[Playtest 2] "Encounter" Building

[Balesir]

OK, let's take this really slowly in an attempt to make contact:

So you're not addressing the point that the book sets up expectations for encounters...

The book sets up no such thing; some people take that expectation from the book because they don't think through all the myriad possible causes for "non-standard" encounters to arise. The problem is thus one of a lack of understanding in these people, probably best solved through communication to help them understand.

you're giving me an example of why players shouldn't think this

Quite so - which it might be helpful to communicate to them, in a general way, along with some other of the myriad reasons that the encounter they are facing might not be a "standard" one.

(even though we've established earlier that many still do)

Yes, they do - hence the need for communication.

that doesn't really apply to the situation I presented

I'm still not entirely sure what the situation you presented really cosisted of, since you didn't say exactly why the encounters you were running actually were "non standard" (if, indeed, they really were). Hence my second part answer - since I really don't know if the first part (and the several things like it) really are pertinent to your situation, since you haven't made it clear what your situation really is.

and then claiming if the players think an encounter is beyond those expectations and question the DM on it... we should in fact ponder why we are playing through the adventure or playing D&D at all...

Reasons why the encounters the characters are facing are different from those considered "standard" for characters of their level include, but are by no means limited to:

- they have triggered two (or more) encounters at the same time, or in overlapping time periods, so that they face more opposition than they "should"

- they have taken on an adventure or location that is above the level of the characters involved and thus are facing tougher than "standard" opposition for characters of their level

- there was, in fact, some alternate way to deal with the current encounter that did not involve fighting tougher-than-standard opposition, but they either failed to find it or failed to execute it and have to face a togher-than-standard battle as a result

- some decision or action/inaction that they made earlier on in the campaign means that this encounter - and possibly others in its vicinity - are tougher than they were originally going to be; the enemy were pre-warned, maybe, or allied with another, strengthening force

- the GM has decided, for reasons unconnected to any of the above, that these particular encounters will be tougher then the assumed "standard"

Now - any and all of those should give the players reasons to question their character actions both before and during the current adventure to analyse why they might be facing "tough" opposition. These considerations may very well suggest changes to their current, in-game courses of action. That's all I'm saying.

This makes no sense.

Well, it made sense to me, so by the standards that seem to pertain around here I would say that they demonstrably did "make sense". For some value of "sense" - but that's always a given...

 

[Imaro]

OK, let's take this really slowly in an attempt to make contact:

Let's...

The book sets up no such thing;

You know what this is really all that needs to be addressed because it effectively makes everything else you've posted mis-informed. So here we go...

Form the 4e DMB pg. 188... "The majority of the encounters in an adventure should be moderate difficulty... These encounters should make up the bulk of your adventure"

"...You might include an easy encounter about once per character level

[On Hard Encounters] "...so make sure to include about one such encounter per character level..."


That seems like setting expectations to me. It is clearly stating the majority of your encounters should be of a moderate difficulty, and there should be about one hard and one easy encounter per character level.

EDIT: You can come up with all the reasons you want for why harder encounters might be more frequent, but the expectations are set in anyone that has read the DM books or played with a DM who runs by the book.

EDIT2: There's even a chart in the Dungeon Masters Book that lays all of this out.

 

[Balesir]

You know what this is really all that needs to be addressed because it effectively makes everything else you've posted mis-informed. So here we go...

Point 1: here we are on a forum named "New Horizons: The Upcoming Edition of D&D" in a thread talking about the "Playtest 2" packet but now this is about the perceived shortcomings of the 4e DMG. M'kay.

Point 2: The first clue is in the name - "Dungeon Master's Guide". It's a Guide. For Dungeon Masters. Any expectation it sets up in players is misplaced.

Point 3: Either (1) the players' actions with their characters can change the circumstances in the game, possibly leading them to face challenges that were not (originally) intended for characters of their level to face unaided and in straight combat, or (2) the players have no agency in what their characters face. You might even ask them if they would prefer (2) to (1), if they want to have the game they (say they) "expect".

In short, it really only takes a small amount of thought to figure out that forming expectations based on a set of GM's guidelines for a game where player decisions have some real value and consequences is a really bad idea. Which brings us right back around to "communication" again.

Any more NIGYYSOB to bring on?

 

[Imaro]

In short, it really only takes a small amount of thought to figure out that forming expectations based on a set of GM's guidelines for a game where player decisions have some real value and consequences is a really bad idea. Which brings us right back around to "communication" again.

Any more NIGYYSOB to bring on?

