D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Lanefan]

Hey, I'm not the one claiming it. You don't need to convince me. But, apparently, adjusting encounters on the fly is perfectly in keeping with traditional play. Removing baddies from an encounter because the party is too weak due to them taking on extra encounters is perfectly in keeping with traditional play.

When done on the fly, I don't like the idea of adjustments.

When done in advance, e.g. beefing up or toning down a canned module intended for level X when the party is level X+6 or X-6, I think it's fine - no different really than if I was writing the adventure from scratch, other than less work. (I'm in the latter situation right now, in fact: the party are 8th-11th but the module is for 16th-20th, so I went through and did a bit of scaling back. They still might be in over their heads, but at least it's not a guaranteed TPK any more)

Like I said, I'm not quite understanding the difference then. If I can rewrite through improvization, setting elements based on the meta-game, then why is it bad to rewrite setting elements based on the meta-game?

My issue is when it's done on the fly just to make a specific encounter more exciting or less risky.

 

[Lanefan]

If I change it's simply to ensure a potentially difficult but winnable fight. Same as when I originally planned it. But sometimes I'll realize it's not it's not going to be the level of risk I had in mind when planning.

If you're running a level-appropriate canned module, do you run the combats as written or do you tweak them on the fly?

It's not directly related to player prep or planning. If the players were smart and precast spells or figured out some clever strategy or ambush, cool. Nothing changes. If I'm glancing through the monsters and realize I made a minor goof in my plans or, as I said above, there's an unexpectedly high level of attrition I may adjust.

Why, though? If one side or the other is getting hammered then so be it - just let it happen.

You could run the same tough combat ten times and get ten very different outcomes depending on a host of factors not least of which are dice. For me, if I'm not willing to let all ten of those outcomes occur I'm doing it wrong.

I don't see it as any different than changing it the hour or two before the game when I do quick review of what I had planned.

Ideally I do any tweaking (or, if it's a homebrew, have it fully written) before I even know which specific characters the players will have in it. At some point, though, I say to myself "that's it" and lock it in.

If the players then throw me a curveball and go off mission or do something unexpected then of course I have to wing it, but even there if I dream up something that's too easy or too hard it is what it is and they have to deal with it.

 

[Lanefan]

I change anything at any time. I don't care what is "established", as anything can happen. The idea that nothing in the game world can change ever is just silly.

But even if it is a fact that on May 5th the captain has five thugs, but then on June 5th has ten thugs, it can just happen without a big explanation to the players of "gee, look he just hired more thugs, ok"

We're not talking May 5th to June 5th, though; we're talking May 5th at 2:43 p.m. he has five thugs when the combat starts and at 2:44 p.m. somehow there's ten thugs dead on the deck.

 

[Maxperson]

You straight up said that you would change an encounter because the party deviated from your expected path, had more encounters than you thought they would have, thus the final encounter would be too difficult. IOW, you are absolutely changing things because of completely unrelated events. If you don't find failure boring, then why are you adjusting the encounter?

For the record, I would not adjust the encounter under those circumstances. I had that happen in my last campaign.

The group was way down on resources from some drow fights and instead of leaving the area to rest, they decided to rest within a few hundred feet of the main drow strong area. And they knew from the fights that some of the drow had retreated into the area warning those inside about the PCs.

The drow scried the group and sent a demon to attack. After the fight the group was not able to rest and had expended even more resources. Instead of leaving the area at that point, they decided to assault the drow stronghold down more than half of their resources and hit points.

I expected a TPK. Instead, the players' dice were on fire. They made almost every save. Damage dice for attacks and spells were significantly above average. Even with that, the fight finished with 2 of the 4 PCs unconscious and 1 dead. I was both shocked and thrilled that they won that fight. No dice were fudged. The drow tactics were to win.

When it comes to encounters and game play, I have no expected path for the PCs, so they can't deviate from something that doesn't exist. It's up to them to decide when and where to seek rest to recover, so if they hit a lot of encounters and push forward, there's no reason for me to adjust encounters.

I'd only adjust an encounter if I made an error in my judgment and the encounter was too powerful. The group shouldn't suffer for my mistakes.

 

[clearstream]

But the point is that it isn't 100% pure, unmitigated personal taste. There's more going on here.

Mathematically, other than the extra action economy, there really is a lot that is the same between adding/removing opponents in order to strengthen/weaken the opposition...and reducing/increasing damage taken in order to strengthen/weaken the opposition. Sure, it's less obvious, but obviousness isn't the criterion being cited here, since it's been made clear that things "spawning in" just out of sight isn't any better than them doing so within line of sight.

Your analogy breaks down if this isn't purely a matter of taste. The explanations given thus far don't reduce to a matter of taste. They make stronger claims than that--and those claims seem like they should apply to both cases, but they don't.

We have some cross-currents here. My post was intended to join the extended debates about fail-forward and runes, i.e. different approaches to establishing the fiction.

Yours is about kinds of fudging, right? My post isn't about that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

We have some cross-currents here. My post was intended to join the extended debates about fail-forward and runes, i.e. different approaches to establishing the fiction.

Yours is about kinds of fudging, right? My post isn't about that.

Well, I was more referencing that "fudging" in the extended sense of adding or removing opposition creatures isn't meaningfully different from adding or removing hit points (or damage output, or what-have-you), in the sense that all of them are altering the world for non-diegetic reasons because of a metagame motive (namely, shaping player experience in ways intended to be positive).

I referenced this because the discussion chain (as far back as I had checked it) had gone something like
Lanefan: A sinking ship suddenly having extra goons definitely is "spawning in" and is no bueno
Hussar: I see no difference between that and altering a creature's stats at the table
Clearstream: Okay, but what if the difference is taste?

