New Design & Development -- Skill DCs

[eamon]

I also disagree that good adventure design involves going after things that are easier or harder, at least beyond a certain range. I certainly believe that if you are level 20, you should be able to have threats somewhere between a 15-25 range. But beyond the small range, it is rather a waste of everyone's time to run it using any game mechanics. Battles below that can be summarized with "You win" and battles above that can be summarized with "You lose". Skill checks above and below that are likewise best if they are run as routine activities for the PCs. Need to convince that beggar to give you information that you would have considered a moderate task while they were level 1? Simply tell the PCs "You talk to the beggars and this is the list of things they tell you". Unless you want them to have a chance to fail. In which case, assign a low DC for their own level.

I think out-of-level-bounds challenges really enhance the game. In particular, low-level trivial challenges, and here's why:

If you're playing a long campaign arc, then in a sense you're playing against a treadmill: no matter how great your team is, the DM just picks appropriate challenges, and somehow the big-bad sends lackeys that are a little to weak at first, and never quite realizes what he's up against. That's tactically fun (so most combat challenges should be like that), but it's not particuarly engaging, rewarding, or believable.

Some of the best moments I remember in past campaigns are little recurring challenges - not too frequently - and the obvious sense of progress they convey. E.g. the first orc scout group of the oncoming clans are a near-death experience (or even require a retreat). The next time you encounter them, you know what to watch out for, and it goes a little better. A few sessions later, they're a challenge, but nothing too dangerous - the real danger is when the scout group includes others you don't recognize. And then, after you've defeated the clans' mastermind (you know, that illithid that had eaten the chiefs' brains) several levels later, on your way out of orcish territory, you encounter another orc scout group just like the first, and you just steamroller them. That encounter is way too low level by now, and any other scout groups the DM just handwaves - but having one is fun. And of course, it can help the pretense that the in-game world is not tailored to the PC's - a kind of reminder that even though we only usually play the encounters that matter, there are others that aren't worth the bother, but do happen.

You can tweak this set-up according to the scenario too; so if e.g. the opponents are supposedly organized in game, the recurring encounters can be made nastier with specific tactics and traps by the monsters that are custom made to disrupt the PC's usual style. If they're not; you can do the opposite, have the opponents use tactics that are easy to disrupt if you know what they're trying to do - and let the PC's figure it out.

So, occasionally throwing the odd-ball encounter can be a tool to tell the tale of the PC's meteoric rise and it can be a tool to help believability. It's not boring so long as you do so sparingly and, for over-level encounters, beware of insufficient information leading to TPK's; the PC's do need to know when to run. Of course, it's only useful if you're using the level-inappropriate encounter to get a message across.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If you're playing a long campaign arc, then in a sense you're playing against a treadmill: no matter how great your team is, the DM just picks appropriate challenges, and somehow the big-bad sends lackeys that are a little to weak at first, and never quite realizes what he's up against. That's tactically fun (so most combat challenges should be like that), but it's not particuarly engaging, rewarding, or believable.

I guess that depends on your opinion. The players I play with are ONLY engaged and rewarded when they fight appropriate challenges. If we have a session that is too hard or too easy, I'll be sure to hear about it afterwords. Likely, I'll hear complaints of "What's the point in showing up if you are just going to kill us?" or "I almost fell asleep that combat was so easy, I didn't even use one healing surge! You could throw harder monsters against us, you know. Might be more fun."

I know I haven't felt like I'm on a treadmill or that it was somehow unbelievable in the current game I'm playing in. We started at level 12 and there was an asteroid that fell from the sky and we heard this evil country had sent its army to go check it out and that large portions of the army weren't coming back. So, we went into the crater, defeated all the enemies that attacked us in the tunnels beneath it and found out about the enemy's plan.

Back in town, we found out there was a conspiracy to kill us, we fought off the assassins and tracked them back to the guy who hired them. In exchange for his life, he gave us a scroll that transported us to a pocket dimension where we fought a bunch of guardians who were guarding some prisoners.

We headed back into the crater where we fought some more creatures who were rather nasty. We're 2 levels higher but no one in the group ever said or even thought that it was unbelievable that the monsters were 2 levels higher as well. But none of us think of our level or the enemies level as an absolute measure of our strength. I think of it more as "That place is filled with nasty monsters. They were nasty last time we were there, they are nasty now." My character doesn't even have an inkling that he gained levels.

several levels later, on your way out of orcish territory, you encounter another orc scout group just like the first, and you just steamroller them. That encounter is way too low level by now, and any other scout groups the DM just handwaves - but having one is fun.

It used to be fun back in 1e/2e when the battle against really weak enemies took less than 5 minutes to complete(and even then I had players asking me "Do we really need to play this out? They just lose to us!"). In 4e, even a battle against really weak enemies can take 20-30 minutes to play out as we write down initiative, draw the battlemap, put all the minis on the board, the PCs carefully consider their strategy since they aren't sure how powerful the enemy is, each player considers their power choices, and then the time it takes to actually roll to hit and damage and write it all down(since even weak encounters in 4e can take more than 1 hit to kill).

