters, but they only seem to win the ones that don't matter. Any time they encounter anything that seems significant in the diary they get krumped. Twice by their own wizard.

It very much seems from the campaign diary that the party is simply outmatched quite a lot of the time, and their retreats are happening because the fights actually are going badly for them.

Talakeal
2023-03-22, 01:35 PM
Are they?

In your campaign diary thread the first and second expeditions they returned to town when they were, in your words, pretty beat up and in need of rest, and the third and fourth both seem to have gone south due to a miscast/wild surge from the wizard gooning someone unexpectedly. So that's 2 where they seem to have done as you wanted, 2 where they lost because of bad dice when the wizard TKOd herself, one where they assessed they were outmatched (and the wizard gooned someone with a miscast) and one where they got the two prong ambush (that apparently you know they are bad at dealing with so should probably tone down).

From the campaign diary I'm having a hard time tracking whether they're making progress when they score victories. They win encounters, but they only seem to win the ones that don't matter. Any time they encounter anything that seems significant in the diary they get krumped. Twice by their own wizard.

It very much seems from the campaign diary that the party is simply outmatched quite a lot of the time, and their retreats are happening because the fights actually are going badly for them.

Honestly, I think the game is going fine.

The game is balanced around ~5 encounters per day, and so far they have cleared 35 encounters and had seven adventuring days, so they are right on track.

They aren't really "making progress" yet as they haven't really gotten their feet under them and are just kind of wandering around the dungeon rather than committing to one direction, but at this point they are still earning XP and treasure, and have mapped ~80% of the first floor, and they certainly aren't struggling to survive.

I don't really think they are being cowardly (this time), but I also wouldn't say they are being discouraged from being brave.

As you point out, the defeat at the hands of the olags was pretty random, a chase of wild magic being wild magic, and I would have probably fallen back at this point as well.

The only real failure on their part was not thinking to block the doors to the ghasts or adjust their tactics in the rematch.

GloatingSwine
2023-03-22, 01:50 PM
Honestly, I think the game is going fine.

The game is balanced around ~5 encounters per day, and so far they have cleared 35 encounters and had seven adventuring days, so they are right on track.

They aren't really "making progress" yet as they haven't really gotten their feet under them and are just kind of wandering around the dungeon rather than committing to one direction, but at this point they are still earning XP and treasure, and have mapped ~80% of the first floor, and they certainly aren't struggling to survive.

If they've mapped out 80% of the floor and still have no idea where they should be going in order to "commit to a direction" something in the design is too opaque for them. And whilst you say they aren't struggling to survive they've gotten pretty thoroughly walloped several times (characters downed, lasting infections, forced into one-sided deals to survive). And many of their most significant failures the only reason they're in that situation is "should have rolled better".


The only real failure on their part was not thinking to block the doors to the ghasts or adjust their tactics in the rematch.

The reason they failed against the ghasts the first time was that the wizard, once again, whiffed a roll and caused friendly fire whilst failing to block the rest of the horde. So why would they have changed tactics? What, in your mind, should they have done differently the second time

Talakeal
2023-03-22, 02:04 PM
If they've mapped out 80% of the floor and still have no idea where they should be going in order to "commit to a direction" something in the design is too opaque for them. And whilst you say they aren't struggling to survive they've gotten pretty thoroughly walloped several times (characters downed, lasting infections, forced into one-sided deals to survive). And many of their most significant failures the only reason they're in that situation is "should have rolled better".

This is some good critical feedback. Thank you.

I agree, it is kind of opaque design, this is somewhat intentional as right now the whole thing is a big mystery with a lot more questions than answers.

They aren't really going about it "wrong" per se; I just figured that they would explore and clear sections one at a time rather than drifting around and checking things out more or less on a whim, scraping the surface of the most areas without digging too deep.

Again, its not "wrong" but it does kind of have the downside of leaving threats behind them, stirring up hornets nests without clearing them, and they haven't yet gotten to any of the big treasures.


The reason they failed against the ghasts the first time was that the wizard, once again, whiffed a roll and caused friendly fire whilst failing to block the rest of the horde. So why would they have changed tactics? What, in your mind, should they have done differently the second time

Hard to describe without a map.

Basically, the ghasts had to move through a narrow chokepoint to get to them. If they had moved forward and taken the chokepoint, they could have easily taken them down one at a time without a struggle.

Instead, they turtled up and let the ghasts completely surround them and did nothing to stem the flow of reinforcements.

Lacco
2023-03-22, 02:16 PM
@Lacco: sounds like you're referring to a post by Icefractal, I forgot the thread. There's been discussion on the same topic in this thread. Anyways, out of your rules, there is one that needs amending: "there are no walkie talkies in a dungeon". There are in fact several fictional conceits that could give either players or enemies a functionally equivalent, from telepathy to messenger familiar, even if you're not giving anyone a literal radio.

A better rule would be, "keep in mind how communication is done". This cuts both ways. If player characters are given sufficient communication channels, that will go a long way to answer how they can gain intelligence of a dungeon. It allows for new tactics, like splitting to scout ahead, without it being an automatic fail on their part.

I agree - the intent was similar although my wording was much different. The "no walkie talkies" rule originated due to my players switching from Shadowrun (where commlinks, especially the implanted ones, provide them with almost absolute communication freedom) to a low/no magic system with nothing you mentioned.

For other tables, the rule would need to be extended to the wording you used.

It's strange that in many games I've seen, IC communication is the thing that ceases as soon as the combat begins.


Yup. Important for the GM to actually "roleplay" the NPCs based on their actual capabilities. It's probably one of the most difficult things for GMs to learn to do though, since it almost always involves the GM actively *not* acting on information he knows, so as to lower the capabilities of the NPCs. But one of the worse things for a game is if/when the players notice the NPCs acting in ways that they should not, based on them having information they should not. If you have players regularly asking "how did that NPC know to do X?", you are probably failing at this to some degree.

It's a good tell. And also, it serves well to create a good distinction between individual enemies - when all enemies fight as smart enemies, there is no difference. When some are just savages, some are trained and some are genius level (where you can ignore the 'how did that NPC know?" question some of the time), players are actually rewarded for their own ability to outsmart them.


And remember, your job isn't to beat your players it's to challenge them. Instead of working as hard as you can to make their strategy fail, make them work harder to make it succeed.

Hope you don't mind that I will shamelessly quote this in any GM rules section that I will ever write...


And yes, RPing the monsters is the core of this. But this requires a long solo game, I was wondering if there is any way to do it reasonably without having an entire series of solo sessions to myself.

...really?

Well, did you have a long solo game for the town shopkeeper to venture into next town to get his merchandise? Or a long solo game for the townsfolk to create the settlement? Did you roleplay the individual forces that created the dungeon?

While there is some merit in going this deep, I think you can ignore some of the rules and eyeball it/make assumptions/make an educated guess and just wing the actual roleplay. The idea is mostly to take a look at the situation from the monsters' point of view, and judge what actually happens (the result) without going through the process.

However, if you need, I'd suggest going the 'random but not random' way. You can put together some random monster downtime action table and use it to speed up the process (I already have some ideas in my head). And there already are some resources that you could use (take a look at How to Host a Dungeon; even the first edition is quite good even if somewhat limited).

gbaji
2023-03-22, 02:27 PM
They aren't really going about it "wrong" per se; I just figured that they would explore and clear sections one at a time rather than drifting around and checking things out more or less on a whim, scraping the surface of the most areas without digging too deep.

Again, its not "wrong" but it does kind of have the downside of leaving threats behind them, stirring up hornets nests without clearing them, and they haven't yet gotten to any of the big treasures.

Which, honestly, is not an unreasaonble expectation. Your players apparently failed "dungeon clearing 101" at RPG school.

You enter the dungeon, follow a tunnel, which opens up into a room. This room has three closed doors, one heading in a different cardinal direction. Do you:

1. Open the first door, fully explore everything behind that door, including passageways, additional rooms, and using the same "fully explore behind each door" pattern when encountering additional rooms with doors in it, and only return to the first entrance room after every single thing behind that door is explored (or can no longer be due to locked/blocked/warded/whatever stuff that maybe requires something from behind a different dungeon area to access).

Or...

2. Open the first door, explore far enough to hit one encounter of opponents, and then turn around, go back to the entrance room (and perhaps out of the dungeon entirely to rest), then come back and explore a second door in the entrance room. Repeat the same process, then return and check out the third door. Then, apparently, continue to bounce back and forth, trying different doors willy nilly.

Pssst! The answer is always "1". Your players are doing it wrong.



Basically, the ghasts had to move through a narrow chokepoint to get to them. If they had moved forward and taken the chokepoint, they could have easily taken them down one at a time without a struggle.

Instead, they turtled up and let the ghasts completely surround them and did nothing to stem the flow of reinforcements.

Yeah. Again. Your players seem to have failed to grasp some of the very basic "rules of adventuring". I actually get not pushing forward to a choke point you may not know about, but if you're going to retreat, maybe fall back to a chokepoint instead of standing in a room large enough to allow the enemies to enter and then surround you. Or, better yet, stand close enough to the entrance to that room, that the enemies have to enter one or two at a time, but you can maybe get a semi-circle of your melee types to bash on them as they come in. Lots of ways to do this.

My players are sometimes overly capable at the whole " find the best tactical position". I actually sometimes have to contrive situations to force them to have to fight in a more open location purely because otherwise, only the front couple characters ever get to do anything. And in a game that is skill based with no experience gained unless you actually use skills successfully, that's a problem. Also a game system with strict issues using ranged weapons into melee fights *and* not a whole lot of direct magic damage effect spells either just makes the other players get bored twiddling their thumbs while their heavy hitters are sqashing stuff in the front.

But yeah. If they're actually failing due to this sort of thing, then maybe they just need to learn a bit about how to use terrain to their advantage?

GloatingSwine
2023-03-22, 03:11 PM
This is some good critical feedback. Thank you.

I agree, it is kind of opaque design, this is somewhat intentional as right now the whole thing is a big mystery with a lot more questions than answers.

They aren't really going about it "wrong" per se; I just figured that they would explore and clear sections one at a time rather than drifting around and checking things out more or less on a whim, scraping the surface of the most areas without digging too deep.


Well yeah, because every time they try to actually clear something they get their arses kicked! That's what I'm talking about when I say it feels like they lose whenever it matters and only win when it doesn't.

A mystery with more questions than answers needs to have the answers it does have lead to other answers (even if they also lead to some questions) so that it actually starts unfolding into understanding. If they've mapped 80% they should have started to find some of those answers and have some threads to pull on at this point.


Hard to describe without a map.

Basically, the ghasts had to move through a narrow chokepoint to get to them. If they had moved forward and taken the chokepoint, they could have easily taken them down one at a time without a struggle.

Instead, they turtled up and let the ghasts completely surround them and did nothing to stem the flow of reinforcements.

I think you've probably overestimated the value of that chokepoint if fighting near it but not directly camping it makes that much difference. Even if they only fight the ghasts one at a time they're going to eat bad rolls every now and again* and they're numerically outmatched, a bad round that puts one character down and they're swamped except now they also have no way to retreat because they're pinned against the choke themselves, and they were already in tight enough quarters that the wizard was having to do spider-man impressions on the wall to get line of sight.

And that's all assuming the ghasts form an orderly queue and come through one at a time if they're camping the choke rather than taking cover on their side to force a stalemate unless the party come through into their killing ground or trying a mass shove to push the players back. Remembering that they're also intelligent enough to form alliances and make co-ordinated pincer attacks with them.

*Bearing in mind the wizard has merked themselves twice already at this point with bad rolls.

Talakeal
2023-03-22, 05:23 PM
@Quertus: Oh, wait, are you doing that thing where you tell me how my players will see things? Whereby giving them the easy win the feel smart and good about themselves? If so, gotcha. If not, you still lost me.


...really?

Well, did you have a long solo game for the town shopkeeper to venture into next town to get his merchandise? Or a long solo game for the townsfolk to create the settlement? Did you roleplay the individual forces that created the dungeon?

While there is some merit in going this deep, I think you can ignore some of the rules and eyeball it/make assumptions/make an educated guess and just wing the actual roleplay. The idea is mostly to take a look at the situation from the monsters' point of view, and judge what actually happens (the result) without going through the process.

However, if you need, I'd suggest going the 'random but not random' way. You can put together some random monster downtime action table and use it to speed up the process (I already have some ideas in my head). And there already are some resources that you could use (take a look at How to Host a Dungeon; even the first edition is quite good even if somewhat limited).

You have a very complex situation here.

The elemental attacks the monsters who can't hurt it, they scatter, they then interact with several other groups of monsters, some of whom may be able to hurt the elemental or they might retreat themselves, or they might ally with or fight the initial monsters.

