D&D 5E Build for players, or build natural?

Which do you do? I have been building for my players, taking their characters abilities and level I to account, and trying to avoid killing them. I am thinking of stopping that, and starting to build a natural world for them to face, whether it kills them or not.

Anyone who does the first, why?

Anyone who does the second, any tips for me?

Lanliss said:

Which do you do? I have been building for my players, taking their characters abilities and level I to account, and trying to avoid killing them. I am thinking of stopping that, and starting to build a natural world for them to face, whether it kills them or not.

Anyone who does the first, why?

Click to expand...

'Build for players' or 'Tailored' encounters is certainly something I've done a lot. Starting with 3e CR, there were explicit guidelines to help you do so. They didn't work very well, but they were there. But, even back in 1e, I'd try to piece together from tables of monsters of a particular 'level,' from HD, exp values, special abilities, etc, etc, how challenging a monster would be and what would be 'right' for a 1st-level dungeon (or the 1st dungeon level: I had this idea as a kid that dungeons were literally supposed get deadlier and have better treasure the deeper you went). 4e, of course, made it a snap to toss together a level-appropriate encounter.

One reason to do it is the hammer & nail reason. You're given encounter building guidelines, so you build encounters to them. It's not a great reason or anything, but it's natural enough. A better reasons comes when you realize that the game is neither for your entertainment, nor an objective simulation you're 'judging,' but for the express purpose of the players having fun. That's a basis for all sorts of game-philosopher reasons that amount to the same thing. It can be a way of running a more enjoyable game.

Anyone who does the second, any tips for me?

Click to expand...

"Build natural,' or "status quo?" Yes, of course. When you're designing a whole setting (with or without players lined up to play in it), for instance, there's no party to gauge it against, so it's a matter of what you want to be there for whatever other (creative, presumably) reasons. There'll still be tailoring (or bored players or dead PCs), but it's up to the players to tailor their approach (or rapid retreat) to what they encounter, instead of you to tailor encounters to them. It might seem a little unfair that in the tailored game, you have full access to the PC's capabilities, and are able to decide on the monsters', while in a status-quo game the PCs know only what you reveal to them about the potential challenges. It is. Status quo isn't supposed to be fair. But it's still supposed to be fun - you just trot it out for players who chafe at fairness.

So, really, either way you build for players, it's just some players hate to think that you tailored an encounter to be challenging instead of just statting out what was 'really there' (ignoring that nothing was or is there, you just made it up). Good on them for being so immersed. Tailor your campaign to them by telegraphing encounters that are well above and below their capabilities, so they can engage in 'smart play' and bully the weak while running from, tricking, or currying favor with the strong.

(Cynical? Me?)

I never take their character abilities into account, because it's not very satisfying for the players if they only succeed or fail at any given task because I've decided to let them.

If at all possible, I recommend not learning which abilities your PCs have, so you can't accidentally meta-game or worry whether or not you're meta-gaming. Just focus on what makes sense for wherever they're going.

When building the world, try to take region levels into consideration. A high-level monster would completely wreck a low-level ecosystem, so nobody should have to worry about tripping over a ridiculously powerful monster during routine exploration. If you want to say that monsters near towns tend to be the weaker sorts, and they get scarier as you move further and further from civilization, then that's going to create a world that is more stable and conducive to adventuring.

Lanliss said:

Anyone who does the second, any tips for me?

Click to expand...

Sure!

I run an old-school almost pure sandbox (not that all old school games are sandboxes!). I focus far more on the setting, including npcs and their motivations (along with factions & their agendas), than I do on any kind of 'story' stuff. I find that I prefer a game where the story emerges from play.

I drop tons of plot hooks, too many for the pcs to bite at them all, and follow where the pcs lead. This does sometimes lead to decision paralysis, but if at least one player is willing to seize the reins and set a goal for the group, it's usually fine. To go along with the 'tons of plot hooks' approach, I use random rumors (I generate a new table each game spring and fall). I also- I wouldn't say I quite "enforce", but strongly encourage- downtime during winter. I strongly prefer a game where real lengths of time pass (years! generations!), and you can follow the pcs' lines through their children.

It's important to telegraph to your players that the world is not tailored to them. Don't let the expectation that everything is an appropriate challenge lead your players into an unwitting TPK. OTOH, once they understand the style of the game, don't give them a break if their 2nd level pcs seek out the monster that nobody in 120 years has survived encountering.

