Results 1 to 30 of 99
Thread: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
-
2021-04-05, 11:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
The paradox of challenge in RPGs
Its human nature that we want to be rewarded for success and punished for failure. But in an RPG, rewards and punishments almost always translate into player power. This means that taking an early lead will often result in a Monte Haul campaign where the players don't need to engage their brains to succeed, and a few early setbacks can lead into a death spiral where failure is the only possibility.
But what other system is there?
Do we need to implement some sort of metagame handicap system when designing adventures? Or would this make it feel even worse?
I have had some people tell me that it is a good idea to play the monsters smarter when the PCs are having an easy time and to play them dumber when the PCs struggle, but I have also had people tell me never to do this as it is tantamount to metagaming and punishes the players for their success.
Thoughts?Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.
-
2021-04-05, 11:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Location
- Vacation in Nyalotha
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
Monty Haul issues stem from sequential escalating challenges that are fixed in difficulty ahead of time. In other words a curve. You getting ahead of the curve yields better rewards that keep you well ahead of the curve. The recent XCOM was a prime example of this.
The solution is evident in other game genres. In an MMO if you get better X you move up to content you are equipped to handle. Getting a massive power spike could mean you skip intermediate steps. If the bandits are all pushovers you’re done with that plot, wrap it up with some vague RP hand waving and let the players set their sights on something appropriate for their capabilities. If they want challenge let them seek it out, if they want to bop bandits let them do that.If all rules are suggestions what happens when I pass the save?
-
2021-04-05, 12:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- In my library
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
In general most games assume that an early or late acquisition of power doesn't matter, because the GM is supposed to be altering the adventure to be of a suitable level of challenge.
Other systems would be along the lines of Fate, where things like gear don't overly matter, and enhancements to things that do matter happen arbitrarily when you've hit a significant dramatic point. So in terms of a series you have minor milestones as the end of an episode, significant milestones at the end of a subplot, or a major milestone at the end of the series/season. But this only works because of the default rules on equipment, in that it doesn't provide a bonus and only counts as an inovkeable Aspect if it's narratively important.
Genre emulation also matters. In a fantasy story, for better or worse, we expect the hero(es) to get the magic sword, unlock their hidden potential, or learn the legendary strike at some point in the coming film/series/novel. Conversely in a science fiction or spy story we expect to meet the major gadgets at the start and only get any real upgrades near the end if at all, whereas in an 80s action movie we might expect the villain to pick up advantages but not the heroes (at least until the sequel with worse writing) except maybe for a utility item or two looted for it's explicit use. I am of course generalising like hell here.
Actually, in terms of D&D, an argument could be made for the designers makins an effort to solve this problem by trying to bring it's genre emulation closer in line with fantasy novels. It's still a long way off, especially with how spellcasting tends to be handled, but magic items have moved back to 'expected but not quantified', meaning that the players are still expected to end up with that +2 sword but unless an artificer is in the party you can't depend on them being able to produce one.
Although I still prefer the Fate model where everything is tied to the character, and a stunt that (for example) give me two Red Dice on shooting attacks could be fluffed as me being really good at hitting vitals, or me owning my grandfather's pistol which I have meticulously maintained for decades.
-
2021-04-05, 12:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
There is, of course, an entire class of RPGs where this is a non-issue. Low/no progression RPGs mostly avoid the issue because they aren’t bound to the D&D “zero to hero by dint of keep on killing slightly tougher things” core loop. When your entire gameplay doesn’t revolve around growing stronger at exponential rates, you can materially reward people without unbalancing the system (and non-material rewards are more palatable because you aren’t being screwed out of your ability to keep playing), and punish for failure without meaning all is lost. Farther along that spectrum, you can even get to the point where character death is just closing a story, not a mechanical forfeit of significance.
So, for a great many RPGs this isn’t an issue let alone a paradox.
-
2021-04-05, 01:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2018
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
Combat as Sport answer:
Just ensure that every fight is balanced. Stronger PCs means more enemies, stronger enemies, etc. Weaker PCs means that you might need to remove one of two enemies from the following encounters.
