Balanced encounters - yesterday vs. today

[Quasqueton]

I've seen numerous references to a supposedly commonly known "fact" of AD&D1 -- that dungeons were more dangerous, not balanced (appropriate) for the levels, etc. (especially compared to D&D3). Here are a few quotes I found with a quick scan through the "Classic dungeons: What makes them great?" thread:

The biggest thing I've noticed both in reading about and playing old time or new classics and the bulk of 3e stuff, is that sense of danger -- oh s--t, we may die.

There's no OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration) for dungeon workers in AD&D. The "kobold in one room, red dragon in the next" nature of some AD&D adventures is criticized as silly and illogical, but the basic concept of "some encounters are very easy for the heroes, some will most likely kill you" makes the game exciting on a visceral level, and keeps the players on their toes.

And that's been nerfed in the officially encouraged ways of playing 3e. Using only "appropriate" monster CR for the party, and even worse choosing the monsters so they fit the party (e.g., no undead for the party without a cleric) reduces the fun, IMHO.

The thing I always point is how many of the classics came out of tournament adventures. And thus, they're really tough, in the sense that they're set up to kill most parties

There was much less fretting over whether something "was an appropriate threat."

Since no one ever refutes, or even responds in surprise at these kinds of statements, it seems that everyone accepts this concept as fact.

But the AD&D1 DMG had pages of advice and charts for making dungeons appropriately challenging for their levels. Gygax advised against putting PCs up against too tough challenges, because constant PC death is not fun and discourages players from continuing the game. Dragon magazine had articles to help DMs better judge the challenge level of an encounter.

The advice and charts in the D&D3 DMG are very similar in tone and function to their AD&D1 DMG counterparts. The only real difference I can see between the two is that the D&D3 guidelines are more detailed -- we have the challenge level of a single orc (and how to calculate out the probable challenge level of multiple orcs) instead of a chart saying that 1-8 orcs are a good challenge for a 1st-3rd level dungeon encounter. Essentially the same information without the randomness.

To look at *true dungeon* adventures, I've gone through, in detail:
The Moathouse (from The Village of Hommlet) - 2 dungeon levels for PC levels 1 to ~3
The Temple of Elemental Evil - 4 dungeon levels for PC levels ~3 to ~8
Steading of the Hill Giant Chief - 2 dungeon levels for PC levels ~8 to ~9
Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl - 2 dungeon levels for PC levels ~9 to ~10
Hall of the Fire Giant King - 2 dungeon levels for PC levels ~10 to ~11
The Caves of Chaos (from Keep on the Borderlands) - a sprawling dungeon for PC levels 1 to ~3
The Caverns of Quasqueton (from In Search of the Unknown) - 2 dungeon levels for PC levels 1 to ~3

Of all these dungeons, 15+ levels, hundreds of encounters, I found only one encounter that is truly overwhelming for it's stated level -- the party of giants in the Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. And ironically, for this concept, it is rather obvious from reading the module, the designer expected the PCs to avoid that encounter. Equally ironic is how many PC parties assaulted the party, and survived! (But then, a good fireball from a 9th level magic user could kill multiple giants in the first round.)

All the AD&D1 adventure modules had the appropriate level ranges right on the cover. The range (instead of a single level number) took into consideration the difference in levels between the various classes because of the different xp progressions. Also, the designers often accepted the paradigm that not all PCs would have been adventuring together, equally, during their career.

In the AD&D1 paradigm, a party might consist of:
Fighter 6
Cleric 7
Magic-User 5
Thief 8

So where does this idea come from that AD&D1 dungeons regularly had overwhelming challenges? Sure, a dungeon for level X would probably have encounters ranging from dungeon levels X-4 to X+2 (on the chart in the DMG), but there were rarely (if ever -- I don't know of any) overwhelming challenges (like X+4 or higher). There were no beholders, demons, and huge dragons in low level modules. A module for "Character Levels 4-7" had challenges appropriate for characters levels 4-7 (as best that the designer could judge the challenge level). And this is exactly how the guidelines in the AD&D1 DMG *and* the D&D3 DMG suggest to create adventure challenges.

Now this doens't mean that the PCs couldn't do something stupid, like draw 4 individual, level-appropriate encounters into one mass, overwhelming encounter -- but PCs can still be stupid and orchestrate a TPK despite the best designed dungeons, today, just like they could yesterday.

Can someone tell me where to look for these overwhelming encounters (compared to the level range stated on the front of the classic module)? From what I have seen, with detailed examination of many "old school" adventure modules, a group of PCs in the level 4-7 range could expect to be able to handle all the challenges in a module designated as for levels 4-7.

Now, of course if the party is just three PCs of level 4, the challenges in the level 4-7 module would be overwhelming. But then for a party of eight PCs of level 7, the challenges in the level 4-7 module would be cake walks. This is true today and was true yesterday.

