D&D 101: A lesson in fun

First, I'd like to state that role playing is alive and well in my neck of the woods. I have been blessed with one of the most creative, animated, brilliant Dungeon Masters in the history of the game for the past 13 years, and his games are always enrapturing. That said, allow me to present my opinion on the state of the game and the ineptitude of the vast majority of current DMs. I read alot of stuff on here about DMs running "pumped up this" and "advanced that" against low-level parties, with ridiculous odds in favor of the monsters. These people need to reevaluate the intent of the game. It's not supposed to be the DM versus the players. Any DM who doesn't have the ability to pull a TPK at any time he or she so chooses has obvious problems. It's always up to the DM how difficult things will be, but what it really comes down to is how much fun the game is all around. I'm sorry, but a 3rd-level party should not be facing 4 5th-level Ranger orcs unless it has some serious resources. The game is weighted in favor of the PCs because that's the point. PCs are supposed to survive. The longevity of the PCs has a direct relationship with the overall fun and excitement of the game. Players will be much more enthusiastic about playing characters to whom they have become strongly attached. How can a person step into the role of a character when he or she can be relatively certain that his or character will be dead by the end of the session?

First of all, the whole "EL" concept to me seems ridiculous. How can it not be exactly twice as difficult to face twice as many monsters? The answer is that it is objectively twice as difficult to face 2 monsters as it is to face one. This can be demonstrated through the staggeringly complex equation: 1+1=2. The math doesn't lie.

Another thing that strikes me as being intrinsically flawed about the 3.0/3.5 rules is the fact that, regardless of the number of members in a party, the party's average party level remains the same. For example, a party of 2 3rd-level characters is considered to be exactly as powerful as a party of 10 3rd-level characters as far as the EL of an encounter the party should face. How can this be? The answer is that it can't. The only correct way to determine a party's level is to add the total number of levels, and divide the sum by 4. Not 4-6. A party of 6 characters has exactly 1.5 times the resources as a party of 4 characters, and is therefore capable of facing 1.5 times as challenging an encounter. I submit that a party should be awarded experience based on the number of members as well as the levels of each character as follows: The total number of members/4, divide each character's level by the result (i.e., In a party of 2 3rd-level characters, each character's level should count as 1.5), refer to the experience chart based on this number. Dungeons & Dragons is a game of math, and somewhere along the line, the developers of its newest version seemed to have skipped first grade.

Also, the EL of an encounter is only presented as a tool for discerning the power level of an encounter in relation to a party of a given level. Experience is supposed to be awarded for each opponent individually, not based on the EL. Sometimes this is in the party's favor, and sometimes not, but if the DM refuses to award the correct experience for an encounter, you have every right to recalculate it yourself and show him or her the correct number based on the rules. If he or she still refuses to award you the correct amount of experience, get up and walk out. You don't need to play in a game where the DM abuses his godlike power.

It is not recommended for a party to face an EL of more than 3 levels higher than the average party level, and even then only as the climax of a large adventure. Conversely, the game quickly grows boring if the challenges faced by the PCs are too much weaker than the party can handle. As a DM, it is your responsibility to ensure that most of the party survives most of the time, and that the challenges presented are of an appropriate power level. Anything less is an abuse of your position, and you shouldn't be surprised if your players abandon you as a result. TPKs or PPKs on a regular basis, especially as the results of random encounters or ambushes on the way to the main adventure, are simply not fun.

If a DM regularly presents challenges which are obviously beyond the abilities of your party, don't hesitate to express your displeasure, and encourage others to do so as well. If such behavior persists, get up and walk out. Invite everyone over to your house for a game you run yourself, but don't play with that DM anymore. Some people just aren't cut out for it.

Anyway, as far as the roleplay aspects of the game, it's generally mostly contingent upon the enthusiasm of the players in general, which is generally contingent upon the willingness of the DM to allow them to have fun. As a player, it is your responsibility to play your character with the necessary energy, fleshing him or her out with a full-blown, individual identity. DMs will generally hesitate to kill parties in which the characters are just flat-out fun to play. For example, I have this Half-Orc who is a 1st-level Barbarian, 6th-level Sorcerer, and he is just an outright riot. He wears nothing but a breechcloth, has a +1 Steel Pot for a helmet, and doesn't know the difference between Platinum and Silver. He is illiterate, though he had the option of gaining literacy as a benefit of the Sorcerer class, and is therefore unable to use scrolls. He speaks in broken common and fluent Orc, has his own voice and mannerisms, and once asked a veiled Medusa if she'd like to mate. He sees her shapely form, and although I as a player know the nature of the creature, I decide that his natural reaction would be to walk up and say, "You want mate Schlugg?" Luckily, I saved when she unveiled, proceeding to chop her head into mashed potatoes with green gravy. That's roleplay, my friends, and it is the true heart of the Dungeons & Dragons game. Its absence removes a vital aspect from the game itself, and without it I would advise sitting around and playing Monopoly (or better yet, Magic) instead.