YMMV, but that amount of time isn't rewarding enough to me or my players to get the point across that they are strong. They know they are strong, they have all these cool new powers BECAUSE they are strong. And they want to use them against appropriate monsters to see how much better they fare than the last group of appropriate monsters.

I know there was this one time I got a new power from going up a level, then the one combat we had the next session was against extremely weak enemies. It made the session really unsatisfying for me since I felt like my new power wasn't really needed.

 

[Camelot]

If they keep going in this direction, maybe we'll have enough content for a DMG3!

 

[SabreCat]

even though we only usually play the encounters that matter, there are others that aren't worth the bother, but do happen.

Handwaved encounters usually do the trick on this, for my group. At the end of the heroic tier, they marched back through the undead-infested lands where they'd begun the game, and I mentioned that these low-level zombies and skeletons were no match for 10th-level badasses. So I gave the players a few minutes to free-narrate their carving their way through what had before been a daunting enemy horde, and we got on to preparing for the endgame run.

Preserving lower-level creatures for the sake of verisimilitude can work, but you don't want those encounters to be a waste of time for the session as a whole, as Majoru Oakheart pointed out. A way to get the best of both worlds would be to sprinkle in low-level critters during battles that are difficult enough to play out. Then you still get that "oh, man, I remember these guys! Hey, I killed it in two hits!" frisson, but not by creating an encounter whose only purpose is to show that the heroes are good at slaughtering goblins now.

 

[Eradan]

I guess that depends on your opinion. The players I play with are ONLY engaged and rewarded when they fight appropriate challenges. If we have a session that is too hard or too easy, I'll be sure to hear about it afterwords.

My players are engaged and rewarded not based on the perceived difficulty of the combat encounter, but how it serves the story. I employ Eamon's philosophy--I will occasionally craft an encounter in which is relatively easy for the party AND also moves the campaign narrative forward. I also subscribe to the idea that the party will sometimes encounter a foe they cannot possibly defeat and will have to retreat to survive. This sort of uncertainty keeps them on their toes. They love it.

There's no right or wrong way to do it. I think if you're a new DM and reading this thread, understanding that you have to know your players likes and dislikes as you build your encounters is very important. These ideas apply to skill challenges as well as combat encounters.

I like the new DCs. I hope the Rules Compendium contains a lot of this kind of good stuff.

 

[eamon]

It used to be fun back in 1e/2e when the battle against really weak enemies took less than 5 minutes to complete(and even then I had players asking me "Do we really need to play this out? They just lose to us!"). In 4e, even a battle against really weak enemies can take 20-30 minutes to play out as we write down initiative, draw the battlemap, put all the minis on the board, the PCs carefully consider their strategy since they aren't sure how powerful the enemy is, each player considers their power choices, and then the time it takes to actually roll to hit and damage and write it all down(since even weak encounters in 4e can take more than 1 hit to kill).

That's why you don't do this for random encounters, but for encounters the players recognize. The whole point is that the encounter is recognized; it works when your campaign lasts for a broad level range fighting the same threat.

A normal combat that's easier than it looks is something different entirely; that's asking for minions. (Usually, I think PC's should know in advance roughly how hard a combat is going to be, but that's another discussion).

YMMV, but that amount of time isn't rewarding enough to me or my players to get the point across that they are strong. They know they are strong, they have all these cool new powers BECAUSE they are strong. And they want to use them against appropriate monsters to see how much better they fare than the last group of appropriate monsters.

Have you tried it? Indeed YMMV, but in my experience this really works well.

I know there was this one time I got a new power from going up a level, then the one combat we had the next session was against extremely weak enemies. It made the session really unsatisfying for me since I felt like my new power wasn't really needed.

Different kind of combat. You're not talking about a combat against a respected threat that you've simply surpassed, you're talking about a pointless cake-walk. That's not the same thing at all. And timing matters - you'd just levelled, there was only one combat in the session, and you probably were in the main-body of the story arc, working toward resolution and not in the summary; i.e. you're itching to get the job done, not to finish things up.

As you say, YMMV, but in my experience some perspective granting combats are great. That doesn't mean every combat that's way too hard or way too easy is good, it means you can use a select few such occasions to put things in perspective.

You said all encounters outside a limited range are pointless. I'm saying that it depends on what the encounter is for. The range you listed (+5/-5) is too broad for those encounters that are supposed to be challenging and tactically fun, and it's unnecessarily limiting for combats that are supposed to be fast and story-oriented (even though a level-5 combat is already pretty much only a story event, not a challenge).

Anyhow, I know what I experienced: these things work for me. They were great fun for all players. I don't want to suggest DM's sprinkle unnecessary trivial combats throughout the campaign, though - salt to taste .

 

[Riastlin]

Obviously, every group is different and will have different preferences.

Personally, for me, and my group, its alway been about pacing. Having an occasional easy encounter is good for reinforcing that yes, indeed the PCs are badasses. However, as was stated earlier, that easy encounter works best when its similar to an encounter that the group struggled with previously as this best shows their growth. Having an easy encounter against a new type of foe does little for establishing the power of the PCs because the response can simply be "Huh, I guess Slaads just aren't that powerful."

