B/X D&D on balance

[S'mon]

Been thinking about this again in the context of having just started a Moldvay B/X sandbox Wilderlands campaign at 1st level. How do I make a wilderness sandbox survivable for a small group of 1st level PCs?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, the first step is to make the local environs challenging but not too dangerous. It's not like the woods just outside of the boundaries of the village are full of dragons, after all. Small groups of bandits and other stuff that has so far escaped the county Sherriff's men. As the party ventures further out from civilization, the wilder it becomes. Gradually.

The same goes for challenging areas. The challenge shouldn't go from idyllic pastures to Castle Certaindoom, it should increase gradually.*

You do things like throw "random" encounters at them as warning signs if they're headed for Castle Certaindoom. For instance, a critter- one logically placed near said castle- stumbling upon their campsite that initiates a brutal fight that they win...then you "telegraph" there are more of these beasties about. That SHOULD get them to turn around...at least until they're more able to handle the task.

The second step comes from your narrative style as a DM. You have to be able to tell the PCs they won't survive a combat encounter with X...without flat-out telling the PCs they won't survive a combat encounter with X. The key is gentle verbal guidance, not railroading.










* there ARE exceptions. On of the Judges Guild "Wilderlands" modules had a nice archipelago, and one of the islands was infested with trolls. Hundreds of them. Venture too far inland, and it was a slaughterhouse for anything short of a pretty tough party. And that island looked like any other.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Edit: Didn't realize this was necro. I wonder if I posted the exact same thing last year

A recent interesting thread brought up some comparisons between 4e and B/X D&D as far as balance is concerned.

Moldvay Basic has this to say (p B45):

The DM may choose treasures instead of rolling for them randomly . . . The choices should be made carefully, since most of the experience the characters willl get will be from treasure (usually 3/4 or more). It will often be easier for the DM to decide how much experience to give out (considering the size and levels of experience of the party) and place the treasures to give this result. However, the monsters should be tough enough to make sure that the characters earn their treasure!​

This is pretty much identical to every version of D&D ever. The only difference is 3e onward gave specific figures about what is considered a balanced amount of treasure. (More powerful encounters, 3e and 4e both, results in more treasure.)

And under the heading "Everything is balanced", at p B60

The DM should try to maintain the "balance of play". The treasures should be balanced by the dangers. Some groups prefer adventures where advancement between levels is swift. In such a case, since the treasures are generally greater, the monsters should be "tougher". Other groups prefer adventures where character develoment is more important, and advancement is slower. If the monsters are too tough, and if the parties are reduced by many deaths, then few characters will ever reach higher levels.​

Again, the same. In a 3e or 4e group where PCs want to "advance quickly", they should face more powerful encounters, and get more treasure. The rules include that (if you're following the treasure generation rules anyway).

The Cook/Marsh Expert book says some interesting stuff too (pp X43, 57, X59):

As the campaign goes on, the DM should be especially careful when placing treasures, as these will become even more important in determing the rate at which the characters gain levels and power. They can be the major tool the DM uses to balance the campaign.​

Now we're seeing differences. Maybe. I've never played B/X, but I believe this is an edition where XP was granted as much (or more) by treasure than by killing monsters.

. . .

The number of creatures encounterd will depend upon the size of the adventuring party.

. . .

An entire evening can be spoiled if an unplanned wilderness encouner on the way to the dungeon goes badly for the party. The DM must use good judgement in addition to random tables. Encounters should be scaled to the strength of the party . . .

All the same as newer editions, but "random" encounters are used in a different context. (The ease of healing, plus the general dislike of random encounters, means that last piece of advice rarely needs to be used.)

A few things in particular stand out for me.

One is that no option is suggested for groups that want rich character development and rapid advancement.

By rich character development, do you mean RP? Or something else?

A second is that the referee, not the players, is assumed to be principally in control of the rate of XP acquisition.

