Topic: Encounter Building

[jasonyarnell]

What do you use as a standard for building an encounter? Level to level? DB to OB? Something else?

[Cory Magel]

OB/DB is big, but there are variables that can be difficult to fully gauge.  You have to consider the side abilities and tactics of your players beyond that.  Spells are a bit factor.   Knowing what they can cast and how likely they are to get creative.  Remember that even if you're twice as smart as the average person you're still less likely to outsmart four to six players combined efforts if they are on the ball.

I think an important aspect is don't be afraid to change things on the fly.  For example, if it's an insignificant fight and the players are being unlucky to the point that you should intervene then just lower the foes hits a bit... or... if they are walking through something you wanted to be more difficult, then have reinforcements arrive.

[assur]

It would be great if the new edition of Monsters: A Field Guide have a mechanism as Challenge Rating of D&D.

[Zhaleskra]

I roll in the open, and I greatly dislike the idea that encounters have to be balanced, so unless it's going to wipe out characters who were just created, I don't fudge. What I go for is an encounter I think will be interesting, or adds to plot of the game. HARP and RM are games where a lot of time should be taken considering how to avoid combat.

I'm going to avoid certain words, and I feel that adjusting so the "heroes" win or the enemy misses ruins the immersion and challenge of the game for me.

[RandalThor]

I think an important aspect is don't be afraid to change things on the fly.  For example, if it's an insignificant fight and the players are being unlucky to the point that you should intervene then just lower the foes hits a bit... or... if they are walking through something you wanted to be more difficult, then have reinforcements arrive.

I agree with this, things just sometimes go sideways, and while sometimes that is fun and just part of the game, not always. So be ready to make a call on the fly and change things up a bit.

[Cory Magel]

HARP and RM are games where a lot of time should be taken considering how to avoid combat.

You obviously have a group that doesn't lean towards Hack and Slash.

[Zhaleskra]

No, I had pen & paper hack and slash purged from my system thanks to playing RM. On the other end, I get disturbed when a GM reverses a character death or gives an out in an obvious way. At this point I can no longer avoid charged words, though I can make them less offensive: I don't go to an RPG session to be coddled.

At the same time, fighting something I have no chance of hitting at all isn't a challenge, it's just torture. Thankfully, HARP and RM tend not to have that peculiarity.

[tbigness]

I make the Players know up front that there is no balance in encounters they will come up against. This way they do not expect easy pickings and are cautious when encounters do come about. It is up to them to weigh the situation and determine what success means for them. If combat is required then tactics will play in and plans for the combat can be made if not a surprise or sudden combat. I try making it challenging but do provide ways out at critical parts of the combat. Most of the creatures will not kill outright and instead will try to capture for use later (either to eat or get information or other).

[assur]

Is there a release date for Monsters: A Field Guide?

[Thom @ ICE]

No - there will be a new monster book for HARP - See the last few Director's Briefings for more information.


http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?board=162.0

[Bruce]

I think an important aspect is don't be afraid to change things on the fly.  For example, if it's an insignificant fight and the players are being unlucky to the point that you should intervene then just lower the foes hits a bit... or... if they are walking through something you wanted to be more difficult, then have reinforcements arrive.

I also agree with this, and it has nothing to do with coddling the players.

To me the game is about having fun above all else. If a particular session is going bad for the players then I may change things around a little, make the enemy a little less challenging and so on. I usually don't fudge die rolls but I have and for good reason and again it has nothing to do with coddling the players, it has more to do with the story than anything.

What I mean by a bad session is when it seems all the important party rolls at critical moments tend to be fumbles which sucks for everyone including myself.

As a side note I tend to run long campaigns and certain characters become integral to the story at some point, for at least a little while. They all just made 7th level and we have been playing this game almost a year now and hopefully they will be done with part 1 by the end of January. Death is still possible and my players are very weary now. They tend to really take their time (sometimes to much time discussing and whatnot) then they need to, but they also blame that on me....lol. They know if they take chances in combat bad things happen (hey, crit happens). A few of them have been close to death a few times with one player loosing an arm below the elbow in one session and a leg in another. He had been healed appropriately both times, the bad thing is he is the healer in the group.

I use character backgrounds to help build the subplots and help further the story sometimes. It makes the players feel more involved than making a fighter or a mage and just taking part in the story, they become part of the story. FYI, character backgrounds are required in my games and sometimes getting a player to develop a decent background can be really difficult. But the payoff is well worth it.

Fate points are coveted in my games...lol. I recently added a deck of cards to the game where during travel times or when time passes by they can draw a card and certain cards mean they relate something about their background to the other players. This can be a good or bad memory, a love story, a tragedy, and so on. If by chance the players draw a joker they get a fate point, otherwise it is just extra experience.

[Cory Magel]

Yep, we play to have fun, and I think that's absolutely the first thing every GM should keep in mind.

[Zhaleskra]

I'm beginning to wonder how you missed me mentioning never being able to hit certain opponents.

I understand your points, and I assume that there's risk of character death in most RPGs that aren't Toon. Never really understood where people lost this assumption.

Sometimes, I'll allow a GM to give an out to a death, if there's a way it could reasonably work with the caveat that if the other PCs don't get there, my PC dies. I do get offended when the dice say my character is dead and the GM is like "no, you're not". Different personalities: you don't see at as coddling, I do.

[RandalThor]

Different personalities: you don't see at as coddling, I do.

Here's another way to look at it: the GM doesn't want to have to go back to the drawing board on fitting a new character into the campaign.

You see, some campaigns are tied to the PCs in very deep/detailed ways - or less deep/detailed but still connected. So when a PC dies, the GM has to figure out some way(s) to fit the new character into the existing storyline. Sure, sure he can have some pre-made stuff just in case, but no matter what we are talking about more work for the one member of the game group that has 90% of the work to do already. Some GMs may not like that so they keep the current characters around as long as possible. (Of course, some GMs who don't tie the PCs and the campaign together tightly may still not like taking the time to deal with bringing in a new character, each to their own.)

Just an alternate theory to the "coddling" one.

[Cory Magel]

I'm beginning to wonder how you missed me mentioning never being able to hit certain opponents.
I understand your points...

It's totally unclear who you are replying to here.