I would say that what I do is a mix of both;

I put everything in the world out in front of the players, from the quick and easy "a goblin stole my goat!" to the dreadful "we had to shut down the mine because all the digging woke up an ancient dragon that was sleeping under the mountain", and telegraph what level of challenge each thing happens to be so that the players are the ones making the choice to take on a challenge at, above, or below their characters' current level.

The only "trick" I've needed to incorporate while running in this style is to remember that the extremely dangerous things that the party might throw themselves at don't necessarily have a goal of killing off the characters - sometimes the big nasty lich that knows he could obliterate the party of adventurers in a fight would rather try and convince them to do a job for him, and might rather leave than spend the time killing them for refusing because the lich has things he'd rather be doing. So the players learn to approach encounters more open to a variety of possible solutions, rather than thinking that encounters have to always be combat (and it helps that I give out the same XP regardless of how the encounter resolves, so that the players aren't incentivized to pick a particular resolution to aim for).

the Jester said:

I strongly prefer a game where real lengths of time pass (years! generations!), and you can follow the pcs' lines through their children.

Click to expand...

I have long wanted to run a game like that (I did start one, once), but I have never found a group of players with the attention span or perspective - or, I guess, just corresponding interest.

I like recurring enemies, and smart enemies that adapt, retreat, regroup, father allies/reinforcements, etc.

i also dont use actual monsters much. 95+% of enemies in my campaigns are intelligent creatures that can talk, strategize, etc. more often than not they are tool users, though I do use dragons and the like a decent amount. When I do use monsters, as such, they tend to be being used by a more intelligent creature.

That makes it much easier to tailor while campaigns, without "metagaming". It also allows fun things like the time the PCs in my "modern Earth with hidden magic" campaign fought a demon lord and the cultists who had summoned him, in the park behind the target, and Mr. Singh, the Sihk demon hunter, purified the demon's sword, and kept it, gaining a powerful magic weapon by first surviving and defeating the enemy who had tried to kill him with it.

Thats how they get a lot of their loot, actually. Which also means I can use magic items to adjust encounter challenge during an encounter, or have the enemies regroup and come back stronger, having grabbed gear from a cache somewhere and/or gathered some friends, etc.

some tips for non tailored encounters:

dont be afraid to have enemies escape, and come back later.

Have some "tricks up their sleeves" set aside that you can apply to an enemy or group on the fly, like a whistle that summons a small horse of imps, or creates a sandstorm to cover and escape, or a potion that makes the baddie stronger and gain a regen, etc.

Use these tricks to make the world less predictable, and feel less like they are playing oblivion.

the Jester said:

I drop tons of plot hooks, too many for the pcs to bite at them all, and follow where the pcs lead. This does sometimes lead to decision paralysis, but if at least one player is willing to seize the reins and set a goal for the group, it's usually fine. To go along with the 'tons of plot hooks' approach, I use random rumors (I generate a new table each game spring and fall). I also- I wouldn't say I quite "enforce", but strongly encourage- downtime during winter. I strongly prefer a game where real lengths of time pass (years! generations!), and you can follow the pcs' lines through their children.

It's important to telegraph to your players that the world is not tailored to them. Don't let the expectation that everything is an appropriate challenge lead your players into an unwitting TPK. OTOH, once they understand the style of the game, don't give them a break if their 2nd level pcs seek out the monster that nobody in 120 years has survived encountering.

Click to expand...

I second both of these!
(I'd give XP, but I just gave XP for Saelorn... hopefully after I finish this I can add XP again)

Something that can help, but might be a pain to do, is find some of the old AD&D monster books. They listed number appearing in their description, which can give you an idea of their organization (2E was better for this IIRC). BECMI might have the same info, but I don't remember. You could also just figure it out on your own, but that's also a lot of work. Anyway, once you have this information, you can easily have players make INT checks to get some of this information, which will help them plan accordingly.

Shiroiken said:

I second both of these!
(I'd give XP, but I just gave XP for Saelorn... hopefully after I finish this I can add XP again)

Something that can help, but might be a pain to do, is find some of the old AD&D monster books. They listed number appearing in their description, which can give you an idea of their organization (2E was better for this IIRC). BECMI might have the same info, but I don't remember. You could also just figure it out on your own, but that's also a lot of work. Anyway, once you have this information, you can easily have players make INT checks to get some of this information, which will help them plan accordingly.

Click to expand...

You can refresh the page to give xp before the timer is up.

Lanliss said:

You can refresh the page to give xp before the timer is up.

Click to expand...

TIL.