=> Don't forget to include narrative rewards/punishments to you fight (that do not affect game balance, but might affect the trajectory of the campaign) otherwise winning/losing fight will feel pointless.
Combat as War answer:
Just give more agency to the players, so that they can better select the pacing and difficulty of their quests.
PCs that had early set backs might reevaluate their position and switch to an easier quest (like joining the other side, since they can't defeat it, they should ally to it).
PCs that had exceptional successes might use it to tackle challenges that were not expected to be of their level, and maybe finish the planed adventure few levels earlier than what the GM expected.
=> Don't forget to highlight to your player that the do have the agency to do those choices, and you might want to guide them on which spells/skills can be used to get an evaluation of the quest's difficulty level.
=> Make sure you have enough control of the pacing so that trivial fight don't take too long. Having the enemy surrender or flee is a good solution. On the other side, make sure that everybody is on the same page on character death or TPK.
-
2021-04-05, 01:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
I don't find this to be a problem in most D&D games, and usually when it is it's more from the optimization level being higher or lower than expected rather than early success/failure snowballing.
In a sandbox, if you're stronger you either go for more dangerous things, or you deal with the easy things very quickly. The only problem being if you become powerful enough that nothing in the setting is a challenge, but at that point you can probably achieve whatever goals you have and wrap up the campaign.
Even in a linear adventure, as long as it's possible to skip past things when applicable, it's a self-correcting problem.
Example: Normally, the fortress would be too heavily guarded to just walk into, and the PCs would have to do several things to weaken the defenses. But if they're relatively OP, they can just make a beeline for the warlord and defeat him. At which point they haven't leveled up much, so the next challenge will probably be relevant again.
Could players intentionally spend time going through all the easy parts for maximum faceroll? Sure - which would indicate that's the type of game they want to play.
-
2021-04-05, 02:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Somewhere in Utah...
- Gender
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
I'm with KinecticDiplomat in that not all RPGs have as quick character growth as D&D. Traveller, for instance, has next to zero character growth if you're talking about skills and attributes. Characters progress there by being able to afford better gear. Early Traveller adventures were seen as unique because they tended to reward the players with more knowledge of the universe rather than gold.
Also, all RPG campaigns do eventually end. They all get to the point where the player characters can overcome any reasonable obstacle and it's time to retire the PCs and start over.Last edited by Jason; 2021-04-05 at 02:32 PM.
-
2021-04-05, 03:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2018
- Location
- Belgium
- Gender
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
And there are also RPGs where the players can and do progress, but can still be taken down by lower level opponents. Alternity is such an example. No matter how good you are, a lvl1 character with a pistol can still one-shot you. L5R has this too, although to a lesser extend. You get better, can get more skills, but in the end you still have to be careful.
Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
"Magic can turn a frog into a prince. Science can turn a frog into a Ph.D. and you still have the frog you started with." Terry Pratchett
"I will not yield to evil, unless she's cute."
-
2021-04-05, 08:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2019
- Location
- Wyoming
- Gender
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
Different strokes for different folks.
If you don't mind running it, just give your players what they want. If they want a gameworld that challenges them at every turn, give it to them, if they want to play a berr & pretzels monty haul game, give them that. If they want to play a punishing noir investigation game, give them that.
There is no onesie for every table.Knowledge brings the sting of disillusionment, but the pain teaches perspective.
"You know it's all fake right?"
"...yeah, but it makes me feel better."
-
2021-04-05, 09:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Location
- Dallas, TX
- Gender
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
One reasonable challenge, in any game, at any level, with any degree of power, is the Mirror of Opposition (or the equivalent).
An enemy party with the same powers, abilities, and equipment is always a fair challenge.
-
2021-04-06, 03:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
In what weitd bizarro-universe is GMs reacting to the players a bad thing?
That is the whole purpose of having GMs in the first place! Our job is to react to what the players are doing and adjust the way we run the game to suit the play style of the group.
If you want to play a game that is completely static and removes the social component, then board games or videogames are the game for you. Those don't have GMs that can react and adjust the game to make it more fun for the players.
A GM who ignores the metagame aspect of the game is a meat calculator.
