Cation, Information, Paranoia and Preparation(Forked Thread:)

[Reynard]

Verisimilitude be dammed, I'd rather things be fair.

I think that's a reasonable position to take when actually designing adventures, but when designing a setting/sandbox, it doesn't hold. I mean, big powerful things are likely to be well known (feared), at least enough to give a clue they are there, but if the 3rd level PCs head into the Swamps of Doom where the hag covey lives (and likes to dine on travellers) they are responsible for their demise, not the DM.

 

[Hussar]

I think that's a reasonable position to take when actually designing adventures, but when designing a setting/sandbox, it doesn't hold. I mean, big powerful things are likely to be well known (feared), at least enough to give a clue they are there, but if the 3rd level PCs head into the Swamps of Doom where the hag covey lives (and likes to dine on travellers) they are responsible for their demise, not the DM.

But, do you as a DM, inform the players, either in game or out of game, that there is a hag covey there beforehand? Do you explicitly warn the players that going somewhere is pretty much a death sentence, or, do you let them go forward with their plan, even though they may not know that it's certain death?

Now, if you've dropped the explicit warning and the PC's STILL go there, then fine, toast them.

But, I'm not really even talking about encounters that are so far above the PC's level that it's guaranteed death. I'm talking about how encounters which are reasonably defeatable (say EL +/- 2) that kill PC's.

I think it really depends on what kinds of opponents you use. If you use a lot of classed monsters, particularly classed humanoids, I don't think you'll see this problem as often. Classed humanoids tend to be on the very weak end of their CR, particularly non-caster classed humanoids. Compare the damage potential of a 5th level orc fighter to a troll and you'll see where I'm coming from.

If, OTOH, you're like me and use a lot of monsters, this becomes a much bigger issue. Monsters of a given CR can just do so much damage that a single lucky roll kills a PC. I wouldn't mind if a single lucky roll really hurt a PC. That's fine. The troll nails the fighter three times, rakes and rolls good damage, and the fighter is really wounded, that's cool. The troll nails the fighter three times, rakes and rolls very well and takes the fighter from fresh to dead is not. A troll can do 50 points of damage in a round, without crits. Lots of 5th level fighters don't have 50 hit points. 4th level fighters probably don't and a troll is a reasonable encounter for a 4th level party. Bit tough, but not insanely so.

That's where my problem comes in.

 

[LostSoul]

Sitting down with the other players, putting together a Standard Operating Procedure and presenting it the the DM will certainly help. Another issue is the DM himself -- if he's happy to feed the players increasingly irrelevent information for his own amusement, there's a problem right there. It isn't difficult to cue players in to the idea that it is time to move on.

Those are some good tips. Any more? How do you suggest letting players know that it's time to move on?

 

[Fenes]

Those are some good tips. Any more? How do you suggest letting players know that it's time to move on?

"You've got a feeling this door's safe to open."

"You can't help realizing that the longer you stand in front of this door, the bigger the chances of getting detected."

 

[Reynard]

"You can't help realizing that the longer you stand in front of this door, the bigger the chances of getting detected."

Or just start rolling dice. Players get nervous when you start rolling dice. Especially if said rolling dice is accompanied by flipping through the MM, wiping off the battlemat or frantically scribbling things down. It helps to occassionally ask, "What's your listen bonus again?" even when you have it in front of you.

Ultimately, I think the best way to cue players in that they are "safe" to move forward is to respond to new or more detailed questions with something along the lines of, "You don't see anything you didn't see before." I'm not above the occasional direct, out of character prod either, particularly if there's one player who is bringing the game to halt for everyone else, but I tend to try and maintain some level of immersion if when telling them to get on with it, already.

 

[S'mon]

I added Action Points into my current campaign specifically to counteract this. I think that's why you never saw action points in 1e or 2e - combat was not that lethal. Monsters could not kill PC's in a single round, by and large, through melee damage. Most monsters would take three or four rounds to start to threaten the PC with melee damage. (Note, I'm talking beyond about 4th or 5th level here) You don't need to reduce lethality. It's already weak enough as is.

