Player entitlement and "My Precious Encounter"

[Balesir]

Originally Posted by billd91

Why bother really doing anything smart or unexpected to change the situation if no good comes of it?

Because it's fun, and for the kudos of showing off to your friends how clever you can be?

[korjik]

Originally Posted by billd91

This is all kind of underscoring the whole My Precious Encounters thing. The encounter, as designed, is too important to sacrifice to changes the PCs bring in the environment. Why bother really doing anything smart or unexpected to change the situation if no good comes of it? The encounter is static for fear of it being anticlimactic.

Why would the players have any idea that taking out the two guards didnt make the fight easier, even tho you made two guys appear out of nowhere? The fact that your notes say "5 guards, even level encounter: Two guards are out on guard duty and will enter the fight on turn 2" does not mean that if the players take out those two guards, you should make the fight vs. 3 guards. There is no reason for the players to know that there were only five beforehand. You still have a good fight, and the reward is 2 extra guards of xp.

[pemerton]

Originally Posted by billd91

This is all kind of underscoring the whole My Precious Encounters thing. The encounter, as designed, is too important to sacrifice to changes the PCs bring in the environment.

You say "important" as if that's a bad thing. Let's replace "important" with "giving the players the exciting encounters that they crave" - then how is it bad GMing to do that?

Originally Posted by billd91

Why bother really doing anything smart or unexpected to change the situation if no good comes of it?

Because you, as a player, may not be playing with an eye to changing the odds of future encounters. You may be playing with any eye to doing interesting stuff in this encounter, and changing the story of your PC and of the campaign world more generally. Your PC is not going to earn the moniker "the guard ganker" unless s/he ganks a few guards, and that story element is completely independent of how the GM balances or rebalances any subsquent encounter, on the fly or otherwise.

Your reply, for me at least, reinforces my earlier reply to Rogue Agent - this concern about rebalancing encounters on the fly in order to maintain mechanical pace and excitement makes sense from the point of view of Gygaxian, operational play. But it is just wrong to project that one preference for play over D&D or RPG play as a whole, and imply that anyone who is running a game where the pleasure and the fun come from something else is making some sort of error.

Originally Posted by korjik

Why would the players have any idea that taking out the two guards didnt make the fight easier, even tho you made two guys appear out of nowhere?

<snip>

the reward is 2 extra guards of xp.

That's one way to look at it. I'd be happy to tell my players, if they asked, that I tweaked the encounter on the fly. (They might guess, too). In my own game I tend to see XP more as a campaign pacing thing than a reward, but if you play with XP as reward then getting two easy kills would certainly be a benefit of ganking the guards, even if the subsequent encounter is then rebalanced.

Originally Posted by Balesir

Because it's fun, and for the kudos of showing off to your friends how clever you can be?

This. Also, because you might think it matters whether or not your PC is a guard ganker. (This seems to have different implications for a paladin or a warpriest, compared to a rogue or assassin, for example.)

Originally Posted by ardoughter

I do not accept you contention about the "razor edge" nature of 4e encounters. I have never experienced it. Also I dispute that an encounter must be tough enough for a TPK to be interesting or exciting. This is however, just my experience and your views and experienced could be very different to mine.

My experiences are the same as yours.

[B.T.]

Although it has already been said, I will reiterate: the concept of "My Precious Encounter" has nothing to do with scene-framing. The idea behind MPL is that every encounter must be precisely balanced to ensure that the party is challenged just so. Not more, not less, but just so, with every encounter consuming the party's resources just so, with each attack striking each character just so, with every spell calibrated to affect an enemy just so.

The reason people dislike it is because it's boring. Sometimes the best encounters are completely unbalanced trainwrecks.

[SlyDoubt]

That's why random encounters are AWESOME.

[billd91]

Originally Posted by Balesir

Because it's fun, and for the kudos of showing off to your friends how clever you can be?

It's just another couple notches on the belt. That's not clever. I want the my characters to have a meaningful impact on the world. I don't want the DM undermining that because it disrupted his carefully planned encounter. If I managed to make my future encounter easier by removing some actors from the mix, I want that encounter easier.
As a DM, I am not going to take that from my players. Of course, if they make things harder for themselves, I'm not taking that away either...

[billd91]

Originally Posted by pemerton

You say "important" as if that's a bad thing. Let's replace "important" with "giving the players the exciting encounters that they crave" - then how is it bad GMing to do that?

Ask yourself - by doing so, are you making the choices and actions of the players meaningless? If the PCs take a risk and stealthily take down some guards who would be in the final showdown encounter with the BBEG, are you rendering that choice meaningless by replacing them? ...assuming events have not transpired that would allow the BBEG to replace them, of course.

If you do so just to retain the "balance" of the encounter, I think you do. Is that really what you want to do or should do?