Players having strong characters really is no reason to make the rest of the campaign easy. Just give them stronger opponents that are a match for them. There are no rules that say enemies have to match some equation based only on the character levels of the PCs. It's the GM's job to judge the power of the party and set up opponents that make for a fun game.Last edited by Yora; 2021-04-06 at 03:26 AM.
We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2021-04-06, 05:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2018
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
It depends a lot on the scale you're doing so.
You have to adapt the campaign to your player, but at a more local scale, if each time the PC gets a brilliant idea, the NPCs immediately one-up them with a better idea, but each time the PCs make a blunder, the NPCs immediately stop whatever clever stuff they were doing to act mindlessly, you will teach your players that "clever ideas gets punished by stronger enemies, mindless play gets rewarded by an easy victory".
-
2021-04-06, 06:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
Well, that's just plain old railroading. The outcome is predetermined regardless of what the players do.
But the thought that the GM paying attention to the metagame being a bad thing is outright offensive to me. That's pure contempt for both players and GMs who take their task seriously, and roleplaying in general.We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2021-04-06, 06:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2019
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
That is true, but I don't think always altering the game based on the players/PCs performance makes for a more enjoyable game. As a player, I prefer it if a brilliant idea at the right time can make a situation a walk in the park and that screwing up can have dire consequences. As a GM, my philosophy is that I get to create the world, pretty much how I see fit, but I don't get to alter it without a good in-universe reason (so if the party win a battle they were "supposed" to lose, I can't just have reinforcements show up out of nowhere).
But of course there are exceptions and if the challenge level seemed off repeatedly, I would be okay with altering it, whether I was a player or the GM. It's hard to tell exactly where to draw the line, though.
-
2021-04-06, 08:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
In general, I think it is best to make a world, play it consistently, and let the players go pick their challenges. They (the players) will develop their skills in playing the game at their own pace, and learn what kind of challenges to attempt. What this requires (and certainly games both old and new do not actively facilitate this) is that you invest heavily in making determining said challenge a practical exercise with reproducible results (maybe the rumors about town can be used to gauge the difficulty of the dungeon to the North), make running away both rules-friendly and an obvious option (I've had two near-TPKs with my most recent group where I afterwards had to incredulously ask 'why didn't you run away?'), and make failing an attempted quest a non-campaign-ending event -- new PCs pre-rolled up (and your players prepared for actually losing characters) or enemies tend to stabilize and imprison (and ransom) fallen PCs rather than kill them.
Pertaining to early rewards skewing things -- this, I think, speaks to a need for not all rewards being things that directly feed back into the adventure-succeeding (to obtain power with which one gets better at adventuring) loop.
Right, so pretty much this. A good portion of the reward should be knowledge, renown, contacts, mundane resources (if you have magic item shops, or the equivalent, this can be hard to separate), and similar items. Getting more of these early is still an advantage, but it is harder to turn them into a wildly increasing upward spiral of advancement or the like (having three noble houses who like the party and are willing to hire them frequently is nice, but it is hard to leverage all three at once).
-
2021-04-06, 09:12 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Location
- Switzerland
- Gender
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
There are games that work in entirely different ways. For example, in Unknown Armies, the main way to improve your skills is failing checks. They are percentage rolls and if you fail, you get a +1% on them at the end of the session. This goes so far that players have the option to voluntarily roll a lower skill instead of a higher one, if both apply to a check. Especially traumatic failures can also "harden" your character, so they are less likely to experience trauma in the future. That's not really a good thing, though and has plenty of drawbacks.
FATE is built around the idea that the players can ask the DM to please have a penalty on a check, with the option of gaining fate points for doing so. Because failing when appropriate is good for the story.Last edited by Eldan; 2021-04-06 at 09:16 AM.
Resident Vancian Apologist
-
2021-04-06, 09:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- Munich, Germany
- Gender
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
Reward the players, not the characters. My games, and also the games I prefer to play in, focus on story. The rewards I expect are, basically, having an impact on the story. I want to be able to put plans in motion and affect the outcome of plot elements. That doesn't necessarily mean my plans succeed, mind you. A failed plan can be just as fun. The important thing is, I want my actions to have consequences, for me and for the plot. That's more reward for me than gold or magic items.