You then have a chain reaction where every part of the dungeon is moving on and getting every other part of the dungeon involved. That is a lot more in depth (and interesting, and consequential) than a shop-keeper restocking.


Which, honestly, is not an unreasonable expectation. Your players apparently failed "dungeon clearing 101" at RPG school.

You enter the dungeon, follow a tunnel, which opens up into a room. This room has three closed doors, one heading in a different cardinal direction. Do you:

1. Open the first door, fully explore everything behind that door, including passageways, additional rooms, and using the same "fully explore behind each door" pattern when encountering additional rooms with doors in it, and only return to the first entrance room after every single thing behind that door is explored (or can no longer be due to locked/blocked/warded/whatever stuff that maybe requires something from behind a different dungeon area to access).

Or...

2. Open the first door, explore far enough to hit one encounter of opponents, and then turn around, go back to the entrance room (and perhaps out of the dungeon entirely to rest), then come back and explore a second door in the entrance room. Repeat the same process, then return and check out the third door. Then, apparently, continue to bounce back and forth, trying different doors willy nilly.

Pssst! The answer is always "1". Your players are doing it wrong.

It's funny, they actually had this conversation when they first entered the dungeon and voted 3 to 1 to do the latter.

The route that was proposed would have actually taken them to the end boss of the level by the most direct route possible, which would have either wiped the party right away or they would have killed it and cake-walked the rest of the floor. Either way, it made me say to myself "If she'd of kept on going that way, she'd have gone straight to that castle!".




My players are sometimes overly capable at the whole " find the best tactical position". I actually sometimes have to contrive situations to force them to have to fight in a more open location purely because otherwise, only the front couple characters ever get to do anything. And in a game that is skill based with no experience gained unless you actually use skills successfully, that's a problem. Also a game system with strict issues using ranged weapons into melee fights *and* not a whole lot of direct magic damage effect spells either just makes the other players get bored twiddling their thumbs while their heavy hitters are squashing stuff in the front.

That is certainly the case with this party. They have two melee characters, both with a defensive build, and two ranged characters, which means their damage is kind of low, especially when fighting in a chokepoint.


But yeah. If they're actually failing due to this sort of thing, then maybe they just need to learn a bit about how to use terrain to their advantage?

That's for damn sure. Bob actually considers terrain to be cheating because it "always puts the PCs at a disadvantage."

I mean, he is sort of right due to natural adaptations; a great white shark is more dangerous in the ocean than the desert, but it really speaks to his lack of tactical acumen.


Well yeah, because every time they try to actually clear something they get their arses kicked! That's what I'm talking about when I say it feels like they lose whenever it matters and only win when it doesn't.

I don't know how you would gauge that. Is there anything which makes you think that the fights they have lost are somehow more important than the ones they won?

I guess it also really depends on the metrics for losing a fight. They have fallen back a few times and been blackmailed once, but the fight against the kobolds is the only one they actually "lost"; and even then they probably would have been the last people standing if they were willing to fight to the end and suffer a few casualties.


A mystery with more questions than answers needs to have the answers it does have lead to other answers (even if they also lead to some questions) so that it actually starts unfolding into understanding. If they've mapped 80% they should have started to find some of those answers and have some threads to pull on at this point.

They have a few answers, although fewer than they should, they are remarkably uninquisitive. It's just 80% of the first floor mind you, not the whole complex. But they do have a weird habit of turning around one room before encountering the lore heavy encounters or things they can talk to.


*Bearing in mind the wizard has merked themselves twice already at this point with bad rolls.

Yep. Chaos magic is chaotic. Which is why I am saying that I don't think they are really doing particularly poorly except in their minds, most of their setbacks are just from dice rolls not going their way.


I think you've probably overestimated the value of that chokepoint if fighting near it but not directly camping it makes that much difference. Even if they only fight the ghasts one at a time they're going to eat bad rolls every now and again* and they're numerically outmatched, a bad round that puts one character down and they're swamped except now they also have no way to retreat because they're pinned against the choke themselves, and they were already in tight enough quarters that the wizard was having to do spider-man impressions on the wall to get line of sight.

And that's all assuming the ghasts form an orderly queue and come through one at a time if they're camping the choke rather than taking cover on their side to force a stalemate unless the party come through into their killing ground or trying a mass shove to push the players back. Remembering that they're also intelligent enough to form alliances and make co-ordinated pincer attacks with them.


Again, this is hard without a map.

Basically, you have a sinkhole in the center of a 20' x 20' room. Unbeknownst to the players, there was an undead army stored below, and when they detect living creatures they dig themselves out of the sinkhole at a rate of one per turn, and a half dozen are already in the room.

Outside the room is a T shaped hallway 5' wide, with each brance extending 10' out from the 5' square intersection.

One branch of the T is closed off and the players didn't open it (probably best they not open combat on two fronts, although in retrospect they should have gone that way first as there is a lot of treasure down there and it is going to be a pain to clear the ghasts at this point).

The other branch of the 2 opens out into a larger room, 20' wide and 40' long. Outside of this room is the main street, 15' wide and a hundred feet long.


The first encounter, the players kind of used the door as a choke point, but in a way that hurt themselves more than the ghasts, with their two melee in the room and their ranged in the doorway. This allowed the ghasts to maximize attacks against them but their ranged attacks were all suffering heavy penalties. They fell back, which was a very smart tactical move as they could not have defeated the entire undead horde at this point (although maybe later when they are stronger and coming at it from below...) but they made the big mistake of not doing anything to block of the ghasts from coming after them in the future.


Second fight, they choose to turtle up in the large 20x40 foot room. This is allowing the ghasts to surround them. If they had taken the chokepoint, they would be able to kill the ghasts one at a time, and although its slow going, a single ghast has roughly zero chance of hurting Feurlina, so they could slowly push them back through the hall and then do whatever it took to seal the breach more or less at their leisure.

Instead they got surrounded, took a lot of damage, fell back, and then sealed the outer door. Same overall effect, but now they are going to have problems getting back to where they were, and took a lot more damage than was neccesary.

King of Nowhere
2023-03-22, 05:47 PM
That's for damn sure. Bob actually considers terrain to be cheating because it "always puts the PCs at a disadvantage."

Maybe we should rewrite the military treatises based on this
1) know yourself, at least as far as your character sheet goes. Don't worry about your weak spots, if the opponent targets them it's unfair.
2) don't know the enemy. scouting is boring.
3) ignore the terrain, exploting it is cheating anyway.

Talakeal
2023-03-22, 05:49 PM
Maybe we should rewrite the military treatises based on this
1) know yourself, at least as far as your character sheet goes. Don't worry about your weak spots, if the opponent targets them it's unfair.
2) don't know the enemy. scouting is boring.
3) ignore the terrain, exploting it is cheating anyway.

The Tao of Bob.

GloatingSwine
2023-03-22, 05:49 PM
I don't know how you would gauge that. Is there anything which makes you think that the fights they have lost are somehow more important than the ones they won?

I guess it also really depends on the metrics for losing a fight. They have fallen back a few times and been blackmailed once, but the fight against the kobolds is the only one they actually "lost"; and even then they probably would have been the last people standing if they were willing to fight to the end and suffer a few casualties.


That, by your own admission, they haven't actually meaningfully cleared any territory and from how you phrase the descriptions in your campaign report (the fights they win are presented as being pretty trivial beyond the big bird, which didn't really get them anything), and from the fact that they lose to serious opposition every time.

And also, if they get beaten back and the next time they have to try the same thing it will be harder, they lost. Materially, they have failed and are suffering consequences.


They have a few answers, although fewer than they should, they are remarkably uninquisitive. It's just 80% of the first floor mind you, not the whole complex. But they do have a weird habit of turning around one room before encountering the lore heavy encounters or things they can talk to.

Then you need to be telling them more. You need to make sure they know that the next room is important. It needs to have significant descriptions.

This is a two way street, they don't ask questions because they want to kick the doors in and take the treasure, but you need to fill in those gaps without them having to ask otherwise they never will know things.


Yep. Chaos magic is chaotic. Which is why I am saying that I don't think they are really doing particularly poorly except in their minds, most of their setbacks are just from dice rolls not going their way.

It probably shouldn't be so potent on a fail a single bad roll can scuff an entire encounter though. Your players have binned two encounters on a single bad roll because it took a character out.


Again, this is hard without a map.

Basically, you have a sinkhole in the center of a 20' x 20' room. Unbeknownst to the players, there was an undead army stored below, and when they detect living creatures they dig themselves out of the sinkhole at a rate of one per turn, and a half dozen are already in the room.

Outside the room is a T shaped hallway 5' wide, with each brance extending 10' out from the 5' square intersection.

One branch of the T is closed off and the players didn't open it (probably best they not open combat on two fronts, although in retrospect they should have gone that way first as there is a lot of treasure down there and it is going to be a pain to clear the ghasts at this point).

The other branch of the 2 opens out into a larger room, 20' wide and 40' long. Outside of this room is the main street, 15' wide and a hundred feet long.


The first encounter, the players kind of used the door as a choke point, but in a way that hurt themselves more than the ghasts, with their two melee in the room and their ranged in the doorway. This allowed the ghasts to maximize attacks against them but their ranged attacks were all suffering heavy penalties. They fell back, which was a very smart tactical move as they could not have defeated the entire undead horde at this point (although maybe later when they are stronger and coming at it from below...) but they made the big mistake of not doing anything to block of the ghasts from coming after them in the future.


Second fight, they choose to turtle up in the large 20x40 foot room. This is allowing the ghasts to surround them. If they had taken the chokepoint, they would be able to kill the ghasts one at a time, and although its slow going, a single ghast has roughly zero chance of hurting Feurlina, so they could slowly push them back through the hall and then do whatever it took to seal the breach more or less at their leisure.

Instead they got surrounded, took a lot of damage, fell back, and then sealed the outer door. Same overall effect, but now they are going to have problems getting back to where they were, and took a lot more damage than was neccesary.


No, if they'd taken the chokepoint the ghasts would have hidden until they made themselves vulnerable. Rememer you made your ghasts intelligent enough to form alliances and co-operative pincer attacks. You can't do that and have them be mindless videogame mobs at other times because that feeds into the way you've decided your players should handle the encounter.

You set this up to have one solution, which is really boring to execute because only one character is engaging at full capability and you think they're not being threatened so it's just mechanistic now (and as noted a bad round of rolls, or even one bad roll from your wizard, and it goes south) and that one solution shouldn't have worked with the way you were otherwise playing the enemies as not mindless.

And when the players didn't do that one solution first time they've put themselves into a position where now they don't even get to try and guess how it played out in your head until they've done something much harder, and the time they tried something to do it it backfired and they hurt themselves, and that was what forced them out.

It sounds very much like you're balancing these encounters far too narrowly around the players doing one winning strategy, not leaving them any wiggle room to explore the possibility space and discover that strategy, and closing it off when they do something else (or take a bad roll and gib themselves).

Talakeal
2023-03-22, 06:01 PM
You set this up to have one solution, which is really boring to execute because only one character is engaging at full capability and you think they're not being threatened so it's just mechanistic now (and as noted a bad round of rolls, or even one bad roll from your wizard, and it goes south) and that one solution shouldn't have worked with the way you were otherwise playing the enemies as not mindless.

And when the players didn't do that one solution first time they've put themselves into a position where now they don't even get to try and guess how it played out in your head until they've done something much harder, and the time they tried something to do it it backfired and they hurt themselves, and that was what forced them out.

It sounds very much like you're balancing these encounters far too narrowly around the players doing one winning strategy, not leaving them any wiggle room to explore the possibility space and discover that strategy, and closing it off when they do something else (or take a bad roll and gib themselves).

I think you misunderstand; the ghasts are not intelligent. They are, essentially, rage zombies. They see living creature, they run at living creature and bite it until hacked to pieces.

They had nothing to do with pincer movements or blocking off the PC's retreat later on, save for the fact that the PCs went into that fight low on HP due to the ghast fight.

GloatingSwine
2023-03-22, 06:23 PM
My other criticisms stand though. You designed the encounter in such a way that the optimal strategy is the most boring strategy that involves the least number of players (because everyone is queued behind the frontline in a 1-person wide corridor until the wizard manages to drop rocks somewhere other than on the party for once) and made the numbers on it so tight that anything other than the optimal strategy would fail.

Talakeal
2023-03-22, 06:37 PM
My other criticisms stand though. You designed the encounter in such a way that the optimal strategy is the most boring strategy that involves the least number of players (because everyone is queued behind the frontline in a 1-person wide corridor until the wizard manages to drop rocks somewhere other than on the party for once) and made the numbers on it so tight that anything other than the optimal strategy would fail.