I can tell you from experience that Dungeon Masters range in ability from incredibly good to incredibly bad, but the majority fall somewhere in the middle. Good DMs are those who aren't afraid to do a little acting, who can create and maintain reasonable challenges and settings, and who know when they've made a mistake as to the power level of a challenge. The mark of a truly exceptional DM, however, is the ability to improvise when and wherever necessary. A great DM will be able to completely drop his or her entire plan when the PCs decide they don't really want to go to the dungeon anymore, or to create a believable scenario on the spot which leaves the party no other alternative. A great DM will just throw some side adventure into his campaign off the cuff, at the end of which lies some peculiar magic item which he or she has just spontaneously created. A great DM will put a powerful but painfully cursed item behind a trapped secret door which isn't actually on the map. Most of all, a great DM will recognize the fact that the game is supposed to be fun for everyone, not just for himself. When the players are enjoying themselves, the DM will enjoy himself more.

May you all find the DM who hits your G-spot.

-Faerl'Elghinn

You hit the button right on the nail. I agree with you entirely.

Oh, and you're probably going to face some arguements about that whole EL/math thing. I don't care either way. I usually do XP based on what I feel is right. Besides, I prefer cool/interesting encounters to pure power ones. I won't hesitate to kill my PC's off though. However, I'll only do it with an NPC/monster who is clearly less powerfull then they are. If I can play the NPC brilliantly (assuming he has a high int) and the PC's play dumbly, they will die.

Granted, if they aren't having fun it's time to change tactis a bit. You do need some death though, IMO that's one of the things that make the game so fun. It's a challenge for the player, if they want to survive they're gonna have to really work at it. A group who charges into a Dragon's lair expecting to take it out because they of course can't die is a group in serious need of 'adjusting'.

Anyway, what all of this boils down to is: As a DM, make sure the players are having fun. Whatever your group prefers is what you should do. This does not mean that you should become their slave of course, just that the rules/level of challenges don't matter as much as everyone having fun.

Hi, Faerl'Elghinn.

I don't mean to be rude, but a lot of the grievances you have about the EL system are just plain wrong.

How can it not be exactly twice as difficult to face twice as many monsters?

Like you said, it is roughly twice as hard to face two monsters. That doesn't mean the EL should be twice as high though! (One CR20 monster can wipe out an army of CR10 monsters...) One CR(X) monster is EL(X), and 2 CR(X) monsters is EL(X+2), right? Now, here's the point where the system actually complies 100% with what you want it do: A level (x+2) encounter is worth twice the XP of a level X encounter! Indicating that the good folks at WotC also thinks that two monsters are twice as tough as one monster...

regardless of the number of members in a party, the party's average party level remains the same

Yes, the average party level is the same. If you have two level 7 characters in the party, their average level is 7. If you have a million level 7 characters in the party, their average level is still 7!

To figure out what the proper EL for any given party is, the DMG says you should add the total number of levels, and divide the sum by 4, just like you said. (It also says that with very small or very big parties, finding the right EL is more a question of DM judgement than math.)


Experience is supposed to be awarded for each opponent individually, not based on the EL

I'm sorry, but I believe you're wrong... :\


Now, as for the main gist of your post, about DMs that let's the party face challenges that are two tough for them; this is more a question of personal taste than anything else. I think I speak on behalf of everyone in my D&D group when I say that the risk of dying is part of what makes the game exciting.

Personally, I've never played in a campaign where I knew the party could beat up everyone or everything we met, no matter where we went. Nor would I want to, and nor have I ever DM'ed such a campaign.

In my campaigns, the players know that there are people and monsters in the world that are more powerful than them. Even the paladin with INT 7 knows that if he automatically attacks every evil being he encounters, he won't live to smite another day!

On the other hand, the PCs also know that an awful lot of people are a lot less powerful than them, of course. What they don't know, is how powerful the next person/monster they encounter is gonna be; could be push-over, could be an epic blackguard red great wyrm. This keeps them on their toes and keeps the game exciting for them.

PugioilAudacio said:

You hit the button right on the nail. I agree with you entirely.

Oh, and you're probably going to face some arguements about that whole EL/math thing. I don't care either way. I usually do XP based on what I feel is right. Besides, I prefer cool/interesting encounters to pure power ones. I won't hesitate to kill my PC's off though. However, I'll only do it with an NPC/monster who is clearly less powerfull then they are. If I can play the NPC brilliantly (assuming he has a high int) and the PC's play dumbly, they will die.