So my advice is, make the players feel like what they are: protagonists in a story.
Admittedly, whether that works or not depends on the kind of game you're playing, the system you're using and the expectations of your players. If you have a standard D&D dungeon crawl that is primarily about killing monsters, finding loot and getting XP, it's pretty hard to do anything else. Also, D&D in particular is geared towards getting more powerful and gaining items, so it can't easily be divested of that; neither should it, it's an intrinsic part of the game and if you don't want it, you're better off finding a different system. But an unexpected spike in power of the players can easily be fixed by increasing the challenge rating of your encounters.What did the monk say to his dinner?
SpoilerOut of the frying pan and into the friar!
How would you describe a knife?
SpoilerCutting-edge technology
-
2021-04-06, 11:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Denver.
- Gender
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
Wow, I make a post and a bunch of people remind me there are games other than D&D 3.5. Is this really Giant in the Playground ?
I don't really understand or enjoy "story" games, so while I acknowledge they exist, its not really what I am talking about.
The problem exists in a lot of games, not just D&D style ones. Its especially bad in MMOs, where the hardest content rewards the most powerful gear, thus artificially inflating the skill gap, or in narrative skirmish games like Necromunda or Mordheim.
But any sort of RPG where you can buy power or where bad things can happen to you will suffer from this unless the DM puts their thumb on the scale. I mean, to go back to D&D 3.5, every time you need to pay to have a character raised from the dead (or otherwise decursed) you are permanently behind the power curve, and even drinking a single healing potion leaves you forever below your WBL.
Honestly, in any sort setting with any sort of verisimilitude you will run into this problem, because that's how economics work in real life. Not to get into politics here, but most every system is set up so that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
While I would really enjoy playing a game without linear advancement, that is a super niche taste and I will never be able to find a group that would go along with it.
I am trying to do that. The problem is that players want fair challenges and also a world that doesn't appear tailored for them, which is really contradictory.
Also, I generally design my own games rather than play other people's games, so its not just my current table I need to worry about.
A lot of people see that are railroading or negating the players choices.
Let me also tell you the story of the "cycle of stupidity". Long ago, I would adjust the difficulty of the campaign world to match the power level of the players. The result was the players would optimize (or as we called it back then, min-maxxing) even harder. So I would up the difficulty, and the players would min-max even harder, and I would up the difficulty. Eventually it got to the point where the player characters were completely one dimensional builds and the campaign setting was optimized like a proto tippyverse.
Nobody was happy here.
Now I try very hard to stick to the challenge guidelines set out in the book and house-rule broken stuff before the game starts. It isn't perfect, but its a lot better.
How do you keep that from snow-balling into tangible power though?
Why don't allies help you out? Why don't rich patrons buy your way out of trouble?
I play a lot of White Wolf, and one of the problems with that game is that resources are way more useful than character power. For example, at character creation the freebie points required to increase an ability score by one point could also make someone a multi millionaire (in 90s money), and at that point they can afford their own highly trained squad of bodyguards with cutting edge gear.
I try that. But I tend to play with pretty immature people, and I have had several meltdowns caused by my trying to emphasize the consequences of success or failure because the players read it as "rubbing their failures in their face" or just flat out making fun of them.Looking for feedback on Heart of Darkness, a character driven RPG of Gothic fantasy.
-
2021-04-06, 11:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Location
- Vacation in Nyalotha
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
As I detailed above MMOs generally do not experience the problem of characters being set against a standard difficulty curve while their power grows based on performance (recent XCOM). You’re free to loiter on a lower difficulty boss until you have the gear. You’re also free to skip intermediate gearing pursuits if you can handle the challenges a few tiers up.
PvP free for alls have always been first come first served and their meta revolves around this or they’ve explicitly chosen to not care about that balance as a central part of the experience.Last edited by Xervous; 2021-04-06 at 11:29 AM.