The same goes for challenging encounters. Real tough fights (particularly if they are beatable) are good to throw in occasionally as well. These are the fights that your players will remember from the campaign, not the standard fights. Its those times when it seemed certain that the tpk was imminent, but the party still managed to pull it out that makes the heroes heroes and that makes the players want to come back. Now if you can tie that really challenging encounter into a really easy encounter later on, then the PCs can really see how far they've come. "Man when we first encountered that pack of vampires, I thought we were done for, I could barely believe we got out alive. But geez, we just walked all over them this time."

 

[KidSnide]

I think the real question is: What is the purpose of the encounter?

In some games, the purpose of the encounter is purely there is in order to defeat it. In these games, the fun comes from playing your characters skillfully in combat (or in skill or role-playing situations). This type of game is often recognizable by a focus on defeating enemies to gain xp and treasure. It's not so important what you fight, so long as it is fun to fight it. In a game like this, you want to face a continuous stream of level-appropriate (or, periodically, more challenging) opponents to test the player's abilities. Too easy or impossible fights are a waste of time.

In other games, the purpose of the encounter is to accomplish a task, and the fight mechanism is just a fun way of handling it. In this type of game, treasure and xp is usually unrelated to how many enemies the PCs defeat. Instead, PCs gain levels (and, treasure, where appropriate) when they accomplish certain goals in the plot. In a game like this, it can be a lot of fun to fight through easy combats because sometimes the PC's task is being opposed by weak adversaries so it's a reasonable choice for them to get steamrollered.

(One point worth noting is that the players need to know the general level of adversary they are fighting when that level can vary greatly in a game. It's no fun wasting time optimizing the use of your best daily when you're facing a group of 8 minions. Similarly, it's no fun picking a hopeless fight without any chance of figuring out that that's what you're doing.)

-KS

 

[pemerton]

The players I play with are ONLY engaged and rewarded when they fight appropriate challenges.

<snip>

I know I haven't felt like I'm on a treadmill or that it was somehow unbelievable in the current game I'm playing in.

<snip description of ingame events>

But none of us think of our level or the enemies level as an absolute measure of our strength. I think of it more as "That place is filled with nasty monsters. They were nasty last time we were there, they are nasty now." My character doesn't even have an inkling that he gained levels.

Majoru, you keep making these excellent posts! What you describe fits my 4e game exactly.

I think the real question is: What is the purpose of the encounter?

In some games, the purpose of the encounter is purely there is in order to defeat it. In these games, the fun comes from playing your characters skillfully in combat (or in skill or role-playing situations). This type of game is often recognizable by a focus on defeating enemies to gain xp and treasure. It's not so important what you fight, so long as it is fun to fight it. In a game like this, you want to face a continuous stream of level-appropriate (or, periodically, more challenging) opponents to test the player's abilities. Too easy or impossible fights are a waste of time.

In other games, the purpose of the encounter is to accomplish a task, and the fight mechanism is just a fun way of handling it.

I'm sure it's not intended, but this post seems to me to suggest that for those who aren't interested in playing out mechanically unsatisfying encounters are not that interested in the story of their games.. You seem to be suggesting that anyone who is not hack-and-slash will not have their satisfaction in the game dependent upon facing mechanically appropriate encounters. I disagree with you very strongly on this point.

If you look at Majoru Oakheart's post, there is a good description of the story of the game. And I know that in my game the players are very invested in the story. Neither is a hack-and-slash game. And I'm sure we are not the only 4e players who fit this description, but who think that encounter design guidelines serve an important function.

As I understand it, part of Majoru's point (with which I agree) is that the fight mechanism is, in fact, not a fun way of handling the resolution of an encounter - however critical that encounter is to the story - if the encounter is not designed keeping in mind the strengths of the system and the advice in the DMG. In which case, do it a different way - whether by free narration, or a skill challenge, or whatever.

As I read it, the rest of Majoru's point (with which I also agree) is that, in a game in which the players want to use the fight mechanism to resolve the encounters that drive the story, it is incumbent upon the GM to design those encounters in such a way that they will be fun to play out.

Now, for players who are mostly interested in exploring a gameworld which the mechanics consistently model, and who see encounter resolution not as an end in itself but as one of the ways of exploring the gameworld and the mechanical model, encounter design may not be such a high priority. But this category of simulationist players is only a subset of the non-hack-and-slash player group.

 

[Stalker0]

Need to convince that beggar to give you information that you would have considered a moderate task while they were level 1? Simply tell the PCs "You talk to the beggars and this is the list of things they tell you". Unless you want them to have a chance to fail. In which case, assign a low DC for their own level.

One thing I will do is assign a low DC, but then let the players know the DC and the fact that they autopass.

For example, in one combat I noted an area that required a DC 10 acrobatics check to move across at full speed. However, there was no one in my epic group that could fail it. I still noted it for everyone just to let them feel good about being epic, and then just let the DC fall to the wayside never to be rolled.

One of the best ways to make a party feel epic is to repeat old challenges, and show them how easy it is for them now.