Sooo you agree... the rulebooks setting up expectations as to how many encounters of x, Y, or Z difficulties in an adventure or over the span of a character level is pointless and should probably be removed since it's basically useless at best and detrimental at worst.

EDIT: Also... you do agree the book does in fact set up that expectation.

 

[Libramarian]

Any time you see almost word for word copying from a prior edition in a playtest packet, there is an excellence chance that you're looking at temporary filler text. Temporary filler text is a particularly good conclusion when it reflects the design of a previous edition and contradicts a stated design goal of the new game.

-KS

Why would they put filler text in there that contradicts a design goal? That makes no sense. I think it clearly is more likely that they have simply changed their design goal. They tried coming up with adventure construction guidelines, but couldn't make it work according to their OCD math-geeky standards, and so they dropped it and we're now back to the encounter as the focus of play. There's nothing unbelievable about this really.

You got all that from a set of guidelines on how to design easy, average and tough (but not overwhelming) encounters?

Maniacal laugh. Manaical laugh.

(ahem)

I'm sure that being able to build good encounters in no way reduces your ability to make good adventures, or challenges that reward the players' creativity, or sandbox adventures where the PCs set their own goals and seek out challenges.

No, seriously. I mean it.

I want to have some encounters that are literally off the scale here. I think adventures are better if they have some encounters that will TPK the party if they barge in and start hacking. The second playtest presents these encounters as rules-illegal and the text calls them "bad".

I want to use monsters because they fit the story and the setting, or just because I think they're cool and feel like using them. The text says this is not the way to do it; you're supposed to choose monsters based on how appropriate they are matched up against the player characters.

I mean...what would it take for me to have a legitimate beef here? The game police breaking in and forcing me to play a certain way? The game says my play preference is rules-illegal and bad. This is a perfect example of 5e not supporting a playstyle. If you expect people to use rule zero to hack the game into their preferred version then there's nothing to talk about, because no criticism could ever have any validity.

Right. Everyone knows that everyone has exactly the same idea of what fun is at all times.

Manical laugh. Manaical laugh.

(ahem)

Actually, I think a truly great game system would allow each group to use it in pursuit of whatever it considers to be fun, whether it is simple, low-risk hack-fests, or more demading games that require creative thinking and/or careful resource management to overcome challenges. Even better, it would allow the players to switch between any game style at-will (or at least, per encounter ). Variety and adaptability keep a game interesting, IMO.

It's pretty childish to take such joy in others' disappointment.

Just as an example, in our current 4e game, the players who have read the books will often (in the middle of a battle) comment on the level of difficulty of the encounter or the level of opponents and its appropriatness to the party's current level. Those expectations (wrong or right) were set by what they read in the 4e books about encounter design.

Yeah, that's terrible, but not unexpected. This is what Mike Mearls likes about these encounter balancing rules: they shift the balance of power over the game from the DM to the players. mearls: The Metagame of RPGs

My suspicion is that the purpose of these balancing calculations is not to enable DMs to create "better" encounters exactly; the purpose is to prevent the DM from disvaluing the mechanical widgets the players buy in splatbooks, because that's the game's primary source of revenue. The idea that this makes for a "better game" is epiphenomenal to this economic reality.

Put more simply, WotC pushes math-geeky twinky powergaming because that's what they know how to sell. They don't know how to sell old school improv play. It doesn't matter what makes for a better game; you can make up propaganda for either.

Maybe the solution is easier than we think.

If we re-define a "tough" encounter to mean, not "this encounter may be kind of dangerous, but you should probably win" to instead mean "this encounter has a reasonable chance of wiping the party" - and then set the system up to encourage encounter design to allow for running away or non-linear tactics - then you can have your encounter design and eat it too.

Eh, I suppose I could get behind this.

It's pretty simple really -- fine put the math of the game in there, show people how to calculate the appromixate odds of success the party has against certain monsters, but don't take any sort of stance in the text about what encounters are good and bad.

Just give the tool. Don't tell people how to use it, or even to use it at all. Or at least if you're going to do that, talk about the pros and cons of using it.

Also mention that the balance calculations only take into account the HP ablation widgets the players have on their sheets. If you through your monsters or the players through their PCs tend to bypass parts of the mechanical system by messing with the fictional game-world directly, then the tool is going to be less accurate and possibly useless.

If anything I would prefer advice on not overusing the tool. But I am willing to compromise at no advice one way or the other.

 

[Libramarian]

..and the encounters your players end up having will still be easy, average or tough. Honestly, what is it with GMs apparently wanting to be ignorant of the likely difficulty of the situations they present to the players? Nothing says you can't present scenarios of almost certain death (or of trivial cakewalkism) if you really want to - but why do some folk want to be surprised by that sort of thing? I don't get it.