-
2021-04-06, 11:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
It's going to be genre- and game- specific. Some games (D&D* in particular) a huge amount of power is in XP or magic items. In that case, getting contacts and patrons can help you, but potentially less than a flametongue or robe of the archmage. Particularly because 'favored of a particular rich patron' likely just means 'some rich person would like to hire your band of
murderhobosproblem-solvers again, will give you lots of information to help you solve said problems, and possibly would be willing to help you with a few unrelated-to-them problems from time to time.'
*3e, with WBL and a little more assumption of magic item purchases, complicates this model.
In Traveller, money is the primary tool for advancement -- in terms of equipment, paying the ship's mortgage (perhaps the dominant goal of the game), and eventually buying the anti-agathics that will keep you in the money-making game. In some ways, the favor of someone powerful is the best avenue to this. On the other hand, contacts and patrons again will mostly mean that they will choose your name for more service-to-them next time, along with some helpful hints along the way.
White Wolf is an odd bird, in that it depends so wildly on how people play it (Superheroes with fangs/spells, political intrigue with superpowers, personal horror, etc.). As originally envisioned, I think wealth and contacts were intended to be on par with the abilities which granted you extra blood pool, werewolf powers, or magical negative space wedgies. That said, I think the intent was that you needed more than money to hire supernatural mercenaries (someone with just 5 dots in resources would be like, well, you but with lots of money. Without supernatural underworld contacts and negotiating skills that gives you stuff the guy who put their points into abilities can steal from you, not ways you can hire people to go stomp them). Regardless of the specifics, I think the idea that Brujah and Gangrel could curb stomp a Ventrue, but don't because the Ventrue can hire quite the hefty revenge squad is part of the game. Anyways, sorry for the tangent. What to do in that game -- honestly, in that one, I think the script is flipped: the toys can be handed out with relative frequency, but the gathering of contacts and partons has to be limited (by world design, if you are playing as a sandbox) to keep the game from spiraling out of control.
Here's the thing. I actually like 3e, despite perhaps not showing it enough (every time I dip into the 3e section here and elsewhere, I run into someone with something to prove being absolutely horrid, so I’ve stopped trying). It has some issues, some insurmountable at certain points, but if you are aware of them, it is an imminently playable game. That said, I think a lot of people have taken some components of them and put them on a pedestal on which they do not deserve to rest. WBL is one of them – it is a shorthand guestimate of how much value of gear (most of which is put through a series of cost-formulas which don’t actually indicate their relative power) it would be advisable to start with if starting a character above level 1. That. Is. All. If you start with less than the listed amount, or reach level X with a smaller total because you spent some on expendables or resurrections, it isn’t inherently that big a deal. Oftentimes it is within the variance that the formula-derived value of ones gear is relative to actual-play value (certainly within the variance of inter-class and inter-build power levels).
Honestly, in any sort setting with any sort of verisimilitude you will run into this problem, because that's how economics work in real life. Not to get into politics here, but most every system is set up so that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
While I would really enjoy playing a game without linear advancement, that is a super niche taste and I will never be able to find a group that would go along with it.
I am trying to do that. The problem is that players want fair challenges and also a world that doesn't appear tailored for them, which is really contradictory.
…
Let me also tell you the story of the "cycle of stupidity". Long ago, I would adjust the difficulty of the campaign world to match the power level of the players. The result was the players would optimize (or as we called it back then, min-maxxing) even harder. So I would up the difficulty, and the players would min-max even harder, and I would up the difficulty. Eventually it got to the point where the player characters were completely one dimensional builds and the campaign setting was optimized like a proto tippyverse.
Nobody was happy here.
I try that. But I tend to play with pretty immature people, and I have had several meltdowns caused by my trying to emphasize the consequences of success or failure because the players read it as "rubbing their failures in their face" or just flat out making fun of them.Last edited by Willie the Duck; 2021-04-06 at 12:40 PM.
-
2021-04-06, 01:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- In my library
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
You never encountered Mode B before?
I don't really understand or enjoy "story" games, so while I acknowledge they exist, its not really what I am talking about.