[pemerton]

Originally Posted by B.T.

The idea behind MPL is that every encounter must be precisely balanced to ensure that the party is challenged just so. Not more, not less, but just so, with every encounter consuming the party's resources just so, with each attack striking each character just so, with every spell calibrated to affect an enemy just so.

Is this compatible with pacing of encounter difficulties - say in the style of HeroQuest revised with its pass/fail DC-setting mechanic, or in 4e by using encounter levels for a similar effect?

Originally Posted by B.T.

The reason people dislike it is because it's boring.

But does that mean if some groups don't find carefully-crafted scenes/encounters boring, it's OK to use them?

[pemerton]

Originally Posted by billd91

Ask yourself - by doing so, are you making the choices and actions of the players meaningless? If the PCs take a risk and stealthily take down some guards who would be in the final showdown encounter with the BBEG, are you rendering that choice meaningless by replacing them? ...assuming events have not transpired that would allow the BBEG to replace them, of course.

If you do so just to retain the "balance" of the encounter, I think you do. Is that really what you want to do or should do?

As I said earlier, this seems to assume that the relevant dimension of meaning is "has an effect on downstream mechanical difficulty". But that is only one possible dimension of meaning.

Balesir gave a different candidate one: a player looking cool to his/her fellow players by having his/her PC cleverly gank some guards.

I also gave a different candidate one: having a player make a decision about his/her PC that carries thematic weight - such as the player of the paladin choosing to have his/her PC sneakily gank some guards.

On neither mine nor Balesir's suggested approach does the significance of ganking the guards turn on the mechanical contribution that is made to the difficuly of a subsequent encounter. So on neither approach does the GM undermine that significance by setting the difficulty of the subsequent encounter without regard to the ganking. (Of course, the story of the subsequent encounter should reflect the ganking - so upon entering the throne room the PCs might say "We ganked two of your guards - surrender or we'll gank you too!"

[billd91]

Originally Posted by pemerton

As I said earlier, this seems to assume that the relevant dimension of meaning is "has an effect on downstream mechanical difficulty". But that is only one possible dimension of meaning.

The example I've been working on, the one with a downstream effect, was yours. To remind you:

Originally Posted by pemerton

For example, if the GM had planned that the balance in the encounter would include 2 guards, and the PCs bump off those guards first (via some stealthy techniques), then the GM can (for example) put another elite bodyguard in the throne room, or ad lib in a Jabba-style pit in front of the throne, or any of a dozen other techniques for rebalancing an encounter on the fly.

Now, in this case, you are actually stripping that particular meaning from the encounter. Other dimensions of meaning may not be affected, true, but you can at least be certain of stripping one by negating the consequences of their actions. The way I see it, you're protecting your encounter from being screwed up by the PCs with an unforeseen action. You're adding complications to prevent them from securing themselves an easy ride. And that seems more like punishment of the players than anything Hussar brought up in the thread that inspired this one.

[B.T.]

Originally Posted by pemerton

Is this compatible with pacing of encounter difficulties - say in the style of HeroQuest revised with its pass/fail DC-setting mechanic, or in 4e by using encounter levels for a similar effect?

Not sure what you mean, exactly.

But does that mean if some groups don't find carefully-crafted scenes/encounters boring, it's OK to use them?

It's fine to use MPE if your group is fine with it. It's not my particular cup of tea. Personally, I've turned from a die-hard 3e character optimizer complete with "everything needs to be balanced, the fighter needs special abilities, and here is my five-page backstory" into someone craving the old-school "roll up a character and hope he doesn't die to the Darwinian forces of dungeon crawling" play. If you and your group like MPE, have at it. I'm not saying that you're playing wrong, just that I think randomly coming across a 10 HD giant at first level can make for a very interesting encounter.

[pemerton]

Originally Posted by billd91

Now, in this case, you are actually stripping that particular meaning from the encounter. Other dimensions of meaning may not be affected, true, but you can at least be certain of stripping one by negating the consequences of their actions.

"Consequences", here, means something like "ingame causal consequences assessed counterfactually". Ie, the counterfactual "had the PCs not ganked the guards, there would have been 2 more guards in the throne room" is not true.

That is a fairly narrow class of consequences, in my view, when playing an RPG - although an important class of consequences for a certain style of play (in my mind I associate the style with Lewis Pulsipher and Gary Gygax, because they authored the texts in which I see this playstyle most clearly articulated).

Removing that sort of consequence from the game can sometimes be a necessary condition of permitting other forms of consequence to emerge. For example, if one of the consequences that is interesting for the game is to see whether the players will resort to taking the king hostage in order to escape from his throne room, it may not be possible for that consequence to emerge if, following the ganking of the guards, the throne room encounter is one that puts no pressure on the players (via their PCs).

