D&D 5E How do you, as a player, judge "appropriate" difficulty?

[FormerlyHemlock]

Let's say your DM is writing a module for distribution, whether via DM's guild or via friends or some other method. He's billed this module as "suitable for 4-5 PCs of levels 7-9." He's had a couple of other DMs run the module once or twice, and he's run it himself for two different groups, one of which was your group, so there is some playtest data as well as whatever purely analytical data he used to design it.

Now he's asking you whether it's the right difficulty level for the advertised number and levels of PCs. My question for you is, how do you personally make that determination? Some possibilities that seem plausible:

(1) Psychological (tension-seeking): Players were scared the PCs might die.
(2) Psychological (fun-seeking): Players were interested and engaged but weren't ever scared their PCs might die.
(3) Empirical: PCs ended the adventure very low on HP and spells.
(4) Formulaic: Challenges were constructed in accordance with DMG guidelines
(5) Analytical (challenge-seeking): 4 unoptimized 8th level Champion Fighters would have at least one PC survive the adventure about 50% of the time in a computer simulation.
(6) Analytical (reward-seeking): 4 unoptimized 8th level Champion Fighters would have at least one PC survive the adventure about 100% of the time.
(7) Analytical (fun-seeking): 4 unoptimized 8th level Champion Fighters would all survive the adventure about 100% of the time.
(8) Something else?

Edit to add:
(9) Analytical (chargen stress test): 4 optimized 8th level Champion Fighters would have all PCs survive the adventure about 100% of the time in a computer simulation, but unoptimized PCs will usually lose one or more PCs and/or TPK.
(10) Analytical (tactical stress test): 4 unoptimized 8th level Champion Fighters would have all PCs survive the adventure about 100% of the time in a computer simulation if they use correct tactics, but the same PCs using straightforward tactics will usually lose one or more PCs and/or TPK.

My hypothesis is that there isn't actually a consensus on what "appropriate" difficulty means, because different players and DMs have different motivations for playing D&D and different desires for what they want out of it. I rather hope I'm wrong.

But despite my hypothesis, my actual interest is in sandboxing: how do you fairly advertise an adventure to a group of players so they know whether or not they want to risk playing it?

Related question: if your DM were about to run an adventure for you of "appropriate" difficulty for your level and party size, what definition of "appropriate difficulty" would you hope he is using?

 

[transtemporal]

1 and 6 for me. Adventures where 1 or 2 adventurers die because of the challenge are fun because it ratchets up the jeopardy, excitement and tension. But multiple party wipes to get to the end are not.

 

[Tony Vargas]

(8) Something else?

'Feel' based on playing D&D since 1980. The same as if I were running.

3e introduced quantitative encounter guidelines - but, they didn't really work that well then, and they certainly don't now, even though they're a bit more exhaustive when it comes to being outnumbered.

My hypothesis is that there isn't actually a consensus on what "appropriate" difficulty means, because different players and DMs have different motivations for playing D&D and different desires for what they want out of it. I rather hope I'm wrong.

Sorry to disappoint you, but you're not wrong. (First time I've ever had to post that around here!)

PCs vary too much in capability, monsters of the same CR in threat level, players in system mastery, and DMs in sheer wicked DM-ness (and any/all of that with situation, day length, &c), that there's not going to be a solid formula. If there /were/ (and it's not impossible, just not a design priority this time around) it'd make DMing that much easier - but that wouldn't be so Empowering, now would it?

But despite my hypothesis, my actual interest is in sandboxing: how do you fairly advertise an adventure to a group of players so they know whether or not they want to risk playing it?

Well, there's always the fate of those who came before. If you telegraph that a mighty wizard gathered an equally mighty adventurers and teleported to the location, never to return, and the PCs are waiting, wistfully, for the day they can cast teleport, it'd be a clue it's above their paygrade.

The other option, of course, is to sandbox around in the sense of letting players decide where they go and what they try to accomplish, but still tailor things in the moment to the results you deem appropriate. So if you figure a combat should be tough, don't just design it to be tough, tweak it to be that way in play. It's 'more work' you have to be more on-the-ball at the table, but 'less work' in that you don't have to do as much prep, or worry about what's 'appropriate,' just worry about what you want, and then make it appropriate.

Related question: if your DM were about to run an adventure for you of "appropriate" difficulty for your level and party size, what definition of "appropriate difficulty" would you hope he is using?

Challenging but fun, and likely to result in genre-recognizable story when we're done.

Something like that.