Granted, if they aren't having fun it's time to change tactis a bit. You do need some death though, IMO that's one of the things that make the game so fun. It's a challenge for the player, if they want to survive they're gonna have to really work at it. A group who charges into a Dragon's lair expecting to take it out because they of course can't die is a group in serious need of 'adjusting'.

Anyway, what all of this boils down to is: As a DM, make sure the players are having fun. Whatever your group prefers is what you should do. This does not mean that you should become their slave of course, just that the rules/level of challenges don't matter as much as everyone having fun.

Click to expand...

Sure, death is an inevitable part of the game, and a huge contributing factor to the excitement, but it should never become a regular, everyday part of the game. That's just not fun. Planned TPKs are bullpuckey. This practice removes the "game" element altogether, in its stead installing some twisted fulfillment of the DM's sadistic desires. The example you provide is one where the potential for deaths in the party is understood, but where is your real success if you just annihilate the entire party? IMHO, TPKs should never happen except in instances of EXTREME player stupidity. If the party, or a few surviving members, realizes that it is completely overmatched, it should always be provided the opportunity to flee and regroup. If the last standing member of the party attempts to flee, almost makes it, and gets cut down by a lucky critical hit by the monster, then a little leeway should be given, usually by way of some minor "divine intervention". How often do your players find themselves waltzing into a dragon's lair during a random encounter? Exactly. They don't. Entering the lair of a dragon is generally the climax of an adventure, or often even the most memorable experience of an entire campaign. Heavy casualties are totally acceptable and generally expected by the party when it chooses to undertake such an expedition. When heavy casualties are unacceptable, however, is just out of the blue, during a spur of the moment ambush by the DM, where the PCs are surrounded with no means of escape by creatures with faster movement than the characters possess. That just plain sucks. How anticlimactic can you get?

As for the EL stuff, argument was expected, although I fail to see a point to argument with a mathematical inevitability. I feel that I have provided simple, easy to understand, irrefutible proof of my arguments, and I challenge anyone to prove me mathematically incorrect in my aforementioned theories.

-Faerl'Elghinn

Hey, welcome to the boards!

Faerl'Elghinn said:

I feel that I have provided simple, easy to understand, irrefutible proof of my arguments, and I challenge anyone to prove me mathematically incorrect in my aforementioned theories.

Click to expand...

For the purpose of discussion? Sure, although you seem fairly set in your ways, so I'm not sure that this is going to convince you.

You claim that it is objectively twice as difficult to face 2 monsters as it is to face one. That's not even close to correct, because it predicates that you use twice the effort and resources to dispose of two monsters than you would to dispose of just one. This isn't generally true if you're using area effect spells. One goblin is as tough as five for a 6th lvl wizard with fireball, and high level clerics can turn a dozen skeletons as simply as they can turn one. The same argument applies to such feats as great cleave.

About a year ago I sicced three hundred advanced ghouls on my party, all at once. It was certainly not three hundred times more difficult than fighting a single advanced ghoul.

Mind you, I agree with a good portion of your post; I'm all for creative DMs who provide imaginative encounters and who don't get too caught up in calculating encounter-related math. I just challenge your assertion about EL math.

Faerl'Elghinn said:

Heavy casualties are totally acceptable and generally expected by the party when it chooses to undertake such an expedition. When heavy casualties are unacceptable, however, is just out of the blue, during a spur of the moment ambush by the DM, where the PCs are surrounded with no means of escape by creatures with faster movement than the characters possess. That just plain sucks. How anticlimactic can you get?

Click to expand...

I agree. Boy, do I agree! Last session, our DM threw an EL8 encounter (including a 7th lvl wizard) at our group of seven 1st lvl PCs. Actually, make that at four 1 st lvl PCs and then three 1st lvl PCs since the party was split at the time. And it was an ambush where fourteen NPCs teleported into perfect position next to the PCs.

Incredibly, the group of four escaped and in the group of three only 1 PC was killed. That's good, right? Not really, since that meant five players twiddled their thumbs while the Wiz7 spoke to the conscious captured PC (one was unconscous throughout and could take no part) for a long while. And then the captured PCs were rescued not by the PCs who escaped, but by two higher-lvl NPCs who also teleported in and did the needful.

I would actually have preferred a TPK

Faerl'Elghinn said:

The game is weighted in favor of the PCs because that's the point. PCs are supposed to survive. The longevity of the PCs has a direct relationship with the overall fun and excitement of the game. Players will be much more enthusiastic about playing characters to whom they have become strongly attached. How can a person step into the role of a character when he or she can be relatively certain that his or character will be dead by the end of the session?

Click to expand...

The game should be weighted in favour of the players over the monsters. Its should be balanced 50/50, so that players don't just cake walk every encounter and nor do they get killed in every encounter.