I appreciate the vote of confidence in my tuning abilities; but it really wasn't that tight. When I designed the dungeon, the PCs hadn't been created yet and I had no idea what order they would explore it in.

The issue isn't that there was only one working strategy; its that fights with a reinforcement mechanic strongly disincentivize "turtling" strategies, which are my players go to state. They have similar problems with enemies who use AOE or ranged kiting.

gbaji
2023-03-22, 08:35 PM
My other criticisms stand though. You designed the encounter in such a way that the optimal strategy is the most boring strategy that involves the least number of players (because everyone is queued behind the frontline in a 1-person wide corridor until the wizard manages to drop rocks somewhere other than on the party for once) and made the numbers on it so tight that anything other than the optimal strategy would fail.

They've only got five characters (or is it four?). Two melee, two ranged, and one spellcaster?. The logical thing for them to do is fall back to the T intersection, put one melee and one missile person on each side, with the caster behind one of them. That way, both melee characters can attack against the one ghast standing in the 5' wide intersection (one from each side of the T), and both missile folks can fire (with some minuses, but still something), and the spell caster can... cast. I'm not sure what kind of healing stuff they have, but probably a good idea to make sure that each "side" has someone who can heal, just in case of bad luck or something.

That's almost pure whack-a-mole strategy there, and allows every single character to be involved in the fight. Alternatively, if you are really concerned about splitting the party, you can fall back to the 20x40 room, set up the two melee folks to bracket the hallway entrance to that room, again with missile folks standing behind and/or to the side, and the spell caster basically anywhere else in the room. Same deal. Two on one, fast defeat of the initial ghasts in the room.

Once that initial group is cleared, you should be able to move foward into the room with the sinkhole and then do whatever needs to be done to seal it, while only dealing with one ghast every minute (which should be easily manageable barring some terrific bad luck). This is not really a case of the GM having one and only one head cannoned idea of how they succeed, but just basic tactics that any semi-capable person should immediately grasp and implement, with a number of different options available to them. I mean, we can insist that the GM tune the encounters based on the assumption that the PCs are going to stand, all alone, out in the middle of nowhere, seeking no cover, nor using any walls or other terrain to block the advance/attack of their enemies, but still expect to succeed anyway, but that would be silly.


Based on the description, this was a pretty standard bog simple encounter situation with some very obvious "right ways" to handle them. The players just couldn't noodle it out for some reason. And sure. Maybe they didn't know what rate the additional ghasts would appear initially. And maybe they didn't know how strong they were. But um... then you assume the worst, take the best positions you can, and go from there. But having taken a decent defensive position, and wiped out the first half dozen ghasts, then maybe seen another ghast or two show up while doing that, but then realizing that no more have arrived since then, it's not rocket science to head back, see the sinkhole, and the maybe one ghast just now coming out of it and realize "hey. they're only able to come up one at a time, and it takes them X long to do so", and then intelligently respond to that as well.

GloatingSwine
2023-03-23, 03:04 AM
Once that initial group is cleared, you should be able to move foward into the room with the sinkhole and then do whatever needs to be done to seal it, while only dealing with one ghast every minute (which should be easily manageable barring some terrific bad luck). This is not really a case of the GM having one and only one head cannoned idea of how they succeed, but just basic tactics that any semi-capable person should immediately grasp and implement, with a number of different options available to them. I mean, we can insist that the GM tune the encounters based on the assumption that the PCs are going to stand, all alone, out in the middle of nowhere, seeking no cover, nor using any walls or other terrain to block the advance/attack of their enemies, but still expect to succeed anyway, but that would be silly.

Based on the description, they were not removing ghasts faster than they appeared. I'm assuming Takaleal is playing his own system and that means that a turn is one set of actions from everyone not ten rounds of actions. It's not one ghast every minute, it's one every five seconds.

If they'd been clearing them faster than they spawned their first attempt would have had a few hairy turns but then they would have been clear but having taken more damage than they would if they played optimally. They need to be able to kill two ghasts a turn indefinitely in order to beat the spawn rate and it sounds like they're not.

But because they didn't do it exactly right the first time they now can't even attempt the right solutions, because the main hall is now held against them and they can't ever get back to a defensive position much better than the one they failed with first time.

Lacco
2023-03-23, 05:07 AM
You have a very complex situation here.

The elemental attacks the monsters who can't hurt it, they scatter, they then interact with several other groups of monsters, some of whom may be able to hurt the elemental or they might retreat themselves, or they might ally with or fight the initial monsters.

You then have a chain reaction where every part of the dungeon is moving on and getting every other part of the dungeon involved. That is a lot more in depth (and interesting, and consequential) than a shop-keeper restocking.

Swinging a sword at your enemy is a very complex situation. Still, you don't model it by checking for the angle of swing (diagonal? vertical?), starting position (high forward? high backward? low backward?), stance of the attacker, position of the defender, angle of impact, velocity & acceleration imparted by the attacker, rigidity of the armor and its flexibility...

You can model your situation using very simple methods - either deterministic or stochastic - on one side of the scale... or you can go into the system and roleplay each encounter using monster state, as the opposite extreme. Or you can pick any combination in between.

I'd disagree about the depth, but consequence for the players would definitely be higher for the dungeon as opposed to the shopkeeping... but in one other thread, you mentioned they considered an in-game careers as tradesfolk, so maybe the interest could also be there.

You could even ask them to each pick one group and try to stop the actual threat now, but I assume it would lead nowhere (as their skill to ignore OOC knowledge seems to be on very low level).

What I was trying to say is: you can run the scenario in your head within few minutes. Documenting it could lead to anywhere from one to few hours (depending on how detailed your notes are).

Still, thank you. You gave me an idea for my next future project :smallbiggrin:


Maybe we should rewrite the military treatises based on this
1) know yourself, at least as far as your character sheet goes. Don't worry about your weak spots, if the opponent targets them it's unfair.
2) don't know the enemy. scouting is boring.
3) ignore the terrain, exploting it is cheating anyway.

I'd only add "Know your enemy so you can whine until the GM gives up".

Quertus
2023-03-23, 06:44 AM
Maybe we should rewrite the military treatises based on this
1) know yourself, at least as far as your character sheet goes. Don't worry about your weak spots, if the opponent targets them it's unfair.
2) don't know the enemy. scouting is boring.
3) ignore the terrain, exploting it is cheating anyway.


The Tao of Bob.

Build and playtest your adventures to the Tao of Bob.


@Quertus: Oh, wait, are you doing that thing where you tell me how my players will see things? Whereby giving them the easy win the feel smart and good about themselves? If so, gotcha. If not, you still lost me.

Depends on the reference? Some of what I've said certainly is an attempt at player perspective. I do believe that... hmmm... "do not get into an arms race with your players, because they cannot win". You have encouraged your players to be brave, and not just do a 15 MWD, but you have had the monsters use better strategy than your players, "for realism", and presented encounters that were too difficult for their "kick in the door" strategies, causing them to fail, repeatedly. Therefore, your players have engaged your arms race, and, "for realism", have upped their strategy, and summoned incorporeal creatures.

Don't continue the arms race, let your players win.

This is true as a general rule. Whenever your players engage in such an arms race, it's a sign you've started an arms race, so let them win. But it's especially true after you've just Tucker's'd a group with depression issues. GIVE THEM THE WIN THEIR MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS! (Or so I suspect. I am not a mental health professional, nor do I play one in an RPG.)

As an added side bonus, this gives you the perfect opportunity to in effect create a brand new dungeon, the Dungeon of Corpses. You were complaining about having to run a solo session; instead, **** "realism", and think of it as rebuilding the dungeon with Gamist concerns of "where would all the corpses be that would give the most information to my players?".

Whereas before you built a dungeon with intelligent monsters that would talk to the party to give them information (Talakeal, how could you? You know Bob hates it when NPCs "monologue".), you now get to build a dungeon that tells the same tale (two or 3 times over, because Rule of 3 and all that) through the corpses left behind. You get to place all the corpses in such a way as they facilitate whatever information you want the players to have.

For example, perhaps all the goblins in area 17 seem to have run off north (towards that sentient creature's room), carrying a heavy burden (their loot, to ensure the PCs go that way); when the PCs get there, a) the sentient being killed the incorporeal creatures, and, highly wounded, sues for peace (yay monsters unconditionally surrendering for a change! Yay giving the party the win!); or b) the sentient being is also dead, but left behind notes / books / cave paintings / whatever to clue the PCs in.

Mix and match different outcomes to give the PCs the most information possible, the most different ways possible.

Build the dungeon that gives the PCs lots of wins (lots of dead monsters that couldn't deal with incorporeal foes) and lots of information that you can dish out as you describe the rooms filled with death that your uninquisitive PCs would otherwise never obtain. And have the occasional information dump NPC unconditionally surrender to the PCs.

But, uh, don't have that NPC take an information dump on the PCs' win. (No, I don't have any good advice here, your players are from Bizarro World. Maybe several such NPCs, with different personalities, different levels of detail given, different timing on that info / how chatty they are? Whichever NPC / monster they keep around / come back to is a lesson for you for the future?)


It's funny, they actually had this conversation when they first entered the dungeon and voted 3 to 1 to do the latter.

The route that was proposed would have actually taken them to the end boss of the level by the most direct route possible, which would have either wiped the party right away or they would have killed it and cake-walked the rest of the floor. Either way, it made me say to myself "If she'd of kept on going that way, she'd have gone straight to that castle!".

So, in addition to designing a dungeon poorly for your players, you also designed it poorly for someone who would do it "right", but with the bad luck to choose the boss fight first? That sounds like really bad dungeon design.


That is certainly the case with this party. They have two melee characters, both with a defensive build, and two ranged characters, which means their damage is kind of low, especially when fighting in a chokepoint.

Um... what? By all means, explain what "high damage" would look like in your system, especially at a choke point. Because that party composition is sounding pretty optimal to my ears.


That's for damn sure. Bob actually considers terrain to be cheating because it "always puts the PCs at a disadvantage."

I mean, he is sort of right due to natural adaptations; a great white shark is more dangerous in the ocean than the desert, but it really speaks to his lack of tactical acumen.

So build your dungeons and encounters to your players, and don't "cheat". Have monsters almost never get any advantage from the environment, and even then only trivial advantages compared to what the PCs could get from the environments you've created.

That is, for example, in encounters 3, 7, and 10, the PCs could get +4 cover bonuses, or +4 stealth bonuses, from using the features of the environment (columns, steam, stalagmites, a cart, whatever). In encounter 9, one monster gets a +1 attack bonus from being on the ceiling. In encounter 11, the PCs can choose to fight on rock or ice; on ice, both sides eat a 4 point penalty to attack and defense (or whatever). Or they can stand at the edge of the ice, in which case the monster may delay (giving them time to prepare buffs maybe?), go around (maybe buying them time again?), or attempt to leap over their front lines (which may fail, resulting in a really bad fight for the monster). Maybe encounter 12 is in the same area, as a Xorn phases through the stone... but if the PCs push / throw the Xorn onto the ice, it becomes a trivial fight. Encounter 14 involves a dragon, a mountain, some rubble, and some caves - they can choose to fight it in the open, among the boulders, or in the caves. No answer is inherently "optimal", it's simply a question of utilizing their own strengths. Encounter 16 is ROUS's in the Fire Swamp. Encounter 17 involves meeting an NPC (or maybe just a group of goblins) that has thrown a Xorn out of the stone (or even onto a carpet) to slaughter it.

Make the terrain something they can use to gain advantage, not something that gives them disadvantage.


Yep. Chaos magic is chaotic. Which is why I am saying that I don't think they are really doing particularly poorly except in their minds, most of their setbacks are just from dice rolls not going their way.

Um... they're doing poorly. Period. If "poorly" is how badly you would expect them to do, that's even worse. Give them their Conan story, not this travesty of failure that almost made them quit. Give them an adventure that lets them be BDHs. Ask yourself if someone who loved Conan stories would love the story your adventure has created, and find the PCs to be bigger heroes than Conan. Let that be your guiding light for adventure design.

Not Tucker's kobalds. :smallyuk:

GloatingSwine
2023-03-23, 06:56 AM
Build and playtest your adventures to the Tao of Bob.


In other words "write the adventure for the players you have".

And if there are things they're not good at countering, use the easy mode versions of those things. (Including "needing to get information", if you know they won't ask don't wait for them to...)