Originally Posted by billd91

The way I see it, you're protecting your encounter from being screwed up by the PCs with an unforeseen action. You're adding complications to prevent them from securing themselves an easy ride.

You are correct that I'm adding complication to prevent the encounter being boring (which would be the relevant category of "screwing up"). If the players wanted to play a game with an "easy ride" - ie one that did not force difficult choices - we could all agree to play 30th level PCs against 1st level encounters. But that's not what my players are interested in. In 4e, at least, that would in fact make for an incredibly boring game.

My main goal as GM is to provide interesting and engaging situations for my players to take their PCs into, which honour the players' earlier story choices. The mechanical balance of an encounter is rarely an aspect of this.

Originally Posted by billd91

And that seems more like punishment of the players than anything Hussar brought up in the thread that inspired this one.

I don't see that it is per se punishing the players to give their PCs interesting and challenging encounters to confront. I see it more as helping them not waste their Sunday afternoon doing something boring. The more general point is that, in an RPG, adversity for the PCs need not be adversity for the player - in fact, often it is a source of pleasure for the player, because it gives the player something interesting to do in the game.

I have GMed a game in which the main focus of play drifted from the encounter, to the preparations for the encounter - so that all the real action happened in planning how to undertake a particular raid/mission (what spells would be cast when on whom, etc) and the actual execution of the raid became a fait accompli. That can be an interesting sort of exercise, but I have come to prefer the alternative approach in my current game, of focusing decision-making in the encounter rather than preceding it. And my players who have played in both games - which is a majority of my current play group - are of a similar view.

In a game in which planning, and successful execution of planning, is the main thing, then we are no longer talking about a game focused on "the encounter", the situation, as central to play. In that sort of game the ganking of the guards takes on a different meaning - it becomes an element in the overall execution of a plan - and I would handle it differently. And if I were to run such a scene in 4e - and I have, once - then I would handle it as a skill challenge, so the guards would not be an encounter in their own right but just one element contributing to success or failure in the challenge.

[pemerton]

Originally Posted by B.T.

Not sure what you mean, exactly.

You said, earlier, that "The idea behind MPL is that every encounter must be precisely balanced to ensure that the party is challenged just so. Not more, not less, but just so".

I wasn't sure if you meant that every encounter is set to the same point of balance (say, every encounter has EL = party level), or if you meant that every encounter is set at some or other point of balance to ensure some sort of deliberate pacing effect - say of getting increasingly more challenging until some sort of climax occurs to release the tension.

I think constant difficulty of encounters can be a bit boring, although there are ways to mix up encounter design and stakes so that what are mathematically equivalent difficulties (at least as far as the rules are concerned) can end up playing very differently.

But I don't think varied encounter difficulties become boring rather than interesting just because the pattern of variation is to some extent planned rather than random.

[billd91]

Originally Posted by pemerton

"Consequences", here, means something like "ingame causal consequences assessed counterfactually". Ie, the counterfactual "had the PCs not ganked the guards, there would have been 2 more guards in the throne room" is not true.

Except that it's really not save by DM intervention. Remember the original case that I quoted above that generated this line of the discussion. The two guards designated for the encounter get bumped off ahead of time. Barring intervention (or plausible game events), those guards aren't supposed to be there. The setup you proposed, that the guards were designated for the throne room encounter, makes the counterfactual the reality prior to intervention to preserve the challenge of the encounter.

Originally Posted by pemerton

Removing that sort of consequence from the game can sometimes be a necessary condition of permitting other forms of consequence to emerge. For example, if one of the consequences that is interesting for the game is to see whether the players will resort to taking the king hostage in order to escape from his throne room, it may not be possible for that consequence to emerge if, following the ganking of the guards, the throne room encounter is one that puts no pressure on the players (via their PCs).

They could still take the king hostage, even without having to be pressed by a pair of additional guards. The dice may turn ugly on them and press them. They may come to realize that killing the king opens a whole new can of worms and prefer to not be branded as regicides.

At this point, as DM, you're the one choosing which consequences of encounters you want to value. You're hoping that you're favoring the ones your players favor, but what if you're incorrect? What do your players say if you ask "If your actions as PCs would make a future encounter easier, would you like those actions to have those consequences? Or would you prefer me to add complications to preserve the challenge of the encounter?"

Originally Posted by pemerton

You are correct that I'm adding complication to prevent the encounter being boring (which would be the relevant category of "screwing up"). If the players wanted to play a game with an "easy ride" - ie one that did not force difficult choices - we could all agree to play 30th level PCs against 1st level encounters. But that's not what my players are interested in. In 4e, at least, that would in fact make for an incredibly boring game.

Shall we dispense with propositions that haven't been proposed like vastly different levels between the character and the opposition. What I've been talking about is players affecting the challenge of future encounters by their own in game choices. Equating that with a 30 to 1st level differential is misrepresenting the specifics of the discussion.