For my answer to my question, I think a lot of people are remembering adventuring in dungeons designed by their fellow 13-year old DMs, who had no concept or understanding of "balanced encounters" despite the advice in the AD&D1 DMG. The official, published AD&D1 modules were designed with an eye on balanced encounters; unbalanced encounters were as unfun (on the whole, for the gaming hobby) yesterday as they are today.

Quasqueton

 

[Ourph]

So where does this idea come from that AD&D1 dungeons regularly had overwhelming challenges?

Great analysis and I completely agree with the overall conclusion that core AD&D had plenty of tools for and placed just as much emphasis on providing level appropriate encounters for characters as other games.

I think the source of this idea is the change of focus from OD&D/AD&D and site-based, megadungeon adventures/campaigns to 2e/3e with more plot-based, small dungeon or "lair" adventures/campaigns. With a site-based game, the players have more options for getting in over their heads. For example, in Gary's most recent Castle Zagyg/OD&D campaign (playtesting for the CZ modules), he describes the players choosing to remain on the 1st level of the dungeons where the pickings are slim, but the dangers less, instead of delving deeper where the challenges become harder and the rewards greater. This is a classic example of a site-based adventure where it's probably possible for the PCs to wander into an area that's "too tough" for them. The nature of plot-based adventure design makes it far less likely that the players will wander into that kind of "too tough" encounter.

Obviously, this idea is drastically affected by a person's actual play experience. My own experience doesn't lead me to the conclusion that dungeons "regularly had overwhelming challenges". I knew that there were overwhelming challenges on lower levels, but our group was careful to avoid those levels if possible until we were ready to face them. The occasional overwhelming challenge would crop up if we fell down a shaft to a lower level or got lost, but those occasions were blessedly rare and when they did occur our first response was to immediately find some way to return to the upper, "safer" levels of the dungeon (as recommended by the PHB). I'm sure for other groups, those kinds of encounters were more frequent depending on the DM's ideas about dungeon design and the players choice of which levels to explore.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is a classic example of a site-based adventure where it's probably possible for the PCs to wander into an area that's "too tough" for them. The nature of plot-based adventure design makes it far less likely that the players will wander into that kind of "too tough" encounter.

Exactly so. In the Caves of Chaos, for instance, it is possible for a 1st level party to encounter a minotaur, an owlbear, and three grey oozes within a very short span of time.

 

[Quasqueton]

In the Caves of Chaos, for instance, it is possible for a 1st level party to encounter a minotaur, an owlbear, and three grey oozes within a very short span of time.

They have to pass by/ignore/skip/climb past 6 lower-level caves to reach the higher-level areas.

Yes, for 1st-level characters, the minotaur and owlbear would be overwhelming encounters. But they are not overwhelming for a party of 3rd-level PCs (still within the range of levels the adventure was designed for). I'll agree, though, this could be argued as an example of the concept.

Quasqueton

 

[Raven Crowking]

They have to pass by/ignore/skip/climb past 6 lower-level caves to reach the higher-level areas.

I've known many players to do so, including myself when I first encountered the caves.

 

[Rhun]

I've known many players to do so, including myself when I first encountered the caves.

Absolutely, because the Shunned Caverns (I think that is what the minotaur area was called) was on the ground level of the ravine, and required no climbing up to higher caverns. This led to many of the groups I DMed trying to tackle them first.

 

[Quasqueton]

Okay, we have three posts pointing to the concept existing in the CoC. Any other examples?

Quasqueton

 

[gizmo33]

Okay, we have three posts pointing to the concept existing in the CoC. Any other examples?

What about your favorite old-school module? Tomb of Horrors.

 

[jdrakeh]

Since no one ever refutes, or even responds in surprise at these kinds of statements, it seems that everyone accepts this concept as fact.

I did at one time. I got tired of being called a liar and finally decided that anybody who is caught up enough in "AD&D didn't. . ." despite solid evidence such as that which you've posted here, is never going to change their position. Simply put, it's not an argument worth having.

 

[Ourph]

Okay, we have three posts pointing to the concept existing in the CoC. Any other examples?

You're unlikely to find many examples in published adventures for two reasons. First, many published adventures during the day of the "megadungeon" campaign were tournament modules. The limitations placed on tournament module design prevent most of those modules from providing the opportunity for overwhelming encounters. Second, a site-based campaign requires the development of a lot of information that may never see use (or may not see use until years down the road). Providing information that may not see use is usually considered a bad value for the customer and published adventures don't usually engage in that.

There were, however, lots of references to the megadungeon and it's potential for overwhelming encounters in the rulebooks and other sources like Gary's comments on the Lake Geneva campaign in Dragon magazine. I suspect, if Gary's version of Castle Greyhawk had ever seen publication, it would have been one of the few examples of a published adventure that supported the concept of site-based design leading to the possibility of overwhelming encounters.