As for your comments on the EL and CR, I don't use it. When I look at opponents for my players I look over the monster's stats and decide from that whether it would be suitable and how many would be a suitable challenge.

Umm, about the math ... you've already been proven wrong. A mathematician named Kenneth Arrow managed to come up with this theorem that's called Arrow's Theorem (what a coincidence!), you can argue with it if ya want, but I think he got the math equivalent of a Nobel Prize for it, so don't expect the professors to listen to you. Basicly, given that all units in a conflict are equivalent in effective strength, and it's combat until one side is eliminated, you can calculate the most likely number of survivors of the larger side by taking the square root of the difference of the squares of the number of the units. Notice it's multiplicative, rather than additive, in nature. So if 5 orcs take on 4 orcs with no strategic advantage for either side, 25 - 16 = 9, and the square root of 9 is 3, so the larger force will probably have 3 survivors. Double the 5 to 10, and it's 100-16=84, so instead of losing 2 the larger force will now probably not even lose one. A more direct and intuitive example for you: You have a gun. So does the other guy. You can shoot him at a 1/1 ratio. Now, his friend with a gun walks up. You now have one shot, and they have two, but they have one target and you have two. So you're four times as screwed, not in twice as much trouble.

Jolly Giant said:

Hi, Faerl'Elghinn.

I don't mean to be rude, but a lot of the grievances you have about the EL system are just plain wrong.

How can it not be exactly twice as difficult to face twice as many monsters?

Like you said, it is roughly twice as hard to face two monsters. That doesn't mean the EL should be twice as high though! (One CR20 monster can wipe out an army of CR10 monsters...) One CR(X) monster is EL(X), and 2 CR(X) monsters is EL(X+2), right? Now, here's the point where the system actually complies 100% with what you want it do: A level (x+2) encounter is worth twice the XP of a level X encounter! Indicating that the good folks at WotC also thinks that two monsters are twice as tough as one monster...

regardless of the number of members in a party, the party's average party level remains the same

Yes, the average party level is the same. If you have two level 7 characters in the party, their average level is 7. If you have a million level 7 characters in the party, their average level is still 7!

To figure out what the proper EL for any given party is, the DMG says you should add the total number of levels, and divide the sum by 4, just like you said. (It also says that with very small or very big parties, finding the right EL is more a question of DM judgement than math.)

Click to expand...

Interesting how you state that my arguments are wrong, and then proceed to agree with me in so many words. I apologize for my confusing use of the term "average". Of course I understand that the average will always be the same when divided by the number of characters, but my argument is that the average should always be the quotient of the total party level divided by four, as a party of four is the only number which is applicable to the rest of the rules. Therefore, when calculating experience or average party level, each party member should be evaluated on the basis of his or her contribution to the party as if it contained 4 members. In other words, in relation to the rules, each party must contain 4 members, regardless of the actual number of members.

Addditionally, if a third-level party of four characters is considered to be an even match for 1 Ogre, how is it that 3 Ogres are only considered to be twice as much of a challenge by the EL? The idea is absurd.


Experience is supposed to be awarded for each opponent individually, not based on the EL

I'm sorry, but I believe you're wrong... :\

Click to expand...

From the DMG (Edition 3.5), page 37:

"To determine the XP award for an encounter, follow these steps.
1. Determine each character's level. Don't forget to account for ECL (etc.)...
2. For each monster defeated, determine that single monster's Challenge Rating.
3.Use Table 2-6: Experience Point Awards (Single Monster) to cross-reference one character's level with the Challenge Rating for each defeated monster to find the base XP award..."

Now, as for the main gist of your post, about DMs that let's the party face challenges that are two tough for them; this is more a question of personal taste than anything else. I think I speak on behalf of everyone in my D&D group when I say that the risk of dying is part of what makes the game exciting.

Personally, I've never played in a campaign where I knew the party could beat up everyone or everything we met, no matter where we went. Nor would I want to, and nor have I ever DM'ed such a campaign.

In my campaigns, the players know that there are people and monsters in the world that are more powerful than them. Even the paladin with INT 7 knows that if he automatically attacks every evil being he encounters, he won't live to smite another day!

On the other hand, the PCs also know that an awful lot of people are a lot less powerful than them, of course. What they don't know, is how powerful the next person/monster they encounter is gonna be; could be push-over, could be an epic blackguard red great wyrm. This keeps them on their toes and keeps the game exciting for them.

Click to expand...

While I agree that there are obviously more powerful creatures out there, it isn't necessary, fun, or fair to include that type of realism to the point that your 3rd-level party randomly runs across a group of 10 hungry Hill Giants with 17 Wizard levels.

-Faerl'Elghinn

I think a lot of the posters can't see the forest for the trees and are getting hung up on the EL aspect rather than the role-playing point of your post.