Talakeal
2023-03-23, 02:07 PM
They've only got five characters (or is it four?). Two melee, two ranged, and one spellcaster?. The logical thing for them to do is fall back to the T intersection, put one melee and one missile person on each side, with the caster behind one of them. That way, both melee characters can attack against the one ghast standing in the 5' wide intersection (one from each side of the T), and both missile folks can fire (with some minuses, but still something), and the spell caster can... cast. I'm not sure what kind of healing stuff they have, but probably a good idea to make sure that each "side" has someone who can heal, just in case of bad luck or something.

That's almost pure whack-a-mole strategy there, and allows every single character to be involved in the fight. Alternatively, if you are really concerned about splitting the party, you can fall back to the 20x40 room, set up the two melee folks to bracket the hallway entrance to that room, again with missile folks standing behind and/or to the side, and the spell caster basically anywhere else in the room. Same deal. Two on one, fast defeat of the initial ghasts in the room.

Once that initial group is cleared, you should be able to move foward into the room with the sinkhole and then do whatever needs to be done to seal it, while only dealing with one ghast every minute (which should be easily manageable barring some terrific bad luck). This is not really a case of the GM having one and only one head cannoned idea of how they succeed, but just basic tactics that any semi-capable person should immediately grasp and implement, with a number of different options available to them. I mean, we can insist that the GM tune the encounters based on the assumption that the PCs are going to stand, all alone, out in the middle of nowhere, seeking no cover, nor using any walls or other terrain to block the advance/attack of their enemies, but still expect to succeed anyway, but that would be silly.


Based on the description, this was a pretty standard bog simple encounter situation with some very obvious "right ways" to handle them. The players just couldn't noodle it out for some reason. And sure. Maybe they didn't know what rate the additional ghasts would appear initially. And maybe they didn't know how strong they were. But um... then you assume the worst, take the best positions you can, and go from there. But having taken a decent defensive position, and wiped out the first half dozen ghasts, then maybe seen another ghast or two show up while doing that, but then realizing that no more have arrived since then, it's not rocket science to head back, see the sinkhole, and the maybe one ghast just now coming out of it and realize "hey. they're only able to come up one at a time, and it takes them X long to do so", and then intelligently respond to that as well.

That is more or less how I see it as well. However...


Based on the description, they were not removing ghasts faster than they appeared. I'm assuming Takaleal is playing his own system and that means that a turn is one set of actions from everyone not ten rounds of actions. It's not one ghast every minute, it's one every five seconds.

If they'd been clearing them faster than they spawned their first attempt would have had a few hairy turns but then they would have been clear but having taken more damage than they would if they played optimally. They need to be able to kill two ghasts a turn indefinitely in order to beat the spawn rate and it sounds like they're not.

But because they didn't do it exactly right the first time they now can't even attempt the right solutions, because the main hall is now held against them and they can't ever get back to a defensive position much better than the one they failed with first time.

This is correct, it is every 5 seconds not minute, however they are minions, and given average rolls and no AOE the players should kill them about half again as fast as they spawn. This means the players can (and did) wipe them out through conventional turtle tactics, but a more proactive strategy is strongly encouraged.

I do, however, find it strange that you are saying "exactly right" when what you mean is "anything at all to slow their advance".

Again, I find it so weird that the first half of this thread seemed to go pretty hard on how the solution to pacing is smart reactive monsters; and now it has turned into a bitchfest about how punishing smart reactive monsters are.


In other words "write the adventure for the players you have".

And if there are things they're not good at countering, use the easy mode versions of those things. (Including "needing to get information", if you know they won't ask don't wait for them to...)

That is easier said than done. For one thing, my players competence varies wildly. For example, if I catch them on a day when they weren't up all night playing video games and don't have their phones out all session, they can be downright brilliant.


It also just seems unfair that I am always expected to play down to their level rather than trying to meet them half-way.


As is, my players are obsessed with "balanced combat". We also had an issue back in the olden days we called the "cycle of stupidity" where they would hyper focus in one area (usually combat) and I would then balance encounters around their party, which made them feel like they were no longer special, and thus would min-max even harder, and so on. That ended with us making a standing agreement that I would now longer balance encounters around the PCs but instead around a hypothetical "average party of their level".


Um... they're doing poorly. Period. If "poorly" is how badly you would expect them to do, that's even worse. Give them their Conan story, not this travesty of failure that almost made them quit. Give them an adventure that lets them be BDHs. Ask yourself if someone who loved Conan stories would love the story your adventure has created, and find the PCs to be bigger heroes than Conan. Let that be your guiding light for adventure design.

Not Tucker's kobalds. :smallyuk:

Two things here:

First, what is this objective definition of poorly you have? Could you please share it?

Mathematically, the game is balanced around 4-6 encounters per adventuring day. The players have had seven adventuring days, and have cleared 35 encounters. By any objective standard, that seems exactly where they should be.

Likewise, they haven't actually suffered any casualties yet aside from one player literally committing suicide for completely metagame reasons (see the audacious cheating thread for more info).


Out of curiosity, do you really find being surrounded by kobolds and entering into an alliance with them whereby you split treasure to avoid deaths on both sides to be a "travesty of failure"? Because that is pretty standard in my understanding of both fiction and RPGs; every other campaign journal I read has moments like that all the time. I recently reread Kaveman's awesome journals in preperation for this game, and stuff like that happens more or less on a daily occurrence.


Second, have you actually read Conan? IIRC most of his adventures start with him on the run and in hiding or making a plea deal with his captors, and usually ends up with him broke and his friends all dead. Even the movie had him in captivity repeatedly, to the point where he was executed on a cross, and even though he wins in the end he undergoes extreme setbacks and his party has a lot of casualties.

I very much like Conan, in no large part because he struggles but never gives up, but he is in no way the flawless Mary Sue who always wins that Bob would enjoy.



So, in addition to designing a dungeon poorly for your players, you also designed it poorly for someone who would do it "right", but with the bad luck to choose the boss fight first? That sounds like really bad dungeon design.

Out of curiosity, what is "right"?

The dungeon starts with five paths for them to take; how is one of them objectively better than any of the others?

It just so happened that one player proposed always taking the leftmost turn which would have, coincidentally, taken them to the strongest monster on the level by the most direct path.

Whether or not this is "bad luck" or "good luck" is another question that I don't have an answer to. Its certainly the "high-risk high-reward" path, but without foreknowledge of how the fight would have gone I can't say whether or not it would have been good or bad luck.


Um... what? By all means, explain what "high damage" would look like in your system, especially at a choke point. Because that party composition is sounding pretty optimal to my ears.

Taking high strength and dexterity over high endurance and agility. Using two handed weapons over shields. Taking offensive over defensive combat techniques. Spending money on good weapons over good armor.

As for the back rank, both of them depend on rolls to hit for their builds, which is not optimal in tight spaces, especially when you have a giant oaf like Feurlina in the front lines, as they are taking hefty penalties for line of sight and friendly fire. In addition, Jesse didn't even bother taking proficiency in her weapon, as she figured her "lucky" dice rolls would simply always deliver the nat twenty and thus didn't need it.


As an added side bonus, this gives you the perfect opportunity to in effect create a brand new dungeon, the Dungeon of Corpses. You were complaining about having to run a solo session; instead, **** "realism", and think of it as rebuilding the dungeon with Gamist concerns of "where would all the corpses be that would give the most information to my players?".

Whereas before you built a dungeon with intelligent monsters that would talk to the party to give them information (Talakeal, how could you? You know Bob hates it when NPCs "monologue".), you now get to build a dungeon that tells the same tale (two or 3 times over, because Rule of 3 and all that) through the corpses left behind. You get to place all the corpses in such a way as they facilitate whatever information you want the players to have.

For example, perhaps all the goblins in area 17 seem to have run off north (towards that sentient creature's room), carrying a heavy burden (their loot, to ensure the PCs go that way); when the PCs get there, a) the sentient being killed the incorporeal creatures, and, highly wounded, sues for peace (yay monsters unconditionally surrendering for a change! Yay giving the party the win!); or b) the sentient being is also dead, but left behind notes / books / cave paintings / whatever to clue the PCs in.

Mix and match different outcomes to give the PCs the most information possible, the most different ways possible.

Build the dungeon that gives the PCs lots of wins (lots of dead monsters that couldn't deal with incorporeal foes) and lots of information that you can dish out as you describe the rooms filled with death that your uninquisitive PCs would otherwise never obtain. And have the occasional information dump NPC unconditionally surrender to the PCs.

But, uh, don't have that NPC take an information dump on the PCs' win. (No, I don't have any good advice here, your players are from Bizarro World. Maybe several such NPCs, with different personalities, different levels of detail given, different timing on that info / how chatty they are? Whichever NPC / monster they keep around / come back to is a lesson for you for the future?)

My players love combat and hate investigation.

How on Earth do you think a forensic dungeon would be tailored to their tastes?

They are also thicker than mud, there is no way I could actually convey lore to them through clues and dungeon dressing and implications.

gbaji
2023-03-23, 02:31 PM
Based on the description, they were not removing ghasts faster than they appeared. I'm assuming Takaleal is playing his own system and that means that a turn is one set of actions from everyone not ten rounds of actions. It's not one ghast every minute, it's one every five seconds.

Huh. I assumed the term "turn" was longer than a "round" (some games use those terms interchangeably, some dont, and usually with a "turn" being some number of "rounds"). I made this assumption because one per actual melee round is insanely, impossibly, fast. Unless the ghasts are basically minion level foes the party can buzzsaw through at 2-3/round, they will be overwhelmed. You have to assume a round or two figuring out what's going on and positioning yourselves properly, then several rounds killing the first set of ghasts, and then actually making progress (meaning killing them enough faster than they appear that you can make headway). If these ghasts aren't basically one-hit kills, I can totally see the party coming to the conclusion that they can't win and just fleeing.

I assumed a rate somewhere in the 1 per 5 melee rounds range. That rate would work for foes that maybe take a hit or three to take down, but by positioning yourselves well, and combining your attacks, you can clear them faster than they appear, have time to get back into the room, and then have time to figure out how to seal off the sinkhole while managing the occasional new opponent that makes it out while you are doing that.


If they'd been clearing them faster than they spawned their first attempt would have had a few hairy turns but then they would have been clear but having taken more damage than they would if they played optimally. They need to be able to kill two ghasts a turn indefinitely in order to beat the spawn rate and it sounds like they're not.

Yeah. Not being clear on what that spawn rate actually is relative to likely kill rate, makes it hard to assess. From the description though, it sounded like it wasn't the respawn rate that was the problem, but that they just couldn't manage the initial group of ghasts, because they didn't position themselves well to deal with being "outnumbered" initially. But yeah, it could be the other thing too.


But because they didn't do it exactly right the first time they now can't even attempt the right solutions, because the main hall is now held against them and they can't ever get back to a defensive position much better than the one they failed with first time.

Well. Again, I don't know enough about the game system to know how manageable incomming vs outgoing damage rates really are. Even with a high respawn rate, as long as the entire group can kill ghasts faster than that, then they should be able to position themeslves so the whole party is whalloping on just the front ghast or two, while only taking one attack per round. It's totally up to odds of taking damage, damage done over time, heal/protection capabilities of the party, etc, but technically if you have a chokepoint like this, you should be able to defeat *any* number of opponents, as long as you have the resources to manage the "one attacks us collectively a round" damage potential.

This is also where AE attacks (spells?) come in really handy. Clear out a whole room or hallway in one go, then advance to the next chokepoint, continue fighting, then clear another, etc. Yeah. They've made it harder on themselves though.


I did once actually put something like this in a scenario. They had worked their way through a tomb, and made it to the main treasure room (well, it was where the actual sarcaphagus was and their quest required they obtain at least one piece of the entombed hero's equipment to succeed). There were some basic greed traps. There were two bone pits in the room, full of bones, and of undeterminate depth (er, the ancient hero entombed there worshiped a god of death, so it was actually connected to hell, so "all the way down"). The longer they were in the room, the more the bones would start moving, and (after a few rounds) disgorging 1d3 skeletons per round. If they started looting some specific (really large and "pretty") gems, each sitting at the foot of a short statue (you see what's coming, right?) the statue/golem would activate and attack. And if they continued trying to take the gems, at some point the actual (quite dead, but that's not stopping him) hero would awaken and start doing "bad things" to them (like calling his gear to him, and hucking death magic around willy nilly, so "really bad"). The whole point to this was it was a "grab what you can and skedaddle" situation. It was obvious this was what it was. The players knew that's all they were here for, and they completed the mission. And they actually managed to get pretty much all the gear, and grab a few sparklies while heading out towards the door (the undead couldn't actually leave the chamber).

