How hard should a game be?

[Scorpio616]

Well? How hard should a game be? Let us use the mantra that a "GM is not against the players" which meant RPGs and co-op board games are on the an even playing field. What chance should there be for a TPK during the campaign (RPG) or the all the players losing in a game (board game)?

And lets assume there are VAST differences in player skill IN the gaming group, from the player who works brutal mandatory overtime (casual gamer) who barely has time to make it to game night, to the unemployed gamer (That Guy) who can devote themselves to the game to learn a game's ins and outs.

 

[delericho]

Very.

Ideally, it should be right on the edge of what the PCs are capable of, such that if they're unusually unlucky or unusually foolish, they should definitely fail*. Only if they're both lucky and good (or unusually lucky or unusually good) should they be assured of success.

* Where "fail" doesn't necessarily mean "die".

Of course, actually composing an adventure at that level of difficulty is extremely difficult - most often, you'll end up with something that's too easy, or far too lethal. (And, given the choice, the former is preferable - it's easier to correct for a cakewalk than a TPK.)

 

[Janx]

In 3e, the basic metric I use is the CR rating compared to party level (party level = sum of all PC levels divided by 4).

Barring issues with CR calculation/imbalance, I stick to running encounters within a CR range around the party level (below for the mooks, above to a certain threshold for the big bad guy).

In any case, the expectation is that the toughest encounter is dangerous, but statistically beatable.

My goal is to make sure the tough encounters feel very hard. But mechanically, I want them to be beatable if the party players decently smart.

In this way, as GM, I don't have to pull any punches when running an encounter that is correctly rated for their level. I just try my best to kill them, and I have a reasonable safeguard that if they don't play stupid, and don't have bad luck, they'll make it to the end of the adventure.

For my group, they tend to want to kill things. So putting an over-kill monster in would feel like the GM railroading them into a retreat situation (because it's obvious they can't beat it no matter what).

By limiting monsters to a certain power range relative to the party, the decision to run away, or fight remains in the party, or outsmart it, is based on their own circumstances (having lost too many resources in the last encounter, etc).

As a note, PCs still die, etc in my games. I just try to have a sense of regulation about my part in it.

 

[DMZ2112]

Short answer: Easier than mothereffing Yggdrasil.

Longer answer: Every encounter with the enemy, however they are represented, should be characterized by concern. Not fear, and definitely not paralysis. Players should be able to overcome the challenges they face with a reasonable amount of discussion and careful action. TPKs should be viewed as a mistake, either on the part of the dungeon master for poorly balancing their campaign, or on the part of the players for not engaging in discussion or acting recklessly.

The second part of Scorpio616's question should not increase difficulty in a functioning gaming group. Lack of skill at a game should never make a scenario impossible; when a group of players becomes too skilled for the baseline game to present a challenge that skill should be offset through the use of advanced rules. When skill is required and individuals at the table cannot bring it to bear, in the worst case the dungeon master or a proactive player should act as a guide to less experienced players, and in the best case providing such guidance is the shared responsibility of all players.

Challenge and risk are what make games fun, but the operative word is /fun/. Games are a journey. Overcoming challenge should be enjoyable and rewarding in and of itself.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Well? How hard should a game be? Let us use the mantra that a "GM is not against the players" which meant RPGs and co-op board games are on the an even playing field. What chance should there be for a TPK during the campaign (RPG) or the all the players losing in a game (board game)?

And lets assume there are VAST differences in player skill IN the gaming group, from the player who works brutal mandatory overtime (casual gamer) who barely has time to make it to game night, to the unemployed gamer (That Guy) who can devote themselves to the game to learn a game's ins and outs.

