D&D 5E Build for players, or build natural?

[FormerlyHemlock]

Something that can help, but might be a pain to do, is find some of the old AD&D monster books. They listed number appearing in their description, which can give you an idea of their organization (2E was better for this IIRC). BECMI might have the same info, but I don't remember. You could also just figure it out on your own, but that's also a lot of work. Anyway, once you have this information, you can easily have players make INT checks to get some of this information, which will help them plan accordingly.

Figuring it out on your own can lead to good things too though. For example, did you know that 100 square miles of territory (26,000 hectares, or 10 miles x 10 miles) will support 13 lions? Cold-blooded creatures need less food, so you might expect to find 130 crocodiles in the same area, but they are also less social so instead of one pack of 13 lions you'd see 130 lone crocodiles. Jackals need less territory than lions (1000 hectares per jackal, about half as much as a lion--I'm not sure if they can overlap). Also, in bad terrain without much food, animal territories can requires 10x as much area as normal to feed themselves (so roughly 3x as much distance in all directions). Birds can require more territory (golden eagles require 9000 hectares each, or approximately a 3.3 mile radius territory), and some territories are measure not in areas but linearly (some gulls claim 10m to 120m of coastline as their territory).

You could stick with these same numbers in-game (e.g. call it one owlbear in a 5 mile x 5 mile valley), or you could introduce new assumptions like rodent-sized rock-eating tribbles as the foundation of your fantasy ecology to let you pack more predators into a smaller space.

Even a passing familiarity with the way real-life animal ecologies work has the potential to improve your game.

 

[fuindordm]

I build natural, but...

I know what level the party is and I make sure to place them initially in an environment they can handle.

There may be powerful adversaries in that environment, but they generally won't go looking for the PCs. If the PCs go to them, talking and running are also options.

If the players do need to face a powerful opponent in combat (because drama!) then there is a way for them to even the odds.

In short, make the environment realistic but survivable (otherwise they wouldn't be there).

 

[aco175]

I like to have a region of exploration laid out with some basic notes and places where I know that big things are going to be. I have several rumors tied to these places where PCs get a sense of the threat and can decide if they want to explore. Right now I have the PCs exploring a ruined town and they know there is something big in the tower in the middle of town. They think it may be a beholder and are staying away for now while exploring some of the other areas of town. I have not designed any off the tower and only have a few notes on the size and inhabitants, since I only plan a few weeks out based on what the group is doing.

I may start pushing the party to fight the beholder and finish the big threat in the town for now. There are long range plans for a kraken to come back and cause problems and a dragon could come to check on his minions there, but killing the beholder will end the biggest immediate threat.

I guess that overall I design for the short range of the group. The threats each week tend to stay on track for their abilities. I like to have encounters both below and above their power level, but not too many of each that the game become boring for them either way. I try to maintain realism by still having skeletons attack the level 8 party, which they all can 1-shot kill, since the more powerful necromancer and his bodyguards are level appropriate.

 

[Giant2005]

I don't coddle my players at all - I let them decide what they can and can't handle. The game is just so much better when the players actually have to think about what they are doing, rather than just trusting that the DM won't make an encounter that they likely wouldn't win.

 

[Warrior Poet]

I have done both.

And have not been particularly good at either. Hence, for the last fifteen years, I have been a player, and eschewed the GM's chair. Part of my difficulties have stemmed from my relationship to the system (I have grown increasingly disillusioned with arms races, alignment and alignment essentialism, and high fantasy); still more from an unsophisticated approach to being a GM.

So, in addition to the good advice already in the thread, wanted to encourage you find the customized (and dynamic) approach that incorporates the necessary elements that make for an interesting and fun game, rather than looking at the structure as a choice of only (or merely) one or the other. If you take the time to build, to create, and to include conversations with the players about what everyone wants in a game, then you end up with a world that has many different aspects across a range of challenges and delights that keep the players feeling like they're having an adventure (which is a key, I think).

Also, a quick thought about something else:

A better reasons comes when you realize that the game is neither for your entertainment, nor an objective simulation you're 'judging,' but for the express purpose of the players having fun.

I would add that the game is also for the express purpose of the GM having fun, too. If there are six people around the table, and five of them are having consistent fun, but one of them (charged with setting the stage) isn't, then that's not a great game, either, in my opinion. I really do think it's possible for everyone—GM included—to have fun, and that's where the conversations about what people want come into play.

Good wishes for your games!

Still learning,

Robert

 

[Valador]

I generally zone out my world I'm running and present the players with different things they can pursue, sandbox style. There may be rumors of a dragon hoard or a long lost artifact guarded by the undead, etc. and then let them decide what they want to pursue.

If they decide to try and bite off more than they can chew that's up to them. I keep encounters balanced as far as I can, if the quest they chose suits their level range. If they choose to try and go fight Tiamat at level 2, then there's really nothing I can do to balance that... I do some times tailor encounters to the party makeup so that everyone feels like they're contributing and have fun. If I notice someone isn't having fun I may go out of my way to give them some spotlight.

I generally try to keep everything designed to fit the story/theme rather than spoon feed the players encounters that they can steamroll through.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would add that the game is also for the express purpose of the GM having fun, too. If there are six people around the table, and five of them are having consistent fun, but one of them isn't, then that's not a great game, either, in my opinion.

Sure, if only in that the DM, too, is playing the game. But that shouldn't imply the need to sacrifice the players' collective fun for the entertainment of the DM.

 

[Warrior Poet]

imply the need to sacrifice the players' collective fun for the entertainment of the DM.

Nor would I have suggested such.

Still learning,

Robert

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Natural. Nearly all out. I try to be transparrnt though.

 

[Harzel]

I prefer to build natural, but this leaves me with the problem of how to let my (relatively inexperienced) group know what they might be able to handle vs. what is out of their league. I don't want them consulting the MM, and even if they did, they might get the wrong impression because sometimes I tweak things. Also, there are places that they could choose to go that nobody else has been to in a long time, so asking around for advice may not work.

How do others handle this?