I guess the point here is don't put an "unending spawn of enemies" situation in any location that isn't a "do what you came for and then leave" situation. And make it obvious what that situation is to the players (ie: They are there for a reason, are told not to linger or "bad things" will happen). If I just stumbled into a room like this, I'd likely just lock the door and go another direction as well. Doubly so if I have no information about what it is, why it is there, it's not part of my "quest" to deal with it, etc. If your intention as a GM is to actually have the party deal with this, and seal off the hole/portal/whatever, then you have to provide them with instructions. Perhaps these kobolds tell them of an ancient treasure guarded by ghasts from the underworld, but no one can get there because they just keep coming. But if someone where powerful enough, and clever enough, maybe they could find a way to seal off the portal to <wherever> stop the ghasts from coming and claim the treasure. But yeah. You need to provide the players with a reason to go there, some idea of what is there, and enough information to know what they need to do.

Random room? Not so great. Again though, the situation could be salvaged, if somewhere else they run across folks in the megadungeon who know about the ghasts and perhaps know something about where the sinkhole goes to, how it might be sealed, etc (and again, with some actual reason to bother in the first place, like... treasure).

Talakeal
2023-03-23, 03:10 PM
Huh. I assumed the term "turn" was longer than a "round" (some games use those terms interchangeably, some dont, and usually with a "turn" being some number of "rounds"). I made this assumption because one per actual melee round is insanely, impossibly, fast. Unless the ghasts are basically minion level foes the party can buzzsaw through at 2-3/round, they will be overwhelmed. You have to assume a round or two figuring out what's going on and positioning yourselves properly, then several rounds killing the first set of ghasts, and then actually making progress (meaning killing them enough faster than they appear that you can make headway). If these ghasts aren't basically one-hit kills, I can totally see the party coming to the conclusion that they can't win and just fleeing.

I assumed a rate somewhere in the 1 per 5 melee rounds range. That rate would work for foes that maybe take a hit or three to take down, but by positioning yourselves well, and combining your attacks, you can clear them faster than they appear, have time to get back into the room, and then have time to figure out how to seal off the sinkhole while managing the occasional new opponent that makes it out while you are doing that.


It was one per round.
They were minion level opponents.
Average dice rolls and no AOE, the party kills than about half again as fast as they spawn (IE 3 kills every 2 turns).



Well. Again, I don't know enough about the game system to know how manageable incomming vs outgoing damage rates really are. Even with a high respawn rate, as long as the entire group can kill ghasts faster than that, then they should be able to position themeslves so the whole party is whalloping on just the front ghast or two, while only taking one attack per round. It's totally up to odds of taking damage, damage done over time, heal/protection capabilities of the party, etc, but technically if you have a chokepoint like this, you should be able to defeat *any* number of opponents, as long as you have the resources to manage the "one attacks us collectively a round" damage potential.

This is also where AE attacks (spells?) come in really handy. Clear out a whole room or hallway in one go, then advance to the next chokepoint, continue fighting, then clear another, etc. Yeah. They've made it harder on themselves though.


This is correct.


I guess the point here is don't put an "unending spawn of enemies" situation in any location that isn't a "do what you came for and then leave" situation. And make it obvious what that situation is to the players (ie: They are there for a reason, are told not to linger or "bad things" will happen). If I just stumbled into a room like this, I'd likely just lock the door and go another direction as well. Doubly so if I have no information about what it is, why it is there, it's not part of my "quest" to deal with it, etc. If your intention as a GM is to actually have the party deal with this, and seal off the hole/portal/whatever, then you have to provide them with instructions. Perhaps these kobolds tell them of an ancient treasure guarded by ghasts from the underworld, but no one can get there because they just keep coming. But if someone where powerful enough, and clever enough, maybe they could find a way to seal off the portal to <wherever> stop the ghasts from coming and claim the treasure. But yeah. You need to provide the players with a reason to go there, some idea of what is there, and enough information to know what they need to do.

Random room? Not so great. Again though, the situation could be salvaged, if somewhere else they run across folks in the megadungeon who know about the ghasts and perhaps know something about where the sinkhole goes to, how it might be sealed, etc (and again, with some actual reason to bother in the first place, like... treasure).

This room was more or less a "trap". No incentive or objective; just a bad place to be. The players could have learned about it beforehand, but they are allergic to information gathering.

Wandering into it blind, its not really any different than any other random encounter / trap; its just that my players love the "turtle up" strategy which always hurts them when they fight enemies with AOE, ranged kiters, or reinforcements, but campaign after campaign they refuse to take more proactive tactics than huddle in their death ball and let the enemies come to them.

The floor below is home to a large army of the undead which are, more or less, forgotten and abandoned. This room was just here as a bit of flavor and foreshadowing of what is to come.

gbaji
2023-03-23, 03:39 PM
This room was more or less a "trap". No incentive or objective; just a bad place to be. The players could have learned about it beforehand, but they are allergic to information gathering.

And I think this is their number one problem right there. From what you've described, they seem to assume that any information they do gather is a "trick" to hurt them, so they don't bother.

Does the game system have any sort of remote information gathering spells? Like clairvoyance, or wizard eye, or similar? it just seems like they're literally playiing a game of munchkin here (kick in the door!), and just randomly wandering into stuff all the time. And again, at least some of this could be derived from some sort of assumption that "the GM can't hit us with more stuff per day than is allowed" kind of thinking.

These players would wipe constantly in my game. And I'm considered a super softie GM by my players.

BRC
2023-03-23, 04:13 PM
This room was more or less a "trap". No incentive or objective; just a bad place to be. The players could have learned about it beforehand, but they are allergic to information gathering.

Wandering into it blind, its not really any different than any other random encounter / trap; its just that my players love the "turtle up" strategy which always hurts them when they fight enemies with AOE, ranged kiters, or reinforcements, but campaign after campaign they refuse to take more proactive tactics than huddle in their death ball and let the enemies come to them.

The floor below is home to a large army of the undead which are, more or less, forgotten and abandoned. This room was just here as a bit of flavor and foreshadowing of what is to come.

Do you find they rely on "Turtle up until everything is dead" in scenarios where they are given some explicit objective that does not follow from turtling up?

Like, in the case of the Endless Ghast Room, the goal is "Escape the room having spent as few resources as possible". It's a trap, just one that uses combat mechanics instead of trap mechanics. Their fault was probably in assuming that eventually the room would Run Out Of Ghasts and they'd get some Reward for "Winning" the encounter, that running away was "Losing" the encounter and not getting it's reward.

It might be a case of bad assumptions on their part, or a case of them not engaging with the encounter in terms besides "Keep swinging until everything is dead".

was it clear that there was an effectively endless number of ghasts? They could see the undead hoard through the narrow crack in the wall, struggling to push through.

Was it clear that leaving the room would solve the problem vs putting an army of ghasts between them and the exit?

is this a case of them not reading situations well, or a case of them refusing to take hints?

GloatingSwine
2023-03-23, 05:14 PM
was it clear that there was an effectively endless number of ghasts? They could see the undead hoard through the narrow crack in the wall, struggling to push through.

Yes, at least it was when the wizard, who was halfway up the wall due to some spiderman powers, saw down the hole they were coming out of. She tried to collapse the ceiling on it to try and plug it but a bad roll caused her to do whiff the aim dropping rocks on the party instead at which point they bailed.

BRC
2023-03-23, 05:18 PM
Yes, at least it was when the wizard, who was halfway up the wall due to some spiderman powers, saw down the hole they were coming out of. She tried to collapse the ceiling on it to try and plug it but a bad roll caused her to do whiff the aim dropping rocks on the party instead at which point they bailed.

I suppose we don't know for sure what they would have done with that information had she not dropped rocks on the party, if they would have read the situation and fled or if they would have kept fighting.


In my experience, "Hit things until they're all gone" isn't a terrible assumption in TTRPGs, enemies you flee from mean losing out on rewards, or having to deal with those same enemies later when you're more exausted, or those same enemies ambushing you from behind when you're fighting something else.


Which is to say that if you're fond of turtling up as a way to survive a deathmatch, I can't really blame the PC's for going to that as a first response (Although turtling up at the chokepoint was probably a better move).

The question is if they had a good way of knowing that this was an "Escape the room" fight rather than the alternative.

Talakeal
2023-03-23, 05:28 PM
And I think this is their number one problem right there. From what you've described, they seem to assume that any information they do gather is a "trick" to hurt them, so they don't bother.

Does the game system have any sort of remote information gathering spells? Like clairvoyance, or wizard eye, or similar? it just seems like they're literally playiing a game of munchkin here (kick in the door!), and just randomly wandering into stuff all the time. And again, at least some of this could be derived from some sort of assumption that "the GM can't hit us with more stuff per day than is allowed" kind of thinking.

These players would wipe constantly in my game. And I'm considered a super softie GM by my players.

Those all do exist.

The players kind of disdain their use though; they don't like the idea of turning tangible power (in this case spell slots) into "useless" lore and information.

And yes, they do tend to be suspicious of GM trickery and take everything said with far too many grains of salt. They have a bad habit of lawyering themselves out of useful information much like Roy at the Oracle.


Do you find they rely on "Turtle up until everything is dead" in scenarios where they are given some explicit objective that does not follow from turtling up?

Like, in the case of the Endless Ghast Room, the goal is "Escape the room having spent as few resources as possible". It's a trap, just one that uses combat mechanics instead of trap mechanics. Their fault was probably in assuming that eventually the room would Run Out Of Ghasts and they'd get some Reward for "Winning" the encounter, that running away was "Losing" the encounter and not getting it's reward.

It might be a case of bad assumptions on their part, or a case of them not engaging with the encounter in terms besides "Keep swinging until everything is dead".

was it clear that there was an effectively endless number of ghasts? They could see the undead hoard through the narrow crack in the wall, struggling to push through.

Was it clear that leaving the room would solve the problem vs putting an army of ghasts between them and the exit?

is this a case of them not reading situations well, or a case of them refusing to take hints?

In this case I tried to make it as clear as I could that there were *a lot* of ghasts buried in the floor and digging themselves out narratively, and I was putting a new model on the board on top of the sinkhole at the start of each turn.

My party's tactics are kind of stuck at the level of "Greek Phalanx;" which works well enough in most melee scrums, but they have a lot of trouble and tend to get frustrated and give up when more proactive or offensive tactics are required. Particularly city raids that require them to get in and get out before the enemy can mobilize; if you want to read more check out my previous campaign journal and the disastrous rescue operation from centipede city.

GloatingSwine
2023-03-23, 06:10 PM
I suppose we don't know for sure what they would have done with that information had she not dropped rocks on the party, if they would have read the situation and fled or if they would have kept fighting.


In my experience, "Hit things until they're all gone" isn't a terrible assumption in TTRPGs, enemies you flee from mean losing out on rewards, or having to deal with those same enemies later when you're more exausted, or those same enemies ambushing you from behind when you're fighting something else.


Which is to say that if you're fond of turtling up as a way to survive a deathmatch, I can't really blame the PC's for going to that as a first response (Although turtling up at the chokepoint was probably a better move).

The question is if they had a good way of knowing that this was an "Escape the room" fight rather than the alternative.

TBH from the description it sounds like the only improvement they could have made was "do the same thing one step backwards and roll the dice better". Their only mistake was fighting one step too far forwards so they could be attacked by multiple opponents.

"Turtle up whilst the big blasters do something about the source" sounds like the only way to interact with this encounter that isn't "sneak past and loot the treasure then lock the doors behind you when you leave".

The reinforcements were so frequent that the problem was that their strategy wasn't turtle enough.

Quertus
2023-03-23, 06:39 PM
First, what is this objective definition of poorly you have? Could you please share it?

The subjective one. :smallwink:


Mathematically, the game is balanced around 4-6 encounters per adventuring day. The players have had seven adventuring days, and have cleared 35 encounters. By any objective standard, that seems exactly where they should be.

Likewise, they haven't actually suffered any casualties yet aside from one player literally committing suicide for completely metagame reasons (see the audacious cheating thread for more info).

And during those X sessions, they've had what, in a simple war game, would have been how many TPKs? I think I can count 4 in as many sessions - am I close? That's not what success looks like.


Out of curiosity, do you really find being surrounded by kobolds and entering into an alliance with them whereby you split treasure to avoid deaths on both sides to be a "travesty of failure"? Because that is pretty standard in my understanding of both fiction and RPGs; every other campaign journal I read has moments like that all the time. I recently reread Kaveman's awesome journals in preperation for this game, and stuff like that happens more or less on a daily occurrence.

Doesn't matter if I mind it, they do. Also, if I entered into that alliance at sword-point, having been Tucker's'd? Then yeah, that'd be a failure.

If I walked in wanting to ally with those monsters, that'd be a different story. But this feels too much like "The GM likes stories where...", rather than "the PCs' stories".

Which might be another things to focus on in the "everyone runs a 1-shot" series: have each GM tell the type of story they want told. Learn what everyone else likes, so you can learn to craft that.