It should be just hard/easy enough to allow every player in the game to have fun. Trying to give a standard metric to this like Challenge Ratings or Encounter Levels is pretty pointless as every single group is going to deviate from that standard to some degree. A good GM will know what makes the game fun for their players as well as themselves. Strive for that - everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

 

[howandwhy99]

D&D increases in difficulty as it increases in level. Not PC level, but game level. 1st level should be easy. 10th level is the hardest, but even after 10th the game keeps increasing in difficulty. How hard everything should be depends on the players. Are they kids? High school age? College? Older? Maturity and personal ability are important too, but ultimately every player plays his or her own game. You don't have to be playing Big Blue at the end of the game, but the game could be designed to be similarly difficult. It depends upon what the game designer and DM are capable of though.

The easiest tweaks are tactical designs. Lower your Int-bsed designs, so even wile E supra-geniuses out there are can be beaten by the players.

 

[Umbran]

What chance should there be for a TPK during the campaign (RPG) or the all the players losing in a game (board game)?

How much chance do all the players want there to be? Different groups have different desires - this is not directly related to the skill level or dedication of the players involved, but is simply a personal preference. The game should provide sufficient threat for the players to have fun - whatever that level of threat happens to be for them.

 

[Tom Strickland]

"Buliwyf: Luck often enough, will save a man, if his courage hold." (13th Warrior)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120657/quotes

I appreciate the comments by several others here, and have had similar experiences, motivations and techniques as a DM--but I learned some things too, so thanks for sharing!

I have never dealt a TPK though I came close once, years ago. A gorgon petrified all but one member of the party--including the paladin with his charisma-enhanced saves. The druid managed to save and escaped from the treacherous cove in animal form. Later he returned with the magical means to quietly restore the other party members, and they subsequently--and more cautiously/strategically--overcame their monstrous, deadly foe.

It has been many years since I was even tempted to invoke deus ex machina to avoid TPK by sparing the last hapless character. Nor do I intentionally shift the tide of battle--you all know it: the point in RPG or CRPGs/Strategy Games were there is a "sense" or "feeling" more than raw calculation that you will be victorious (later proved out, and therefore such assessments become more accurate and refined with experience).

There is much creative/story tension in my campaign situations--including combats. I meta-joked recently that I wasn't out to get them but the veterans were reservedly sarcastic. I suppose I give no quarter. But we all have learned over many years and campaigns to ride that edge of dangerous challenge. Numerous times they have overcome foes and odds that seemed hopeless at the outset--even ones not intended for actual resolution (CR 4+ levels higher). They do some requisite "helping the other guy with healing as he reaches -10 + CON score and certain death" but tend to be individualists otherwise.

For my part, I try to have solo or group foes behave according to their INT, instincts, cunning, or other motivations (that is, some rush in, some mob the first or the magic guy, some harry and retreat, some parlay, etc.). Monsters tend to be advanced a little more than standard but not so much that the CR bumps up according to the rules, heh. The players get high 32-point buy starting out for deadlier campaigns, rerolls on 1 for HP after 1st level, etc.

And in closing, to emphasize the "courage" point: there is one younger, long-time player that is determined without being reckless. He has learned by my DM style that I tried to simulate (logical if not "real") situations, and he has proved again and again that he can help turn the tide of battle (whether rogue, cleric, etc.) by being cool under pressure and threat of certain death. His example usually rallies the others who worry what I have unleashed upon them yet again and become hesitant. [I am reminded of the concept of samurai warriors accepting death and the resulting reactiveness and focus empowering them with a capability to overcome most foes--cutting without being cut]

I don't provide openings to succeed: rather, instead, they make those opportunities against determined, deadly foes. Of course, who is the deadlier in such cases? =)

 

[Quartz]

Well? How hard should a game be? Let us use the mantra that a "GM is not against the players" which meant RPGs and co-op board games are on the an even playing field. What chance should there be for a TPK during the campaign (RPG) or the all the players losing in a game (board game)?

I'll second that it doesn't really matter as long as everyone is having fun.

 

[Darkness]

Depends on what your group is trying to do.

Some games can be incredibly easy.
Some games can be brutally hard.
Some games can be somewhere - anywhere - in between.

As long as everyone involved is generally fine with the difficulty, it's all good.