I like being surprised. And looking around the group and knowing that they're surprised too. I don't get what is weird about that. Do you also think people are crazy for using dice? I mean if we didn't roll for attack and damage we could have an even more accurate encounter balancing system. The players would proceed with the encounter knowing they could just ask the DM how it's going to end. Would that be even better?

 

[Balesir]

Sooo you agree... the rulebooks setting up expectations as to how many encounters of x, Y, or Z difficulties in an adventure or over the span of a character level is pointless and should probably be removed since it's basically useless at best and detrimental at worst.

Any time you want to stop mindlessly misrepresenting what I say and putting words into my mouth, feel free to do so (cue whingeing denial...)

Books don't have expectations; people do. The book does not explicitly set up any expectation, but I can see that there are some people who would be tempted to impute expectations from it. I'm saying that a little thought, on their part, would quickly reveal that this is misjudged, at best.

I'll also note that you take, completely out of context, one very small excerpt from one specific book that is for an edition that is to be replaced. Other parts of that very same edition suggest that no expectation is warranted even more than a few moments of rational thought would. So; the edition warring is unwelcome and unnecessary and the point you are trying to make - that any sort of guidance for the GM or statement of design assumptions is somehow harmful or undesirable - is not only unproven but clearly inconsiderate to those who would like to have such information.

EDIT: Also... you do agree the book does in fact set up that expectation.

*Sigh* No - I explained (yet again) how those that might conceive of such an expectation after reading the book did so only because they had not thought through the situation in even a marginal way. Could the book have been worded better to avoid unwarranted extrapolation? Yes. But people form unwarranted expectations based on what they read in books all the time - that doesn't mean the books are all wrong, it just means that people aren't using their critical mental faculties when reading.

I like being surprised. And looking around the group and knowing that they're surprised too. I don't get what is weird about that. Do you also think people are crazy for using dice? I mean if we didn't roll for attack and damage we could have an even more accurate encounter balancing system. The players would proceed with the encounter knowing they could just ask the DM how it's going to end. Would that be even better?

No - read what I wrote and dismantle your strawman, please. I wasn't talking about being surprised in a general sense; I was talking about being surprised that you had designed a killer encounter (or, conversely, a total cakewalk). Next time you are surprised by a TPK remember to note how much you are liking it.

 

[Libramarian]

No - read what I wrote and dismantle your strawman, please. I wasn't talking about being surprised in a general sense; I was talking about being surprised that you had designed a killer encounter (or, conversely, a total cakewalk). Next time you are surprised by a TPK remember to note how much you are liking it.

I think you're not really asking why people would want to be surprised by a TPK, and instead asking why people would want TPKs to occur at all. In which case my answer is that they provide tension which makes the game more stimulating and more rewarding.

So I would like TPKs to happen sometimes. Certainly the threat should be there. I want them to happen unexpectedly because it would feel sadistic to actually plan them.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

[MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION]
And on page 1, just above your post, there are quotes from mike mearls that the encounter fokus is just for this playtest packet...

Maybe because "balanced encounters" should be tested with the current hp rules. I also guess the xp values of the advancement table are reduced to increase the level gains. Maybe to test encounter balance at different levels faster as usual.

Just a guess, but at least as educated as your guess, that all design goals are thronw over board, before they were really tested at all...

 

[Balesir]

I think you're not really asking why people would want to be surprised by a TPK, and instead asking why people would want TPKs to occur at all. In which case my answer is that they provide tension which makes the game more stimulating and more rewarding.

So I would like TPKs to happen sometimes. Certainly the threat should be there. I want them to happen unexpectedly because it would feel sadistic to actually plan them.

With respect, I know what I am asking, but you do raise a good point.

My response is that I don't think the "tough encounter but sure to be won by the PCs"/"killer encounter that will cause a TPK" distinction is a hard line; it's a gradual scale from "encounter the party will beat easily with little or no chance of PC death" to "really tough encounter that might be won with good luck and good tactics, but is quite likely to cause PC death and quite possibly a TPK.

In other words, there is quite a range of lethality; I have no problems with including a few more dangerous encounters (which might, possibly, cause a TPK if the party is either incompetent or very unlucky), but I really don't want to inadvertently include encounters where (i) there is no real alternative to combat and (ii) the opposition is either far too powerful for the party or is so weak that the combat will be a boring waste of time. I would rather know, up front, that I should consider that the party will/should look for other solutions to the "too powerful" opponents and I may want to handle the too weak opponents with some sort of short skill challenge instead of combat.