How do you determain challenges?

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I have been thinking about CR and XP budgets, and fair challenges a lot this last week or so. (If you read my blog you will see why) I am left wondering is GM fidgeting the only way to balance the system?

Ok, so me and the guys were bsing about game, and I was trying to give 4e a real chance with a new PoV, when the talk came around to what DM Dave’s Nephew would play if and when he is allowed to play. I suggested we might need some more healing, and some extra combat power, so Paladin sounded good to me.
I got told they were ‘sub optimal’. Ok so then Matt pulls out his lap top, and pulls up a spread sheet full of numbers. At first I though this was a joke. He called it DPR and DPC. (Damage per round, and Damage per Character for people like me who never thought this far out) Next thing I know about an hour has gone by with the discussion of Avenger Vs Ranger for primary Striker Secondary Defender (A new fighter build from a new book called tempest got some mention in there too).

Now just to make this worse, this is when DM Dave ( I know you are reading this so respond on here not on the phone) tells me that he is using these spreadsheets to modify the module we are in. He does are DPR Vs the Monster DPR, and figures are theoretical hp (Based on two healing words) and runs the fights as average numbers before he goes with the fight. So At that point I asked him “Then how did the massacre at the water fall slip by?”

He told me it didn’t, that he knew it had a high likely hood of death, and at least a real chance of TPK, but the Mod was meant for it to be an out and out no holds bars death fest.

So now I go back to all the people who said CRs didn’t work and ask the following question:

Is it possible to make a system that truly challenges the players, but also is fair to them 100% of the time. And if so is this calculus equation of physics proportions the answer (DPR and DPC)

 

[FireLance]

They aren't 100% absolute, sure-fire, fool-proof solutions, but CRs in 3e and XP budgets in 4e will do about 60-70% of the work for you (numbers are estimates and are not obtained through any scientific process). The remaining 40-30% of the work is down to DM judgement and tweaking based on party composition.

Even so, all of the above can only tell you what will be the likely outcomes, e.g. 80% likely the party will win, could go either way, 80% likely the party will lose, etc. Short of using rigged dice and ensuring that the players and the DMs follow a script, there will always be a chance that particularly good or bad decisions or dice rolls on the part of the players or the DMs could cause even the most theoretically improbable outcomes to occur.

 

[El Mahdi]

How do you determine challenges?

Honestly, I've never even bothered with CR's.

To be fair though, most of what I run is published modules, but when I add in my own encounters, I really don't even bother with CR. I simply tailor monsters or npc's to what I think my group can deal with, and if necessary make changes on the fly.

I'm not saying CR's or XP budgets are bad. Seems like they'd work for what they are intended for (especially adventure design), but I've just never really needed them.

 

[Asmor]

1. I get it. You're female. You don't need to post in pink to assert your femininity. Changing the font color is really annoying.

2. Wow, the people you play with are... something else. I wouldn't worry too much about the spreadsheets and such. Figure out what you want to play and play it the way you want. Ideally you should play to the strengths of the role (i.e. if you want to play a paladin, don't try to optimize it for DPS), but even that's not necessary. You might be able to squeeze out a bit from optimization, but you don't get all that much and more importantly it's difficult, if not impossible, to really make a character bad.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

While some manner of DM adjudication is I think needed, a system can make the job much easier for the DM and likely much more accurate. I am willing to bet a game with a system that is clear-cut is much more likely to have the right challenge rate then a game without one or a muddy one.

For my money, the best system I have found is XP Budget and the +/- 5 levels of the monster in 4e. I can quickly and easily see how difficult the encounter will be, and I can check more deeply too once the basics are decided using the monster stats as per a game without a system.

 

[Blizzardb]

For my money, the best system I have found is XP Budget and the +/- 5 levels of the monster in 4e. I can quickly and easily see how difficult the encounter will be, and I can check more deeply too once the basics are decided using the monster stats as per a game without a system.

I agree 100%. This is the best encounter setup system I've ever used. And the quickest, too.

 

[Fenes]

The problem with that idea is that party "performance" varies a lot according to the players involved. You can't really have a static, fixed table that takes into account that Bob will play too cautious to be most effective, and that John will be too rash to use his powers best, and Lily will just go through healing like there's no tomorrow.

The DM needs to tailor challenges to the specific party of characters and players.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

The DM needs to tailor challenges to the specific party of characters and players.

Oh I agree, which is why I said a combination is best. The system is best for working out basic balancing math, the DM for adjusting to suit the individual tastes of the party.

Even with the XP Budget being extremely well done in my eyes. I still go back and tailor it for my party.

 

[bouncyhead]

Honestly, I've never even bothered with CR's.

Yup, me too. You can always fudge a little.

 

[Shadowsong666]

I think it boils down to the DM as the categories and ratings just give you a quick hint if the PCs should be ready for it or not. If they aren't, well, i think its up to the DM to make it work. If its pretty easy for the players the DM needs to quickly adept too, so in the end the DM makes it work.