Second, have you actually read Conan? IIRC most of his adventures start with him on the run and in hiding or making a plea deal with his captors, and usually ends up with him broke and his friends all dead. Even the movie had him in captivity repeatedly, to the point where he was executed on a cross, and even though he wins in the end he undergoes extreme setbacks and his party has a lot of casualties.

I very much like Conan, in no large part because he struggles but never gives up, but he is in no way the flawless Mary Sue who always wins that Bob would enjoy.

I don't like Conan myself, but, sure, Indiana Jones opened his first movie losing his first treasure to being outmaneuvered and betrayed. However, he immediately removes the "and killed" outcome through his own efforts. Making the best lemonade he can out of those lemons. And softening the bite of those lemons twice over.

But, if your players can't do that, then you have to not serve them lemons. I... don't think I can teach someone how to teach normal people how to make lemonade, let alone teach you how to teach Bizarro World how to make lemonade.

That said, you seem to know how to make lemonade out of lemons, so it sounds like you're in the best position to fix things twice over.


Out of curiosity, what is "right"?

Um... clearing out a section, like God and Talakeal intended, rather than kicking the entire hornet's nest?


The dungeon starts with five paths for them to take; how is one of them objectively better than any of the others?

It just so happened that one player proposed always taking the leftmost turn which would have, coincidentally, taken them to the strongest monster on the level by the most direct path.

Whether or not this is "bad luck" or "good luck" is another question that I don't have an answer to. Its certainly the "high-risk high-reward" path, but without foreknowledge of how the fight would have gone I can't say whether or not it would have been good or bad luck.

That's fine. It's the part you left out - the "oh, but if they go that way first, as 1st level scrubs lacking the XP and Loot from the rest of the 1st level, it's probably a TPK" bit that makes that terrible design.

"I designed this dungeon to kill you if you poke but don't clear out a section... except this one, where if you try to clear it out first, it's too tough, and it kills you." - can you honestly say that's how you'd like your GM to design your dungeons?

And I don't even want to think about what happens when the 1st session party pokes the floor boss then retreats, just what that hornet's nest might look like.


Taking high strength and dexterity over high endurance and agility. Using two handed weapons over shields. Taking offensive over defensive combat techniques. Spending money on good weapons over good armor.

Gotcha. "Two melee with lousy stats for melee, and prioritizing defensive equipment/upgrades/choices over offensive ones" says more than "two melee".


As for the back rank, both of them depend on rolls to hit for their builds, which is not optimal in tight spaces, especially when you have a giant oaf like Feurlina in the front lines, as they are taking hefty penalties for line of sight and friendly fire. In addition, Jesse didn't even bother taking proficiency in her weapon, as she figured her "lucky" dice rolls would simply always deliver the nat twenty and thus didn't need it.

Only in Bizarro World.

But, um... how would a back-line character contribute to DPS other than with, you know, a ranged weapon that apparently gets penalized for tight spaces and LoS/FriendlyFire? I only had 2 even remotely possible answers to that question, and one of them ("a weapon that ignores Friendly Fire") quickly led to "Oh, yeah, just summon incorporeal creatures to fight for you... wait a minute...".


My players love combat and hate investigation.

How on Earth do you think a forensic dungeon would be tailored to their tastes?

They are also thicker than mud, there is no way I could actually convey lore to them through clues and dungeon dressing and implications.

"Thicker than mud." Thanks for the laugh! :smallbiggrin:

I mean, I'm pretty well past all hope of anything ever working in Bizarro World, but, for the folks at home who have more *normal* gaming groups, I would give the same information multiple times, multiple different ways, to (in effect) teach your players how you present information.

Like, if I had you as a new player, and wanted to teach you how I "hint" at things... hmmm... the Kobalds have a legend... but they are all dead now, so they won't get that without Speak with Dead tech. So instead you get Kobald cave paintings, one broken side with a fire and sad kobalds, the other with happy kobalds hugging themselves (yes, I'd be a ****, and members of the party who failed the spot check might misinterpret it as smiling armless women vs sad men by a fire). Then elsewhere there'd be the aforementioned spikes made of giant lizard bones. Some of the monsters would have references to coming up from below. The Kobalds would have... ancient items made of some mineral or something that only comes from deep underground. Maybe one piece of dungeon loot would be an ancient magical set of scaily armor. Maybe a picture book would show various creatures together. Blah blah blah. But... there's no lizards on level 1 of the dungeon. Because I'm hinting that there's lizards down below.

Of course, that would be intermixed with lots of hints of lots of other things, like how the spikes were set to defend against foes charging on the floor, walls, and ceiling... or how the Goblins all know / wrote in pigeon Giant, how another piece of loot is a magical earring depicting a winged snake in a cage, how water kept in one of the safe rooms goes stale within a day (and there's a safe room just like it on each floor), how one of the bits of magic (or just "masterwork") loot is exactly what someone in the party wanted, how one of the rooms has a stalactite that glows producing "day" and "night" cycles that don't match actual day and night cycles... but, with your group, I might have to give evidence of the things that cause each of these half a dozen different ways and see when they connect that certain things are related...

Added to the fact that multiple of the sentient NPC monsters might actually know something about some of that, and might volunteer the information or be willing to talk about these things if asked.

So, you know, saying the same thing over and over, as many different ways as you can think to do so, multiple times, to see what sticks.

And building the dungeon such that it doesn't really matter if your players don't actually catch any of it. They just get to feel smart if they do, not dumb or TPK or stuck at a dead-end unable to proceed if they don't.

That's my advice for good dungeon design in Bizarro World.

EDIT:
In my experience, "Hit things until they're all gone" isn't a terrible assumption in TTRPGs, enemies you flee from mean losing out on rewards, or having to deal with those same enemies later when you're more exausted, or those same enemies ambushing you from behind when you're fighting something else.

Yeah, given their previous experience with being Tucker's'd (twice) after leaving enemies behind, it would only make sense that they'd be incentivized to clear this room. I mean, why wouldn't they?

gbaji
2023-03-23, 08:14 PM
In my experience, "Hit things until they're all gone" isn't a terrible assumption in TTRPGs, enemies you flee from mean losing out on rewards, or having to deal with those same enemies later when you're more exausted, or those same enemies ambushing you from behind when you're fighting something else.

Nope. Not terrible at all. But the party has to make a decision as to what they are actually going to do, and then take actions to make that happen. Offensive strategies are incredibly important in situations where the defenders are, well, defending, but are not aware of the party yet. By attacking quickly and decisively, you can advance though the defenders position before they can fully react and position themselves, and thus hold the "high ground". Hesitating when that is the correct course of action will cost you.



Which is to say that if you're fond of turtling up as a way to survive a deathmatch, I can't really blame the PC's for going to that as a first response (Although turtling up at the chokepoint was probably a better move).

Turtling has its place, but only if the opponents actually have a reason to come over and attack you. Otherwise you're just advertising your presence and loosing all advantage of surprise and inititatve. In the case of non-intelligent opponents (like minor undead), probably a great idea. But, as you pointed out, with a group this small, it's not terribly effective if you don't also have terrain to help out. Four people can't actually protect anyone from attack if they don't use terrain. Every single one of them is on the "outside" of the formation if the enemy can surround them.


The question is if they had a good way of knowing that this was an "Escape the room" fight rather than the alternative.

To be honest, it sounded like it could have been either. They could have "taken the initiative" and pushed forward, engaged the ghasts while they were still gathering, put themselves into position, wiped them out, then continued to push forward until they were down to basically one ghast in the room at a time. Then it's a matter of figuring out how to close the sinkhole.

What they did instead was kind of halfway one and halfway the other. They tried something to close the sinkhole right off the bat, while still in the middle of engaging the ghasts, that went "poorly", and then they fled and then picked a poor "turtle" spot, and got overrun. I mean, if the initial attempt to close it had worked, it would have worked great. But this is really "all eggs in one basket" kind of adventuring. One failure and the whole thing unravels. A more tactical measured approach isn't so dependent on not getting a single bad roll to succeed and doesn't fall apart so epically.


Those all do exist.

The players kind of disdain their use though; they don't like the idea of turning tangible power (in this case spell slots) into "useless" lore and information.

Huh. And yet, they are exploring a vast undergound dungeon setting where such spells would allow them to actually use the *exact* tactics they seem to prefer (see what's there, then rest and come back and deal with it later). Do they not see that what they are doing right now is the same "scouting and/or gathering intelligence" except that they are both taking damage *and* alerting the enemies to their presence? I'm not sure how spell selection is done in your game (is it like D&D where you have a number of spells available, but pick X number per day? or something else?). But it seems like "spend one rest period using information gathering spells to learn about what's in the area of the dungeon we're planning on going into", followed by "spend the next period physically going through that area now that we have an idea what is there" would seem to be an excellent approach.

It seems doubly odd that they don't want to use this stuff, given that they don't seem to want to trust any information that comes from the GM/NPCs. They could actually do their own scouting and find out for themselves ahead of time, instead of constantly blundering into things. What a concept!


My party's tactics are kind of stuck at the level of "Greek Phalanx;" which works well enough in most melee scrums, but they have a lot of trouble and tend to get frustrated and give up when more proactive or offensive tactics are required. Particularly city raids that require them to get in and get out before the enemy can mobilize; if you want to read more check out my previous campaign journal and the disastrous rescue operation from centipede city.

Er. Yeah. That sort of tactic doesn't work at all when actually attacking.

Actually missed this in your earlier post, so putting it here:


Taking high strength and dexterity over high endurance and agility. Using two handed weapons over shields. Taking offensive over defensive combat techniques. Spending money on good weapons over good armor.

As for the back rank, both of them depend on rolls to hit for their builds, which is not optimal in tight spaces, especially when you have a giant oaf like Feurlina in the front lines, as they are taking hefty penalties for line of sight and friendly fire. In addition, Jesse didn't even bother taking proficiency in her weapon, as she figured her "lucky" dice rolls would simply always deliver the nat twenty and thus didn't need it.

Um... Why on earth are they using turtle tactics if they've built their characters completely wrong for that tactic? If you're going to turtle (or even just "fall back to a chokepoint") you want tough high armor defensive fighters in front, and effective missile/spell folks in back.

They've literally built their characters for offensive "charge forward quickly" style combat, but instead "fall back and defend". That makes no... sense.




My players love combat and hate investigation.

Well. I'd say that your players love to "win combats". The problem is that the lack of investigation and frankly terrible on the ground tactics means that they will lose a lot of the time, which isn't what they love at all.

Talakeal
2023-03-23, 10:53 PM
And during those X sessions, they've had what, in a simple war game, would have been how many TPKs? I think I can count 4 in as many sessions - am I close? That's not what success looks like.

Zero.

They would have had some casualties if they had fought the kobolds to the death the one time, but not a TPK.

I suppose the manticore could have TPKed the party if it had been so inclined; but what sort of "war game" has a monster show up after the battle is already over and threaten the victors?


Um... clearing out a section, like God and Talakeal intended, rather than kicking the entire hornet's nest?

There's not really a "wrong" way to explore the dungeon, nor did I really have anything intended.

They are just going about it in an unexpected way where they keep turning around right before getting to the big treasures / lore dumps.


That's fine. It's the part you left out - the "oh, but if they go that way first, as 1st level scrubs lacking the XP and Loot from the rest of the 1st level, it's probably a TPK" bit that makes that terrible design.

"I designed this dungeon to kill you if you poke but don't clear out a section... except this one, where if you try to clear it out first, it's too tough, and it kills you." - can you honestly say that's how you'd like your GM to design your dungeons?

And I don't even want to think about what happens when the 1st session party pokes the floor boss then retreats, just what that hornet's nest might look like.


Its a deadly encounter, but not an impossible one. And it has good rewards. It is fully possible for them to take it out at first level, and in doing so get a lot of XP and treasure, as I said above, its the "high risk - high reward" path.

Also, it's an unintelligent creature that is too big to chase the PCs all the way back out of the dungeon. Its specifically designed so that they can retreat from it if they get in over their heads.


Gotcha. "Two melee with lousy stats for melee, and prioritizing defensive equipment/upgrades/choices over offensive ones" says more than "two melee".

Sorry, I had said that upthread. Didn't realize you were responding to a comment by Gbaj / BRC rather than me directly.


But, um... how would a back-line character contribute to DPS other than with, you know, a ranged weapon that apparently gets penalized for tight spaces and LoS/FriendlyFire? I only had 2 even remotely possible answers to that question, and one of them ("a weapon that ignores Friendly Fire") quickly led to "Oh, yeah, just summon incorporeal creatures to fight for you... wait a minute...".