That has always been the case. When I was still running 3e, I've literally never had a player tell me they should have gotten "this" amount of XP. By 4e (because treasure generation is easier, among other things) I've simply leveled up PCs when I feel like it. Either every 3 sessions, or when an adventure path "says" I should.

A third is that it seems to be taken for granted that it is the referee, and not the players, who has primary control over the difficulty of the encounters the PCs face - and that the referee therefore has a special responsibility to make sure that those encounters are appropriately balanced. (Appropriate to (i) party strength and (ii) desired rate of advancement.)

Same. 3rd Edition and 4th Edition simply have more mechanical tools to help the DM determine the first. The tighter interweaving between expected treasure and expected XP makes determining advancement harder in later editions, especially 3rd, though.

A fourth is that it seems to be assumed that most acquisition of treasure will require dealing with monsters - who should therefore be "tough enough" to make sure that the treasure is earned. Stealth-style looting without killing doesn't seem to be expressly canvassed.

Perhaps B/X built up an (undeserved) reputation for bypassing combat = XP? I don't believe I've read any B/X adventures (but it's hard to tell, as I've read a bunch of old D&D adventures, and to me, anything before 3rd Edition is "2e" whether that's accurate or not).

I would expect "unguarded" treasure to be guarded by traps, though, so there's still some challenge.

Other thoughts? Is this as radically different from the 4e approach to scenario design and treasure placement as is sometimes suggested?

No. DMing advice hasn't changed much over time. You could write and run (and play) a 4e adventure using B/X sensibilities. (Indeed, I have played through one such adventure that was specifically written for 4e that way, and a DM in my group has converted Cult of the Reptile God to 4e. The only part of CotRG that I didn't like that was a OD&D-ism is the dungeons that were complicated enough for PCs to easily get lost in. And even then, the dungeon still made logical sense. We just got bored of continually running into three choices every corner.)

Of course, rules make a big difference. Random encounters (with little to no treasure) were "punishment" (at least that's the way I viewed them), and you got less XP for them. From 3rd Edition onward, PCs could easily heal up the damage taken during a random encounter, and they got full XP and (often) treasure. "Random encounters", if they're even used any more, are "pacing" encounters, used when PCs get lost/bored/wrapped around red herrings/you only have twenty minutes left in a session and a boss fight would take too long, generally giving full XP and treasure and draining PC resources a lot less. (Healing changes also changed trap design, or rather it should have. I'm still seeing OD&D-style traps in newer adventures, and not in a good way.)

Without changing any rules, you could simply take most or all of the treasure that a group of monsters in a dungeon have and put it in the treasure room, so random encounters might give XP but not treasure. There's pressure on the DM not to do that though, since from 3e onward treasure is required for game balance and not just a reward,, and the PCs are invading the dungeon for plot reasons, not loot. (I'm pretty sure if you wiped out most of the gnolls in a dungeon but failed to find their treasure, you wouldn't have screams of rage in B/X. Well, maybe, if that's how you got most of your XP!) Of course, you could have the patrons pay more if the PCs don't find treasure, if you can finesse that somehow.

Cultural changes have removed "adventuring just for loot" in most groups, but it's possible that "adventuring just for loot" in older D&D is really an urban legend. Every adventure I've ever read or run ("2e" onward) has plot.

 

[Nagol]

Is it possible to run a game that has the pace of Monty Haul, but sets up the scenarios/situation so that interest is maintained?

It can be at least for the mid-term. It involves setting up a situation that escalates with the PCs -- farm boys that save the empire from the demonic invasion step by step over the course of a year of gaming say. The style suffers from Sorting Algorithm of Evi, Rule of Escalating Threat, and The Man behind the Man.

I've done it a few times with "limited-series" campaigns -- those that have a definite lifespan as opposed to expected ongoing campaigns.

 

[pemerton]

By rich character development, do you mean RP? Or something else?

I was thinking of character personality and goals deeply integrated into the campaign world. [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]'s above this post fits what I had in mind.