Originally Posted by pemerton

My main goal as GM is to provide interesting and engaging situations for my players to take their PCs into, which honour the players' earlier story choices. The mechanical balance of an encounter is rarely an aspect of this.

Then why not let the PC's effect on the throne room encounter, by bumping off the guards, have an effect if mechanical balance is rarely an aspect of honoring earlier story choices? How exactly are you honoring their story choices if you aren't letting them cause downstream effects? Or are they doing all the work of patting themselves on the back for bumping off the guards? My assumption wouldn't be that they wanted to just have another couple of kills or to show off. My assumption would be that they wanted to actually accomplish something by bumping off the two guards.

Comments

Good post, and I strongly agree with your last paragraph.

[pemerton]

Originally Posted by billd91

Except that it's really not save by DM intervention. Remember the original case that I quoted above that generated this line of the discussion. The two guards designated for the encounter get bumped off ahead of time. Barring intervention (or plausible game events), those guards aren't supposed to be there. The setup you proposed, that the guards were designated for the throne room encounter, makes the counterfactual the reality prior to intervention to preserve the challenge of the encounter.

The whole gameworld is only a consequence of DM intervention. There is no particular way that things are, or are not, supposed to be.

In one sort of game - what I think of Pulsipherian/Gygaxian play - then there is an expectation that the players will, by their choices, influence the difficulty of subsequent encounters. The players are expected to work out - using scrying magic, say, or thief skills - how many guards are in the throne room, and then to do stuff - like ganking the two guards who leave - in order to make the throne room fight less difficult. In this sort of game, for a GM to restock the throne room after the ganking would be tantamount to cheating.

But this sort of Pulsipherian/Gygaxian play is just one approach to the game. It assumes that operational planning, scouting, etc are crucial to play. It downplays the actual encounter as a focus for play in favour of exploration on either side of it - planning beforehand, looting afterwards. In the OP I described a different approach to play, which emphasises the encounter/situation as the focus of play.

Originally Posted by billd91

What I've been talking about is players affecting the challenge of future encounters by their own in game choices.

And what I'm talking about is an approach to scene framing in which this responsibility lies with the GM, not the players. In which the function of player in game choices is to generate story/thematic consequences - "Hey, we ganked two guards" - not mechanical consequences - "Hey, the encounter dropped from EL n to EL n-1".

Originally Posted by billd91

Then why not let the PC's effect on the throne room encounter, by bumping off the guards, have an effect if mechanical balance is rarely an aspect of honoring earlier story choices? How exactly are you honoring their story choices if you aren't letting them cause downstream effects?

I think that you are running together here what I am trying to keep separate, namely, story consequences and mechanical consequences. If the guards have been bumped off then the guards have been bumped off. That is part of the fiction. The PCs can walk into the throne room and say to the guards (for example) "We've already killed two of you - do the rest of you feel lucky, or do you want to surrender?"

But this content of the story is a distinct thing from the mechanical balance of an encounter. The story of the PCs as guard-killers is independent of the number of guards subsequently in the throne room, or the existence of a secret pit trap in front of the throne.

Originally Posted by billd91

Or are they doing all the work of patting themselves on the back for bumping off the guards? My assumption wouldn't be that they wanted to just have another couple of kills or to show off. My assumption would be that they wanted to actually accomplish something by bumping off the two guards.

But they have accomplished things. For example (assuming they took the guards out quietly) they've prevented the alarm being raised. This changes the character of the throneroom encounter (for example, it won't involve dealing with a hue-and-cry - which changes the dynamics quite a bit - for example, if there is a hue and cry then the PCs can no longer reach a deal with the king in which their invasion of the palace remains secret).

Originally Posted by billd91

At this point, as DM, you're the one choosing which consequences of encounters you want to value. You're hoping that you're favoring the ones your players favor, but what if you're incorrect?

But this is not a problem unique to me. Suppose I start playing in your game, and I find out that you run your game in such a way as to prioritise operational play and operational choices. And so I get bored and quit the game.

The default solutions to these sort of socia contract issues are (i) to talk about it, and (ii) to try it and find out what the revealed preferences are.

Originally Posted by billd91

What do your players say if you ask "If your actions as PCs would make a future encounter easier, would you like those actions to have those consequences? Or would you prefer me to add complications to preserve the challenge of the encounter?"

I've never asked them that precise question - particularly as it uses "consequences" to mean "mechanical consequences for subsequent scene framing". But my players know that I set encounters so as to be interesting, and adjust levels, numbers etc in a way that will make for dynamic and interesting encounters. Besides reading my posts on these boards from time to time, and talking about playstyles before or after the game, they see me doing it at the table.