Polearms. Lobbed grenade like weapons. Spells that don't require a roll to hit.

Certain magic items and feats also reduce or negate friendly fire penalties; and tanks without the huge size trait like Feurlina tend not to black as much of the dungeon.


Yeah, given their previous experience with being Tucker's'd (twice) after leaving enemies behind, it would only make sense that they'd be incentivized to clear this room. I mean, why wouldn't they?

Only once. Not twice.

I would point out that that was against intelligent enemies, not mindless undead... but actually... the players DIDN'T clear the room, that's the whole problem, they fell back without doing anything to block off the ghasts and so the ghasts kind of now roam around freely throughout that section of the dungeon.


What they did instead was kind of halfway one and halfway the other. They tried something to close the sinkhole right off the bat, while still in the middle of engaging the ghasts, that went "poorly", and then they fled and then picked a poor "turtle" spot, and got overrun. I mean, if the initial attempt to close it had worked, it would have worked great. But this is really "all eggs in one basket" kind of adventuring. One failure and the whole thing unravels. A more tactical measured approach isn't so dependent on not getting a single bad roll to succeed and doesn't fall apart so epically.

Correct.

The first fight went fine, at least until the spell mishap, it was not doing anything to block the door or seal up the hole that really screwed them over as now the ghasts are freely roaming that section of the dungeon.

It was the second fight where they just choose to turtle in the middle of a large room and get surrounded with no attempt to use terrain or stem the tide that they really got beaten up.



Actually missed this in your earlier post, so putting it here:

Um... Why on earth are they using turtle tactics if they've built their characters completely wrong for that tactic? If you're going to turtle (or even just "fall back to a chokepoint") you want tough high armor defensive fighters in front, and effective missile/spell folks in back.

They've literally built their characters for offensive "charge forward quickly" style combat, but instead "fall back and defend". That makes no... sense.

You may be reading me backwards. Both Kumiko and Feurlina are built as defensive melee with very little offense. Both Jesse and Flossie are built as ranged combat with all offense; but don't have any means of effectively shooting over the front two.

So, basically, they have ok defense (as long as they can avoid getting surrounded) but very little in the way of offense, especially in a dungeon environment.


Huh. And yet, they are exploring a vast undergound dungeon setting where such spells would allow them to actually use the *exact* tactics they seem to prefer (see what's there, then rest and come back and deal with it later). Do they not see that what they are doing right now is the same "scouting and/or gathering intelligence" except that they are both taking damage *and* alerting the enemies to their presence? I'm not sure how spell selection is done in your game (is it like D&D where you have a number of spells available, but pick X number per day? or something else?). But it seems like "spend one rest period using information gathering spells to learn about what's in the area of the dungeon we're planning on going into", followed by "spend the next period physically going through that area now that we have an idea what is there" would seem to be an excellent approach.

It seems doubly odd that they don't want to use this stuff, given that they don't seem to want to trust any information that comes from the GM/NPCs. They could actually do their own scouting and find out for themselves ahead of time, instead of constantly blundering into things. What a concept!

So, how it works, in brief:

Spells are tied to the phase of the moon. In my system it is normally "spells per month" but in this particular game I am handwaving it to "spells per expedition".

Between expeditions, I basically roll random encounters to see if the dungeon restocks, and these tables get slowly nastier over time. This was the "pacing mechanism" I decided on.

Flossie has 15 spell slots per expedition. She casts like a D&D sorcerer, casting any spell she knows freely without needed to prepare in advance.

She is a wild mage, which means she has a small pool of innate spells (mostly involving manipulating fate and probability and summoning ectoplasm constructs) and also has the ability to fire entropy bolts at will similar to a warlock's eldritch blast. However, her biggest power is that she can cast ANY spell in the game, but said spells have to roll on a wild surge chart and something unexpected will always happen.

In this setup I wouldn't really spend an entire session casting information gathering spells, but I would probably cast a few.

But again, Bob tends to find knowledge and exploration boring and pointless, only winning combats through overwhelming power interests him, and he is also the one who, 90% of the time, calls dibs on playing the wizard.

Quertus
2023-03-24, 10:40 AM
Polearms. Lobbed grenade like weapons. Spells that don't require a roll to hit.

Certain magic items and feats also reduce or negate friendly fire penalties; and tanks without the huge size trait like Feurlina tend not to black as much of the dungeon.

"Polearms" was, indeed, my other thought.

You built the system - why would lobbed grenade weapons be better than point-and-shoot projectiles? :smallconfused: I wouldn't want me at my back with either in tight spaces, personally.

Anyway, sounds like you built a dungeon that was tuned for competent adventurers, and got your group instead. :smallamused: Consider changing one or the other until they match. Still curious how things change when you're a player.

BRC
2023-03-24, 10:58 AM
The first fight went fine, at least until the spell mishap, it was not doing anything to block the door or seal up the hole that really screwed them over as now the ghasts are freely roaming that section of the dungeon.

It was the second fight where they just choose to turtle in the middle of a large room and get surrounded with no attempt to use terrain or stem the tide that they really got beaten up.


I think I missed something somewhere.

So the first fight they approached decently, just got screwed over by a bad roll with the rock-dropping.

Second fight they just kind of stood there until they got overwhelmed.

GloatingSwine
2023-03-24, 11:06 AM
Between expeditions, I basically roll random encounters to see if the dungeon restocks, and these tables get slowly nastier over time. This was the "pacing mechanism" I decided on.

So a little discursion on "pacing" here.

Pacing should be about predicting and moderating the rate at which the players make progress in the adventure. A dungeon that gets harder over time irrespective of player progress isn't a pacing mechanism.

Pacing mechanisms need to simultaneously encourage forward progress whilst applying just enough friction that it doesn't happen too quickly.

A progressively increasing challenge curve independent of actual progress (as you have noted your players haven't actually made any yet) doesn't encourage forward progress it does the opposite, it reduces the need to move forward to find new things.


They are just going about it in an unexpected way where they keep turning around right before getting to the big treasures / lore dumps.

How bright, obvious, and sparkly is the trail of breadcrumbs that says "the next room is the important one!"?

Remember, your players all have +100 to save vs. hints. They need big neon signs.

BRC
2023-03-24, 11:13 AM
How bright, obvious, and sparkly is the trail of breadcrumbs that says "the next room is the important one!"?

Remember, your players all have +100 to save vs. hints. They need big neon signs.

I feel like this is key

This sort of thing is basically a "Push your luck" scenario, where the possibility of greater reward is balanced against defeat by attrition if you don't turn back now.

Which is to say, if the players don't know if a door contains Rewards or Another Tough Encounter, the fact that they turn back just before the Rewards might indicate that you've almost read things correctly. Almost.


Lets say the PC's can do 5 Challenges before turning back becomes a good idea. If you put your treasure behind the 6th door, the point at which they probably can't deal with another challenge, then they're going to turn back at the threshold of reward because they don't know that the door doesn't lead to The Fight They Can't Win.


Of course, the normal way to deal with this is by having the PC's gather some information, so they can know "The Treasure Hoard is stored behind the Big Red Door guarded by gargoyles", instead of looking at the big red door and saying "Wow, we barely beat those gargoyles. I don't think we can handle whatever is behind this big red door, we better turn back".

Talakeal
2023-03-24, 12:35 PM
You built the system - why would lobbed grenade weapons be better than point-and-shoot projectiles? :smallconfused: I wouldn't want me at my back with either in tight spaces, personally.

Anyway, sounds like you built a dungeon that was tuned for competent adventurers, and got your group instead. :smallamused: Consider changing one or the other until they match. Still curious how things change when you're a player.

Indirect fire weapons halve penalties as you don't actually have to aim between your allies while picking out targets, you simply have to lob something over their heads.


Anyway, sounds like you built a dungeon that was tuned for competent adventurers, and got your group instead. :smallamused: Consider changing one or the other until they match. Still curious how things change when you're a player.

More or less. I still have hope that they can learn, as foolish as that might be.

After the first two sessions I really, really, thought they were making great progress. I guess because I couldn't hear the rage-quitting and suicidal ideation in their heads.


I think I missed something somewhere.

So the first fight they approached decently, just got screwed over by a bad roll with the rock-dropping.

Second fight they just kind of stood there until they got overwhelmed.

Decently; not great, but decently.

But they really botched the exit. As Puffin Forest says, players lack object permanence, so they didn't give any thought to what would happen when they came back (for the third or fourth time).

Simply shutting the door and piling stacks of wood from the depot across the street would have been automatic and more than sufficient for this. (Again, that's just an idea, this isn't a "guess exactly what the DM is thinking!" puzzle).


So a little discursion on "pacing" here.

Pacing should be about predicting and moderating the rate at which the players make progress in the adventure. A dungeon that gets harder over time irrespective of player progress isn't a pacing mechanism.

Pacing mechanisms need to simultaneously encourage forward progress whilst applying just enough friction that it doesn't happen too quickly.

A progressively increasing challenge curve independent of actual progress (as you have noted your players haven't actually made any yet) doesn't encourage forward progress it does the opposite, it reduces the need to move forward to find new things.

"Pacing" may not be the right word.

More like, motivation to keep moving forward.

They don't get XP or treasure for killing random monsters, so there is no incentive there.

As for progress, they have explored and cleared 80% of the first floor and found most of the treasure there (even if they did have to pay a ransom to the kobolds). That's hardly no progress, and I expect them to finish the first floor and gather the rest of the treasure next session.



How bright, obvious, and sparkly is the trail of breadcrumbs that says "the next room is the important one!"?

Remember, your players all have +100 to save vs. hints. They need big neon signs.

Yeah. I really thought the players would be doing a lot more in the way of scouting, but neither their builds nor their playstyle lend themselves to it.


I feel like this is key

This sort of thing is basically a "Push your luck" scenario, where the possibility of greater reward is balanced against defeat by attrition if you don't turn back now.

Which is to say, if the players don't know if a door contains Rewards or Another Tough Encounter, the fact that they turn back just before the Rewards might indicate that you've almost read things correctly. Almost.


Lets say the PC's can do 5 Challenges before turning back becomes a good idea. If you put your treasure behind the 6th door, the point at which they probably can't deal with another challenge, then they're going to turn back at the threshold of reward because they don't know that the door doesn't lead to The Fight They Can't Win.


Of course, the normal way to deal with this is by having the PC's gather some information, so they can know "The Treasure Hoard is stored behind the Big Red Door guarded by gargoyles", instead of looking at the big red door and saying "Wow, we barely beat those gargoyles. I don't think we can handle whatever is behind this big red door, we better turn back".

Yeah. I mentioned a couple of pages ago how this is a paradox, haven't heard a great solution yet.

The idea is for the players to push as far as they can, but how do they know before they open the door whether they can deal with the thing on the other side?

As is, they open the door, angry the monsters up, and then fall back to rest while the monsters shore up their defenses. Not great, but I am not sure what the ideal way for them to adjust their tactics to keep it from happening is.

GloatingSwine
2023-03-24, 12:46 PM
"Pacing" may not be the right word.

More like, motivation to keep moving forward.

They don't get XP or treasure for killing random monsters, so there is no incentive there.

As for progress, they have explored and cleared 80% of the first floor and found most of the treasure there (even if they did have to pay a ransom to the kobolds). That's hardly no progress, and I expect them to finish the first floor and gather the rest of the treasure next session.

Earlier on you were saying they hadn't cleared any of the major elements of the floor, and you've also said they've not actually gotten any of the major information that points them to where to go to do so, part of the dungeon is infested with enemies that they've bounced off of twice, and at least two groups or individuals in the dungeon have holds over them.

Their failures have obviously felt far more significant than their successes (because otherwise they wouldn't have shifted over to a maximally risk-averse strategy like "get an incorporeal attacker to do it all for us"), and they still don't know what to do to proceed.

Random monsters of escalating difficulty over time won't convince your players to move on because they'll assume that the next floor will start off even more difficult. You need the dungeon to run out of stuff to do unless they proceed.

Talakeal
2023-03-24, 01:12 PM
Earlier on you were saying they hadn't cleared any of the major elements of the floor, and you've also said they've not actually gotten any of the major information that points them to where to go to do so, part of the dungeon is infested with enemies that they've bounced off of twice, and at least two groups or individuals in the dungeon have holds over them.

Their failures have obviously felt far more significant than their successes (because otherwise they wouldn't have shifted over to a maximally risk-averse strategy like "get an incorporeal attacker to do it all for us"), and they still don't know what to do to proceed.

The haven't fully cleared any of the dungeon wings. They have still cleared 80% of the total area.

It just so happens that the 20% unexplored contains (most of) the big treasures and lore dumps.