But ignoring equipment and looking just at instead power, it's not a terrible model for even hard simulations. Instead of 'you only advance after a big enough plot event' it becomes 'after a big enough challenge'. It doesn't solve your problem, but that's only really solved by moving into an RPG that used slow advancement, no advancement, it advances primarily by breadth rather then depth. The last is maybe closest to what you want, set a hard or soft cap easily achievable at character generation so whenever doesn't let you clear harder challenges, just a wider variety.
-
2021-04-06, 03:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Location
- Sharangar's Revenge
- Gender
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
Paraphrased from JayR's rules: What players want today is an easy encounter where everything goes their way, and they breeze through it. What they will want tomorrow is to have had an extrememly difficult encounter they only survived by the skin of their teeth, and the trick their thief pulled by dropping the chandelier onto the edge of the bench that flipped up, banging the bottom of the table, which tipped the lit candle over into the thingamabob that burned the McGuffin.
From D+1's Manifesto:
7. Combat is most exciting when it’s dangerous.
8. DM should not deliberately try to kill PCs, but PCs will probably die occasionally.
9. It’s good to have places/things too powerful for the PCs to defeat.
10. DM needs to communicate when things are too powerful for the PCs to defeat.
Spoiler: Exact Quote7. Danger levels: The most satisfying combats are usually the ones that take characters right to the edge of death, with the very real danger of death being present, yet without actually crossing that threshold unnecessarily. But not only is the game designed to randomize events but even small differences in so many areas combine to make it impossible to plan perfectly. Combat encounters are never a sure thing regardless of how meticulously designed they are. So, while the edge of disaster is the most exciting place to be it is also is the most likely way for events to slip out of control. This is just something that needs to be kept in mind by everyone.
8. A DM who truly sets out to deliberately kill the PCs has no business being a DM. The DM has at all times and in all ways the ability to kill the PCs whenever he bloody well feels like it, so if the DM's does intend to kill the characters what kind of fun is that for anybody? A DM who gets his jollies by thoughtlessly causing players to lose favorite characters and create new ones which they know will stand no better chance of long-term survival doesn't deserve the patience his players undoubtedly have to give him. If the DM is running combats at the edge of danger where the fun is (see #7) then PCs will occasionally die anyway. See also # 17.
9. Even given #’s 7 and 8 above it is still in everybody's interest for a campaign to have places, creatures, or encounters that the PCs are not actually able to defeat. It gives a campaign world a needed aura that it does not exist purely for the benefit of the PCs but has a life of its own. Without it the world becomes a place where the dangers within it always scale precisely - and therefore unrealistically - to the PCs’ capabilities. There is never anything like a real "Canyon of Doom" or legendarily undefeatable monster if its power is always adjusted to what the PCs can immediately handle.
10. Given #9 (that there are people and places that the PCs cannot and should not face) part of the DM's job is to make sure that the players and their characters are suitably warned about lethal dangers. That goes back to #8 – that it is never the DM's job to set out to kill the characters. It is the players’ responsibility to pay attention to those warnings without anyone needing to break character. But if the characters ignore warnings (for whatever reason) the DM is then justified in applying what he actually knows to be lethal force in an encounter. Still doesn't mean he should, just that it can’t really be held against him if he does. What this means for players is that the bull-headed notion of always fighting to the death, never retreating, and never surrendering will ultimately lead only to a TPK (total party kill) which is no fun for anyone.Warhammer 40,000 Campaign Skirmish Game: Warpstrike
My Spelljammer stuff (including an orbit tracker), 2E AD&D spreadsheet, and Vault of the Drow maps are available in my Dropbox. Feel free to use or not use it as you see fit!
Thri-Kreen Ranger/Psionicist by me, based off of Rich's A Monster for Every Season
-
2021-04-06, 03:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
I don't want everything to be a cake walk, but I do want the abilities of the PCs to matter. And if everything is auto-scaled to the PCs, their abilities don't really matter.
Personally speaking, I think people take "challenge" as too much of a hard rule. Not every fight needs to be equally challenging! If some of them are easy and others are various degrees of challenging/deadly, that's fine. So the PCs found out they were facing magma trolls, prepared accordingly, and now they're facerolling them? Yes, that is ok, that's not a problem you need to solve - or should solve - by a retroactive "and the trolls had an ice drake in reserve!" Let them take the easy win, aim a bit tougher for the next arc, done.