3e went too far bumping up the monsters IMO. PC's are going to be doing hundreds of fights during a campaign. The math should work out to a fairly low chance of death per fight, or you're simply going to kill them too often.

I agree with this - 3e monster stats suck, frankly. My solution has been to go back to Classic & 1e for the monster stats in my current 3.5e campaign, and I'm running mostly Classic adventures - currently B7 Rahasia, looking at B5 Horror on the Hill next, and maybe B4 The Lost City at some point. I'm planning to use Against the Giants, followed by X5 Temple of Death as the campaign climax. So far I've killed 1 PC in 3 sessions (1st level Wizard killed by the Bone Golem in Rahasia), but I hope overall death rate is less than that, no more than 1 death in 10-20 sessions would be ideal.

 

[S'mon]

If, OTOH, you're like me and use a lot of monsters, this becomes a much bigger issue. Monsters of a given CR can just do so much damage that a single lucky roll kills a PC. I wouldn't mind if a single lucky roll really hurt a PC. That's fine. The troll nails the fighter three times, rakes and rolls good damage, and the fighter is really wounded, that's cool. The troll nails the fighter three times, rakes and rolls very well and takes the fighter from fresh to dead is not. A troll can do 50 points of damage in a round, without crits. Lots of 5th level fighters don't have 50 hit points. 4th level fighters probably don't and a troll is a reasonable encounter for a 4th level party. Bit tough, but not insanely so.

That's where my problem comes in.

Yeah, I find that 3e MM troll will regularly slaughter 6th level PCs. I was using them with 12th level PCs and a pack of them still made for a nasty encounter.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think it really depends on what kinds of opponents you use. If you use a lot of classed monsters, particularly classed humanoids, I don't think you'll see this problem as often. Classed humanoids tend to be on the very weak end of their CR, particularly non-caster classed humanoids. Compare the damage potential of a 5th level orc fighter to a troll and you'll see where I'm coming from.

Spellcasters are of course very... swingy. Win initiative against them, and they are probably dead. If not, they can open up with one of their nasty SoDs or area effects, and you suffer.

 

[Reynard]

But, do you as a DM, inform the players, either in game or out of game, that there is a hag covey there beforehand? Do you explicitly warn the players that going somewhere is pretty much a death sentence, or, do you let them go forward with their plan, even though they may not know that it's certain death?

"Explicit" is a pretty strong word, but generally yes. Assuming that the players take the time to inquire, they'll get (in-character) information that allows them to make meaningful decisions. I usually have a "PC map" of a given area, often with notes and warnings scribbled on it. If the players suggest going to the Swamps of Doom, I'll give them some rumors about the place. if they dig, they might find old journals from other adventurers or similar research type materials. But it is incumbent upon the players to do the research. if they just look at a spot on the map where there's ruins marked or a cave with a big question mark next to it and just start walking, they've made that decision.

I think it really depends on what kinds of opponents you use. If you use a lot of classed monsters, particularly classed humanoids, I don't think you'll see this problem as often. . . If, OTOH, you're like me and use a lot of monsters, this becomes a much bigger issue. Monsters of a given CR can just do so much damage that a single lucky roll kills a PC.

You're right. And I do tend to use humanoids more than monsters for "stock enemies". Mostly, though, the issue is that the CR system itself is near useless. There are so many factors that go into determining whether a creature or encounter will likely be a challenge for a given group that CR is at best a starting place. It doesn't help that CRs don't seem tobe assigned by any system -- they are all eyeballed, it seems.

 

[S'mon]

Because I'm not using MM monsters in my current game, I have to assign all CRs. My solution is to use CR=Level and compare the monster threat with a PC of equivalent level. So eg a CR 6 combat monster should be about as dangerous as a 6th level Fighter. This is not how core 3e does it, the core 3e CR formula is "Will use up 20-25% of resources of an equivalent level party". A Troll is CR5 by this standard - it will use up 25% of party resources by killing 1 of the 4 PCs! A 5th level NPC is not actually CR5 by this standard, more like CR3.

My approach gives higher CRs than standard for monsters. I give half standard encounter XP so it evens out and the PCs advance at around the standard rate.