Random monsters of escalating difficulty over time won't convince your players to move on because they'll assume that the next floor will start off even more difficult. You need the dungeon to run out of stuff to do unless they proceed.

I can't possibly see my players just running in circles killing random monsters because there is no loot in it.

GloatingSwine
2023-03-24, 02:53 PM
I can't possibly see my players just running in circles killing random monsters because there is no loot in it.

No, but I can see them tripping over a more-difficult-than-expected random dungeon restock and falling into a doom spiral about it only being the first floor and not wanting to carry on because the second will be harder than that.

Random encounters in megadungeons add texture to traversal, they don't need to escalate over time to push the players forward, running out of things to loot pushes the players forward already.

gbaji
2023-03-24, 04:08 PM
I think I missed something somewhere.

So the first fight they approached decently, just got screwed over by a bad roll with the rock-dropping.

Second fight they just kind of stood there until they got overwhelmed.

My understanding is that they miffed their spell to try to seal the sinkhole on the initial encounter (not a bad idea, just bad luck), so they retreated. The problem is that they failed to close the door behind them, so instead of the ghasts just being in the one room, they roamed out into the larger area, making things more difficult.

The second fight, they came back, disovered the ghasts were in a room further from the sinkhole room, did a poor turtle, and got overwhelmed and retreated again.

This does kind of raise the question: Why were these ghasts all staying down in the sink hole in the first place? Why only a half dozen in the initial room "up top", but such a fast rate of them digging their way up once someone walks into the room? I get that this is a trap, but presumably this room has been here for a long time, and yet was in this state when the party arrived.

Remember that when designing dungeons you aren't just designing something for the players to encounter, but that also has to make sense from a "this has been here for centuries before the players arrived" pov. If the ghasts always dig up the sinkhole, then the room above should be absolutely full of ghasts. And unless no one has ever opened that door in the entire history of that door and room existing, the entire dungeon floor should be full of nothing but ghasts. Etiher that, or someone else on that floor/wing should have resolved the problem with the ghasts long ago (or more securely blocked off the door to the room).

A logical alternative is that the ghasts feel most "at home" down below, and only climb up if they sense living things to attack, feed on, or whatever it is that ghasts do in this game. The players should be able to close a door and just wait, and the ghasts should (mostly) return down below. That's an easy way to "reset" the encounter.


Of course, the normal way to deal with this is by having the PC's gather some information, so they can know "The Treasure Hoard is stored behind the Big Red Door guarded by gargoyles", instead of looking at the big red door and saying "Wow, we barely beat those gargoyles. I don't think we can handle whatever is behind this big red door, we better turn back".

Yeah. These players seem to be absurdly information-gathering adverse though. Whicih means that the GM must employ more direct means. More on that below.


Yeah. I really thought the players would be doing a lot more in the way of scouting, but neither their builds nor their playstyle lend themselves to it.

Yeah. I mentioned a couple of pages ago how this is a paradox, haven't heard a great solution yet.

The idea is for the players to push as far as they can, but how do they know before they open the door whether they can deal with the thing on the other side?

As is, they open the door, angry the monsters up, and then fall back to rest while the monsters shore up their defenses. Not great, but I am not sure what the ideal way for them to adjust their tactics to keep it from happening is.

Here's the "solution". You have to structure the actual layout of each "area" so that it's much more obvious that "This whole thing need to be done in one bite".

Imagine that the adventurers are assualting a small keep, where the evil lord fancypants lives and is holding someone hostage, stolen the macguffin, performing the evil ritutal of Doom(tm), whatever. The PCs would find some means to sneak up as close as possible, then climb over the outer walls (under cover of night/spells/whatever), quickly engage the few guards in the courtyard, while maybe someone charges at the (hopefully open) door to the tower/bailey/whatever. Having secured this first stage, they continue into the building, clearing each floor as they go, right?

The point is that they would never explore and clear the first three floors of the tower, and then upon reaching the stairs to the top floor, where the evil Lord is, doing his evil <whatever>, and then just go "Eh. That's enough encounters for this adventure. Let's go home and rest". The objective of the entire operation is "Right there". That's why they are here. They will push on, clambor up the last fight of stairs, and engage the evil guy, defeat him (hopefully), win the day, earn the treasure, stop the evil plot, etc.

This is relatively easy in scenarios like that. It's an (in this case) four story tower, with a small courtyard around it. They know this. They know the main bad guy is in the tower. They know they have to defeat said main bad guy. Easy, right? More to the point, they know that until they get to the top floor and clear the entire tower, they are not "done", and thus they know to manage their resources to that goal. That's the absolute key bit here.

It's trickier in a dungeon, where every tunnel maybe looks the same, and each door looks the same, and there's no easy/obvious way to know that "this is the last door to the final bad guy in this area, and the rewards are there for the taking if you win". Or heck. Even "you just defeated the guardians, and this door leads to the treasure vault they were guarding" can be tricky (unless you have a big sign on the door or something). If the players don't know when they have reached the "goal of this section of the dungeon", they have no way to manage their resources, or know when it's the right time to turn back, rest, and come back tomorrow.

One way to manage this is to lay out the dungeon in more obvious individual "chunks" of content. So long tunnels that connect independent sections. Each section is a tighter set of corridors and hallways in which a specific set of denizens resides. These should be sized and occupied based on what role this section fills. Some may be large and heavily populated with intelligent denizens, perhaps suggesting to the players that "we need to negotiate with these people". Others may be smaller, with less intelligent (but dangerous) things, that clearly scream "we need to clear this section out". Others may have smaller group of maruading denizens, who perhaps raid other larger sections for goods/prisoners/whatever. The party may even be asked to help clear one of these sections out by one of the larger groups they've interacted with.

The point is that if you literally physically break up the dungeon into these bits that are intended to be interated with in a single "chunk", the players will be more likely to treat it like that one tower and actually complete the whole thing. Doubly so if it's clear that a single set of "defenders" exist there, such that failing to defeat them all will cause the others to either shore up their defenses more, or flee, denying the PCs of most of the reward for going there in the first place. Once they've encountered a couple of these types of areas, they'll get the feel for it, realize this is how things are laid out, and proceed accordingly. They'll know that as long as there are more doors and hallways in this one section, they need to keep exploring until there's nothing left but long rough tunnels leading to other separate sections "off thata way".

The other advantage of this, is that, unlike a massive complex of inter connected doors and hallways, this actually gives the players a bit of confidence that, having cleared a section, they can secure it somewhat, find a good place to rest, etc. And they only have to worry about either known things in the area they've already decided aren't a threat or the rare critters that wander into the section as a whole. And even some basic defensive tactics shouuld allow them to deal with that easily.

Then, having rested and recovered, they can continue deeper into the larger underground dungeon. At least, this is how I often lay out very large undergound adventures. Always provide obvious logical "chunks" of content for them to interact with. If the players perceive the entire thing as one huge "thing", they're going to have a hard time navigating it.


Earlier on you were saying they hadn't cleared any of the major elements of the floor, and you've also said they've not actually gotten any of the major information that points them to where to go to do so, part of the dungeon is infested with enemies that they've bounced off of twice, and at least two groups or individuals in the dungeon have holds over them.

My reading is that they will travel into a "wing" of the dungeon, clear it 80% of the way, then turn back. But instead of returning to that same section (or just continuing to explore), they then go to another "wing" and do the same thing. Assuming a relatively logical layout of such a dungeon, it's reasonable to assume that the "rewards" for exploring in any given direction are most likely to be at the farthest point in any given area/direction, so they are... "doing it wrong".

And yeah. That part just baffles me. Unless they are running into something in each area that they decide they just can't handle and figuring "we'll deal with that later. let's expore another area and see if we have better luck". But if that's the case, then it suggests that the diffiuclty in each "wing" is maybe tuned a bit too high for the group.

If the players think that each wing is a different difficulty, this is not a totally illogical thing to do. I've seen dungeon layouts where it's like "door A leads to the easy part", then "door B leads to the middle part", and "door C leads to the final, really difficult part". So if the players explore in the wrong order, they run smack into something they can't handle. And in that case, retreating and exploring in a different direction is exactly the right thing to do. You get treasure, items, and levels that allow you to progress though the whole dungeon if you do it in the right order. I guess. Personally, I would avoid that layout, but that may be what the players are thinking is going on here.

Hard to say for sure.

Pauly
2023-03-24, 04:10 PM
My comments on the ghast room

1) It is a reasonable assumption that on entering a room that there will contain one room’ worth of enemies.
If it contains more it needs to be clearly signposted to the players (eg they see a scout run to the warning drum, see him pick up the drumsticks, hear him beat the big alarm, then hear reinforcements coming from a direction).

2) Why do players turtle?
Tactically whoever goes through the door is at a disadvantage. Against mindless enemies who will rush forward it is the optimal strategy.

3) What is the point of rooms that contain excess mindless enemies?
It is to punish players for turtling. You can dress it up by saying it’s to provide different game play or to reward scouting or as encouraging the players to engage with the lore, but at the end of the day it’s to punish players for having an effective standard operating procedure.

4) Logistics.
Talakeal describes the room as having an endless stream of undead. Endless essentially means infinite.
If each ghast takes up a 5ft x 5ft x 5ft space and there are an infinite number of ghasts then you need a room of infinite size to house them while they wait to enter the dungeon. How does this waiting room map onto the rest of the dungeon levels below the current level?
Each ghast requires magical energy to be created. Who has the infinite magical energy needed to make an infinite number of ghasts?
What is the purpose of creating an infinite number of ghasts?
Since each ghast is an undead it requires the body of a hunan sized sentient creature to be created. The body of every human sized sentient creature who has ever lived on this plane is an insufficient number to stock the ghast room.
Why haven’t the ghasts just swarmed out to take over the entire dungeon already?
It is very polite of them to wait until this particular party of adventurers to knock on their door and politely ask them to come out. It is very unlucky for the adventurers that no kobold ever thought of exploring this part of the dungeon for food/water/loot/treasure.
What are the ghasts doing in their waiting room? If they get triggered by the presence of live prey, considering their waiting room is infinitely large their detect prey sense must have infinitely range, because otherwise the ones at the back of the room won’t know to keep coming forward to become the endless stream.

5) Climbing.
The ghasts are described as both being clumsy and climbing out of a fissure. Are they taking climbing checks? What happens if they fall? Or does every single one of the ghasts perfectly pass each and every climb check in order for one ghast to neatly come out each turn?

Talakeal isn’t the first GM to have a room with endless enemies being summoned into it with the solution being to close the gate, nor will he be the last. My criticisms aren’t of Talakeal, because this has become a fairly ingrained trope in gaming, my criticism is of the concept.
There is related concept of the party infiltrating a military base and when the alarm is raised more enemies than the party can handle rushing in. The scenario design in that case answers all of the logistics questions and the purpose is to punish players for being unstealthy or to force them to achieve their goal in a compressed time frame.

Further the solution (close the portal) requires a degree of meta-gaming. If you are unfamiliar with the gaming trope the obvious solution is to kill the enemies as they pass through the defile.

gbaji
2023-03-24, 04:30 PM
Well. The ghasts were described as somehow sensing living beings within a given range. So it's quite possible that once the party entered the door from the main hallway (roadway?) into the first room, ghasts started climbing up the fissure. So by the time they walked through that room (the 20x40 room), down the hall to the T intersection, turned to the right/left and went into the 20x20 room with the sinkhole, it had a handful of ghasts already there.

It was also described that down the other side of the T intersection was a blocked door that lead to some treasure, so one has to assume that if one can seal off the ghasts before that intersection, then they could get to the treasure. It's just not clear if there is also a door between the T intersection and the room with the sinkhole/fissure. That would be really convenient, and maybe the obvious spot to block them off.

One would also assume that whatever other creatures live in this area should have long ago sealed away this entire area, really secured. And with warning signs. Did the PCs not notice that when entering the first room? That might have clued them in to seal things a bit better when they did retreat through there. And you know, that they're entering an area with something that someone else felt the need to "seal off" in the first place.

As to how many are below. I don't think it's "infiniite", just "more than you want to fight". An "army of ghasts". He hinted that this does tie into some theme or situation on a lower level. So presumably, if they go down at some point, and then later start running into ghasts, they (in theory) might think "hey. We're getting near to wherever that sinkhole lead to, maybe we should approach with caution".

I do think that, if the ghasts are just attracted to living beings for some reason, but otherwise stay "down below" for some reason, then simply closing a door and waiting should result in the ghasts returning back down through the fissure, allowing for later exploratoiin while only having to deal with a manageable number of ghasts (and actually knowing a bit about what's going on now).

Again though, his players just don't seem to be that inquisitive, nor make efforts to "figure things out" like this. Hence, why they seem to keep flailing around and bumbling into things.