That has always been the case. When I was still running 3e, I've literally never had a player tell me they should have gotten "this" amount of XP. By 4e (because treasure generation is easier, among other things) I've simply leveled up PCs when I feel like it.

I think in default 4e play XP acquisition is not really under the GM's control; it is about one level-equivalent encounter's worth per hour (and the DMG2 "XP for free roleplaying" rule reflects this).

Same.

But in a sandbox game, the players are expected to determine how difficult the encounters are that their PCs face.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think in default 4e play XP acquisition is not really under the GM's control; it is about one level-equivalent encounter's worth per hour (and the DMG2 "XP for free roleplaying" rule reflects this).

This is literally the first time I've ever heard of this. Maybe the DMG2 mentions this, but not DMG1, or any adventure I've ever seen. (Also it can be hard to cram an encounter into an hour, at least IME it's hard to cram an above-level encounter into an hour.)

I don't see that as an official rule, and even as a guideline I don't think it works for many groups.

But in a sandbox game, the players are expected to determine how difficult the encounters are that their PCs face.

That's the real difference. I'm not used to sandboxes at all (hence all the previous mentions about plot).

 

[Nagol]

I was thinking of character personality and goals deeply integrated into the campaign world. [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]'s above this post fits what I had in mind.

I think in default 4e play XP acquisition is not really under the GM's control; it is about one level-equivalent encounter's worth per hour (and the DMG2 "XP for free roleplaying" rule reflects this).

But in a sandbox game, the players are expected to determine how difficult the encounters are that their PCs face.

A minor quibble, but in my sandbox games the PCs are expected to choose where to target their activities based upon information gleaned during play (there are bandits over here, a dragon over there and tombs rumoured to be full of gold and no possible danger down that way!).

 

[D'karr]

I don't see that as an official rule, and even as a guideline I don't think it works for many groups.

I don't think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is specifically quoting this as a "rule", but more of an effect of the given XP guidelines. Statistically speaking the XP guidelines end up averaging about that amount in actual play.

Over time I've run quite a bit of organized play adventures (hundreds of hours). These adventures very closely adhere to the XP guidelines in the books. On average, after every 3 adventures the party levels up. That equates to about a level after every 10-12 hours of actual play. If I remember correctly the design parameter was to have a group level up every 10-12 encounters of equal level. So the numbers bear out this effect, even if it is not a "rule" per se.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think pemerton is specifically quoting this as a "rule", but more of an effect of the given XP guidelines. Statistically speaking the XP guidelines end up averaging about that amount in actual play.

That's right.

In the DMG2 the XP for free roleplay rules is expressly stated by reference to playing time (one level-equivalent monster's worth per 15 minutes). But for skill challenges and combat encounter, it's simply an (approximate) consequence of how the game is designed.

IME it's hard to cram an above-level encounter into an hour.

Sure, but it will be worth more XP, won't it!

A minor quibble, but in my sandbox games the PCs are expected to choose where to target their activities based upon information gleaned during play (there are bandits over here, a dragon over there and tombs rumoured to be full of gold and no possible danger down that way!).

Sure, but aren't the players expected to play their PCs in making those choices (eg there's no expectation that the players will simply roll on a "random decision" chart). That's what I had in mind when I said the players get to choose.

But I agree that there is a further issue as to the extent to which, and manner in which, that choice is fully expressed ingame. (For instance, I think [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] in his sandbox tells the players the difficulties of various hexes out-of-character rather than relying on the PCs learning this ingame.)

 

[LostSoul]

But I agree that there is a further issue as to the extent to which, and manner in which, that choice is fully expressed ingame. (For instance, I think LostSoul in his sandbox tells the players the difficulties of various hexes out-of-character rather than relying on the PCs learning this ingame.)

Yup. I could not figure out a way to give that information to PCs. Since we're playing a game, I don't think it matters that much.