I can't really read your reply as having any meaning, unless it is in the context of what Hussar said, which only has meaning in the context of responding to Lanefan. Hence, I...can't really respond to what you've said in this post, because none of that was part of the context to which you had replied. As far as I can tell, Hussar was the only person you had quoted in that post.

 

[clearstream]

Well, I was more referencing that "fudging" in the extended sense of adding or removing opposition creatures isn't meaningfully different from adding or removing hit points (or damage output, or what-have-you), in the sense that all of them are altering the world for non-diegetic reasons because of a metagame motive (namely, shaping player experience in ways intended to be positive).

I referenced this because the discussion chain (as far back as I had checked it) had gone something like
Lanefan: A sinking ship suddenly having extra goons definitely is "spawning in" and is no bueno
Hussar: I see no difference between that and altering a creature's stats at the table
Clearstream: Okay, but what if the difference is taste?

I can't really read your reply as having any meaning, unless it is in the context of what Hussar said, which only has meaning in the context of responding to Lanefan. Hence, I...can't really respond to what you've said in this post, because none of that was part of the context to which you had replied. As far as I can tell, Hussar was the only person you had quoted in that post.

Apologies, I see I misread your post, and that we were following the same thread.

I am not saying the difference is taste, I am saying the difference is in sensitivity to details like the "obviousness". Given different sensitivities (I gave the analogy of being (in)sensitive to the difference in flavour between apples and pears) one can apply different preferences.

I read you to observe mathematical similarities that, to you, make the cases less distinguishable. Some posts appeared to say that similar actions that are differently motivated are indistinguishable, whilst others seemed to count motives into what distinguishes those actions.

A question that can be pursued when posters say that something seems different to them, that does not seem distinguishable to me, is - what is different in their perception of the phenomena? It is of course possible that they have overlooked something and when it is pointed out to them will adjust their perceptions; here that started to seem ruled out.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Apologies, I see I misread your post, and that we were following the same thread.

I am not saying the difference is taste, I am saying the difference is in sensitivity to details like the "obviousness". Given different sensitivities (I gave the analogy of being (in)sensitive to the difference in flavour between apples and pears) one can apply different preferences.

I read you to observe mathematical similarities that, to you, make the cases less distinguishable. Some posts appeared to say that similar actions that are differently motivated are indistinguishable, whilst others seemed to count motives into what distinguishes those actions.

A question that can be pursued when posters say that something seems different to them, that does not seem distinguishable to me, is - what is different in their perception of the phenomena? It is of course possible that they have overlooked something and when it is pointed out to them will adjust their perceptions; here that started to seem ruled out.

What is "sensitivity to details like the 'obviousness'"? Because to me that sounds like an accurate description of taste, both literal tongue-taste and figurative taste.

And yes, I do struggle to see how actions which cause the same sorts of effects meaningfully differ simply because the enactor means well. There are cases where that applies--mitigating circumstances, one might say--but I don't see any such circumstances here. The difference seems to be little more than "I know and like doing X to interfere, but Y is unacceptable because it is interference." It's that last bit, the "because it is interference", that I'm catching on. If the reasoning were instead that all interference is bad, but some is an unavoidable badness that one would like to escape from, then that would make sense.

Keep in mind, this is a conversation where folks have repeatedly said that doing things in order to make the experience more interesting or exciting or the like is never okay. Now, though, it seems that it is okay, under various conditions, which seem pretty ad hoc.

 

[clearstream]

And yes, I do struggle to see how actions which cause the same sorts of effects meaningfully differ simply because the enactor means well. There are cases where that applies--mitigating circumstances, one might say--but I don't see any such circumstances here. The difference seems to be little more than "I know and like doing X to interfere, but Y is unacceptable because it is interference." It's that last bit, the "because it is interference", that I'm catching on. If the reasoning were instead that all interference is bad, but some is an unavoidable badness that one would like to escape from, then that would make sense.

Consider

I know and like doing X to Q​

​

Y is unacceptable because it is R​

Q and R are differentiated on some account. Labelling them "interfere" and "interference" ambiguates them.

EDIT I notice an implied claim in "meaningfully differ" to some proper criteria for differences; so that differences on other criteria are to be discounted. This is the sort of thing I have in mind in "sensitivities"... what different posters notice and care about (what they count as meaningful).

Keep in mind, this is a conversation where folks have repeatedly said that doing things in order to make the experience more interesting or exciting or the like is never okay. Now, though, it seems that it is okay, under various conditions, which seem pretty ad hoc.

You appear to be arguing that others ought to see Q as R, whereas my recent few posts observe that Q is not from all perspectives identical to R: perhaps explaining failures to see how Q can be favoured whilst R is disfavoured. In evidence of which I cite posts in this thread.

As an aside, "or the like" elides possible differences. For example, I read some to say that they may alter an encounter on the fly to redress balance. Redressing balance isn't exactly "like" making an encounter more interesting or exciting. But I could say that redressing balance isn't a "meaningful" difference, discounting it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

You really gotta stop assuming that because a couple of people say "do not add setting details" that they speak for everyone.

Some GMs are fine with adding details. Some refuse to do it at all. Some are OK with adding details in some places and not in others. You will never get every GM to agree.

I would argue that what you describe isn’t what is happening.

Instead, what you get is more akin to “Trad DMs would never add setting details. Adding setting details is inconsistent with trad DMing”

“But what about Jim. He describes himself as a trad DM and all other posters recognize him as a trad DM and he’s adding details.”