The one case that becomes a problem is when a foe is supposed to have particular significance in the world and they blatantly don't live up to it. Like, "Grath the Executioner is the lone guardian of the gate to the netherworld - the last time someone got past him was a century ago" - and then it turns out that Grath goes down like a chump and everyone's wondering "how the hell did this guy survive a century of battles?" For that I'd recommend not introducing such setting-critical characters immediately, wait until you have a better idea what the right optimization level is.
-
2021-04-06, 07:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2019
- Location
- Wyoming
- Gender
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
Then tell them that. "Hey guys, it feels like you're asking for a world that always provides fair challenges, but also one that doesn't seem to be constantly keeping pace with you."
But the game doesn't need to be one fixed way. It can have some set challenges for folks who like a world that appears realistic and doesn't scale with them. But you can leave it flexible enough that you could tailor the challenges to a group that wants that kind of game. Assuming of course you only have one world.Knowledge brings the sting of disillusionment, but the pain teaches perspective.
"You know it's all fake right?"
"...yeah, but it makes me feel better."
-
2021-04-06, 07:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2015
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
I was going to mention the Playground's Fallacy, is Mode B like that?
I don't think you have to be playing a narrative system to give (/ask player to give their) characters goals beyond kill things and getting stronger. Making progress in those goals could be rewards that don't create a positive feedback loop.
-
2021-04-06, 11:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
Not so niche I think.
Traveller (mongoose or other) has very low progression and characters who are mostly “professional, not heroes”.
Shadowrun takes far more runs than most tables will complete to buy advancement in any quantity that is going to be a major shift from where you start.
Blades in the Dark has progression, but that generally moves you into “less likely to fail” rather than “curb stomp”.
Cyberpunk was/is not known for rapid progression.
The old world of darkness games had rules for progression, but it was usually pretty incremental in practice.
There’s a slew of Star Wars games that don’t follow the D&D model.
There’s assorted Powered by The Apocalypse modules where advancement provides minor improvements, not geometric powers increases.
———
And then there are niche games (as always, I’ll plug blade of the the iron throne here as my personal favorite fantasy system), but in the above you should be able to see that there are several reasonably common steam systems support a low enough rate of advancement to make this a non issue.
Plus, every player you move away from D&D is a victory for the hobby’s creativity and range as a whole (and frankly, for everyone involved who isn’t stuck playing D&D), so you get karmic benefits in real life as well!
-
2021-04-07, 02:21 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Location
- In my library
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
-
2021-04-07, 05:16 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2018
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
Or Cthulhu where you rarely progress abilities in any meaningful way, other than maybe picking up the odd spell that drives you closer to madness and retiring the character each time you use it.
-
2021-04-07, 09:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2018
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
The solution to Monty Hall issue is the trope Level Scaling, experience is a river, &c. names.
3E experience system started by calculating XP for every level of participant, and divide by contribution by level; your level divide by sum of level.
- a level 2 character contributes twice as much as a level 1 character
- a level 3 character contributes thrice as much as a level 1 character
The "river" formula defines contribution by the raw number of survivors of an encounter; your character divide by number of survivor.Level Point System 5E
Poker Roll
Tier 1 Master of All
Tier 2 Lightning Bruiser
Tier 3 Lethal Joke Character
Tier 4 Master of None
Tier 5 Crippling Overspecialization
Tier 6 Joke Character
-
2021-04-07, 09:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2018
Re: The paradox of challenge in RPGs
I might be missing something, but I don't really see the relation with the question here.
You seems to try to solve difference between players, and how to reward specific players more than others.
OP is asking about how to deal when the whole group of players is taking an early lead or and early set back compared to what was expected, and that encounters after encounters this early lead of set back is amplified to the point of the PCs being significantly stronger or weaker than expected, meaning that the whole group is either rolling over encounters that were supposed to be difficult, or being forced to retreat in encounters that were supposed to be easy. Both of them leading to potentially boring gameplay.