 

[Shiroiken]

Published adventure always run afoul of variance in groups, from the DMs to the players. That's why DMing is more art than science. If I were to try to crunch things down to mathematics (a sheer impossibility), I'd want something like the following results via. computer simulation:

5% chance of PC death for smart play
20% chance of PC death for average play
40% chance of PC death for below average play
80% chance of PC death for poor play
1% chance of TPK for smart play
5% chance of TPK for average play
15% chance of TPK for below average play
40% chance of TPK for poor play

Play can refer to character building, tactics and/or teamwork. Smart play would have optimized characters will good team work and tactics. Average play would probably be missing either good tactics or optimized characters (or only slightly lower of both). Below Average play would either have both, or some inter-party conflict that keeps the teamwork from functioning well. Poor play would have badly designed characters and/or counterproductive actions.

 

[S'mon]

For me as a player, an 'appropriate' challenge is one where I win, but felt threatened. I guess that should be the general goal.

 

[Psikerlord#]

But despite my hypothesis, my actual interest is in sandboxing: how do you fairly advertise an adventure to a group of players so they know whether or not they want to risk playing it?

It's actually really easy, provided your ruleset has a formal Party Retreat rule of some kind (preferably with a cost, but a good chance of success). You then simply tell the party there are giants involved, or dragons, or ghosts, or whatever - and if they get up to their neck in level draining shades, and they choose not to invoke the Party Retreat to flee (and fight another day, or come back with help, etc) - it's on them.

There are a few modern games with such rules (13th Age, Low Fantasy Gaming) and indeed the D&D Rules Cyclopedia has such a rule (OD&D?). For some reason the retreat rule was lost on D&D somewhere around 3rd edition i think, and f*cked things up.

 

[S'mon]

My formal party retreat rule for tabletop play: If you're not on the battlemat, you're not in combat and the combat move/attack rules no longer apply. If you are faster than the enemy you get away. If not and they chase, we go to skill checks - Athletics, Stealth etc. But hunting down and killing fleers is more the exception than the rule; immediate pursue/attack is already assumed in the free Reaction attack.

I remember in one 4e game the PCs hunted down and killed a much-disliked hobgoblin captain who
fled, but that is very much the exception IME for either side. Different with cavalry on an open plain, but in a typical dungeon environment it's pretty much out of sight is out of mind. At very worst the fleers may leave a doomed rearguard, but usually there are already bodies the victors are happy to loot/eat.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

For me as a player, an 'appropriate' challenge is one where I win, but felt threatened. I guess that should be the general goal.

Is that another vote for #1 and #6? I.e. does it still feel fun/appropriate even if the "feeling" of being threatened turns out (in retrospect) to have been unsupported by math if you actually crunch the numbers on the whole adventure, or if the DM wound up having to pull some strings to make sure the PCs won (e.g. remove a tough henchman from the final fight on the fly, as Tony suggests)?

 

[S'mon]

Is that another vote for #1 and #6? I.e. does it still feel fun/appropriate even if the "feeling" of being threatened turns out (in retrospect) to have been unsupported by math if you actually crunch the numbers on the whole adventure, or if the DM wound up having to pull some strings to make sure the PCs won (e.g. remove a tough henchman from the final fight on the fly, as Tony suggests)?

I don't really do that kind of fudging, any 'generous GMing' I might do is far more subtle and concerned more with ensuring I 'kill them fairly', not avoid killing. It is a vote for #1 yes. I can't really judge #5 to #10. I guess in my typical adventures I've created myself the unoptimised Champion Fighters have usually either died or been in great danger of death. But unoptimised Barbarians usually pull through. I guess in an appropriately challenging adventure an unoptimised group would typically get "victory at a cost" - win but with 1 or more PC/ally fatalities, while an optimised group would typically win without loss. "Typical" being ca 80% of the time.

So in a level-appropriate adventure:

Hard end: Optimised group loses 1+ PCs ca 20% of the time.
Easy end: Unoptimised group wins without loss ca 20% of the time.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't really do that kind of fudging, any 'generous GMing' I might do is far more subtle and concerned more with ensuring I 'kill them fairly', not avoid killing.

Tangent: I can relate. I don't ever change monsters on the fly, but I've noticed that when I think the party is going to die, I am more likely to have the monsters fall for players' tricks and taunts, and do counterproductive things like throw their halberds at the guy taunting them from a tree instead of methodically wiping out the PCs. Part of that is roleplaying the monsters' genuine overconfidence, but at least part of it has got to be my own sympathies as DM leaking through to help the players.

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. It sounds like there might be enough of a consensus to work with after all: aim for "players of average skill and build triumph 95+% of the time, sometimes with casualties." It also sounds like it's okay if poor play leads to players losing, but the adventure shouldn't be so hard that poor play is a guaranteed loss.